Wednesday, March 28, 2007

What part of "no"...

I’m not quite sure why it bothers us so, but when a child deliberately does what we tell him he mustn’t, most of us become very, very angry. It doesn’t change when somebody past his majority does the same thing. When you tell the mechanic, “Don’t bother to look at the taillights, I’ve got higher priorities up front,” and he messes with the taillights and tries to bill you for it, you jolly well want to punch out his headlights, don’t you?

So why is it that Congress thinks it’s exempt from this response?

The President, the Constitutional Commander-In-Chief of the armed forces, has told them repeatedly that he will not give a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, believing it to be dangerous to do so. General David Petraeus, the man whose confirmation received the unanimous support from Congress, has said setting an artificial timetable is dangerous, and that the new plan should be given a chance before anybody starts using words like “withdrawal”. Even the majority of the public, in a recent Investors Business Daily poll, has said we do not want to discuss withdrawal so much as we want to discuss possible victory. We don’t like quitting when there’s a chance we can actually succeed.

So, what exactly do the Democrats in Congress think they’re gaining by pushing that button? Here they are, passing a bill which demands a timetable for withdrawal. Not only that, but they attached a gazillion dollars in pork spending to this emergency funding bill originally drafted to support the troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. For crying out loud, whom do they think they’re fooling?

Oh. Sorry. I just remembered. Cindy Sheehan is still out there. So are Barbra Streisand and Sean Penn. The leading voices of the “reality party” are there to cheer on Pelosi, Reid, and the rest of the cut-and-run, we-spit-on-funding-the-troops-which-is-how-we-show-our-support Congressional Democrats.

It doesn’t matter if setting a public timetable for withdrawal is tantamount to publishing the holes in security schematics and patrol schedules for weapons depots worldwide. Al Qaeda will never notice we’re gone, will they? Mujaheddin, the Sadrists, and others will certainly not sit idly by, waiting until we’re gone, before ripping in to the new democracy and collapsing the fragile liberties. Everybody left of the aisle knows those Muslim fanatics have no patience, and they’ll get themselves all killed off LONG before we’re gone. Or perhaps they’ll be converted to peaceful methods by dint of a schedule from the Executive Office and the Pentagon, as mandated by Grandma Pelosi.

Yeah. That’ll happen.

Representative Chris Van Hollen, D-MD, as he approved the monster multibillion dollar containment farm for fat and sassy pork attached to the demand for this schedule, had the audacity even to say, “Today we are demanding accountability.” Apparently, in his mind, accountability is something which Democrats and their accountants don’t have to deal with. And, in his world, nobody will notice if -- instead of supporting the troops by drafting a straightforward budget to keep them safely in position defending themselves and the free world -- we spend a 74 million tax dollars on peanut storage and then tack on a minimum wage increase that’s already being discussed in another bill . It’s an emergency, isn’t it? So the brie, the Godiva chocolate and the filet mignon are in my grocery basket because it’s an emergency. The folks who pay my bills will never complain that I eat better than they do. And, after all, as one of the oppressed, I deserve it.

The irresponsible manner in which the Senate and House Democrats have laid forth an attempted power-grab from the Executive branch will end up costing somebody -- and most likely, not the President. The first casualties, should this succeed even in the slightest will be, of course, the troops, and, of course, the hapless citizens of the budding democracy in the Mideast, followed by the Constitution and the citizens of the United States of America.

But we must not question their patriotism.

We all -- on both sides of the political fence and straddling it, too -- say, no, we don’t want a repeat of the mistakes made in Vietnam. The president says, no, he will not set a timetable for failure. General Petraeus says no, don’t hamstring our efforts. What part of “no” do the Democrats in the House and Senate not understand?

The 2007 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Bill (Senate Version). (HT: Michelle Malkin)

No comments: