July 13, 2005
Thoughts while in the dentist's chair...
If you are going to the dentist to have your tooth drilled on, it's helpful to have some interesting and positive thought to focus on...that helps one to ignore other things that are happening.
And as I was driving to the dentist this morning, I caught a bit of Rush Limbaugh, and he talked about how the Dems have been ginning up one stupid "scandal" after another (most of which are already forgotten). Why? Because they have nothing positive or constructive to offer the country, and they know it. It's desperation. It's weakness and floundering. And even if Karl Rove were dragged off in shackles to Leavenworth, that would not change. And it worked! The trip to the dentist was much less painful than it would have been if I'd felt pessimistic.
By the way, certain Dems have been trying to make comparisons between their obstructionism now, and that of Newt Gingrich and the Republicans under Clinton. But there's little similarity. Then Republicans also were supporting various measures they felt would help the country--think Welfare Reform, NAFTA, GATT--and we were for them even if they helped the Democrats and Clinton politically. And remember Contract With America. Republicans were offering a program, and asking people to vote for them for that reason.
And while we were certainly obstructionist against HillaryCare, that too could be viewed as a positive move. We were obstructionist because there were issues at stake that we Republicans believe in. A gigantic socialistic power grab by the government would have been bad. Very bad for America. (We Republicans are not always principled in politics. I make no such claim. But our beliefs tend to influence what we do.)
Of course maybe the current blocking of Social Security reform by the Dems is principled too. Maybe their principles are opposed the idea of ordinary workers having investments for their retirement. Maybe their principles declare that other people, little inferior people, should not invest in the stock market (even while they do so themselves). It's hard to say, since it is very hard to find out just what their principles are. If they have any...
By the way, and totally unrelated...
You wingers do know that Bush, and particularly Rumsfeld, is in violation of the law, don't you? And thanks to a GOP controlled Congress it appears likely they will continue to break the law with impunity since only the majority party can actually move to enforce the law..
What law, you ask?
Last May, in the Defense Spending bill, there was inserted (with GOP support, of course) a provision requiring the Defense Dept to provide to both houses of Congress a report NO LATER than July 11, 2005. Said provision requires "the administration must develop and provide to the Congress a more comprehensive set of performance indicators and measures of stability and security in Iraq than is currently available."
It calls for "detailed descriptions" of how the Pentagon will measure the security environment, political stability, and economic progress and how it will assess the capabilities and readiness of Iraqi security forces, including military and police, to take over the mission now performed by US-led forces. The report must also include "an assessment of US military requirements, including planned force rotations, through the end of calendar year 2006," according to the instructions from Congress. The Pentagon is providing updates to Congress every three months until Oct. 1, 2006.
In other words, even Congressional GOPers (probably growing nervous about reelection next year given the growing lack of support for the war, and growing number of Americans who think it was all a big mistake) are insisting the Administration needs to end its "continuing to continue" attitude of lets keep doing what we've been doing, but we won't examine what we're doing to see if it works or makes any sense.
I mean, Americans want to believe in their President, but they can only stand draining our national monetary wealth of tens of billions of dollars annually and our families of thousands of our husbands/sons/fathers/wives/mothers, and all for something that remains unchanging and unwinnable (heck, it didn't help when Cheney said it could well continue like this for "...6, 8, even 12 years"!!!!!
Anyone seriously belive the American public would have supported war in Iraq if in 2002 Bushies had said it would cost at least 2,000 American lives, at least 120,000 injured, at least $300 billion (and possibly as much as 10,000 American lives, 500,000 injured, and over $1 TRILLION), last 12 years, and in the end will probably result in a nation not too different than the one we invaded? That is, one in which a Saddam-like strongman (or perhaps a few strongmen who fight amongst themselves) run a country that quickly stops fair elections, tortures citizens (anyone see the news report today about the van with over 20 Iraqis in it who died from heat exhaustion, but who also showed clear signs of torture after being arrested by Iraqi police?)...Think they'll say it was worth it?
I just got a chuckle out of my imaginary view of what America might be like 12yrs down the road re: the war in Iraq...I see the GOP showing up on TV nightly to tell the American people it was the Democratic minority in Congress that launched the war, but poor Dubya was just powerless to stop them from putting us in a quagmire...hahahaha
They have principles -- the principles of socialism -- they just can't be honest about them because doing so would be electorally disastrous for them. Aholes like Zoomie above will do anything to get their hands back on the levers of power.
Posted by: pedro at July 14, 2005 04:30 AMYou kow, I'm more and more coming to suspect that 95% of them don't have socialist principles. Or ANY organized body of thought or principles. Just a mushy compote of big-goverment-liberalism with all it's attendant moral smugness.
If you could dissect Zoomie's brain, I bet you would nowhere find a list of bedrock ideas that all else is built upon. No Master Plan, no dreams, no schemes. Just "us vs them,' with neither term clearly defined.
Posted by: John Weidner at July 14, 2005 08:34 AM
