"I Do Not Think That Word Means What You Think It Means"

For the life of me, I cannot understand why the Democrats have the collective, political intelligence of a demented jellyfish.

House Republicans served up a softball by deciding that, crucial to our national security, we must protect our flag from fire. Now, if you subscribe to Eddie Izzard's view of history, where the British Empire was secured by the "cunning use of flags," you'd have a point:

We stole countries! That's how you build an empire. We stole countries with the cunning use of flags! Sail halfway around the world, stick a flag in.

"I claim India for Britain."

And they're going, "You can't claim us. We live here! There's five hundred million of us."

"Do you have a flag?"

"We don't need a flag, this is our country you bastard!"

"No flag, no country."

However sound this theory is, I think the flag doesn't need to be protected from people with pyromania tendancies. This "Flag Burning Amendment" is almost demented jellyfish material and I hoped that the Democrats would finally have an issue on which they could take a principled stand.

Then, (via the Belmont Club) the Senate Armed Services Committee meets and Ted Kennedy and Carl Levin make an intractable blunder that is only slightly better than getting into a land war in Asia or going in against a Sicilian with death on the line--namely, opening their mouths and talking:

TED KENNEDY: Secretary Rumsfeld, as you know, we are in serious trouble in Iraq, and this war has been consistently and grossly mismanaged, and we are now in a seemingly intractable quagmire. Our troops are dying, and there really is no end in sight.

DONALD RUMSFELD: Well, that is quite a statement. First, let me say that there isn't a person at this table who agrees with you that we're in a quagmire, and that there's no end in sight. The suggestion by you that people – me or others – are painting a rosy picture is false. I think that the comments you made are certainly yours to make, and I don't agree with them.

TED KENNEDY: Well, my time has just expired, but Mr Secretary, I'm talking about the misjudgements and the mistakes that have been made, the series which I've mentioned. Those are on your watch. Isn't it time for you to resign?

DONALD RUMSFELD: Senator, I have offered my resignation to the President twice, and he's decided that he would prefer that he not accept it. And that's his call.

Carl Levin and John Abizaid had exchanges of their own. From the Australian Broadcasting Corporation again.

CARL LEVIN: General Abizaid, can you give us your assessment of the strength of the insurgency. Is it less strong, more strong, about the same strength as it was six months ago?

JOHN ABIZAID: Senator, I'd say…

CARL LEVIN: Could you put the mic right in front of you?

JOHN ABIZAID: In terms of comparison from six months ago, in terms of foreign fighters, I believe there are more foreign fighters coming into Iraq than there were six months ago. In terms of the overall strength of the insurgency, I'd say it's about the same as it was.

CARL LEVIN: So you wouldn't agree with the statement that it's 'in its last throes'?

JOHN ABIZAID: I don't know that I would make any comment about that, other than to say there's a lot of work to be done against the insurgency.

CARL LEVIN: Well, the Vice-President has said it's in its last throes. That's the statement that the Vice President. Doesn't sound to me from your testimony, or any other testimony here this morning, that it is in its last throes.

JOHN ABIZAID: I'm sure you'll forgive me from criticising the Vice-President.

CARL LEVIN: I just want an honest assessment from you as to whether you agree with a particular statement of his, it's not personal. I just want to know whether you agree with that assessment. It's not a personal attack on him, any more than if he says that something is a fact and you disagree with it, we would expect you to say you disagree with it.

JOHN ABIZAID: I gave you my opinion of where we are.

I won't argue the merits of why I think the quagmire analogies are ridiculous (a quick search of this site will give you copious arguments as to why I think this is not so), but as the Iraqi government is gaining strength and support, I would think the Democrats would be jumping on the bandwagon. The insurgency is fighting itself, with American and Iraqi forces engaging in battalion sized operations at will. Even if I was a detractor to this war, I would consider it wise to keep my mouth shut for a while.

Just when I think the Republicans do something so dumb, the Democrats chime in and do one better.

Man, these guys should go to the horse track, as that is the only race they are going to have a shot a winning for a while.

UPDATE:

The Nation's John Nicols also recognizes the Democrats' more forceful criticsms over the war:

The intensity of Kennedy's questioning illustrated a shift that has begun to take place in Congress in recent weeks, as more and more Democrats, and a growing number of Republicans, have begun to bluntly challenge the administration's inflated claims about the "success" of the U.S. occupation of Iraq.

However, Nicols already drank the punch. He supports the quagmire canard, obviously making no reference to the rather inconvenient facts about the formation of a democratically elected Iraqi government and the creation of a 160,000 person security force, and goes right for the jugular:

Perhaps Kennedy should have asked Rumsfeld if Cheney ought to resign.

Alternatively, the Wisconsin Democratic Party, at its state's convention earlier this month, passed a resolution that would seem to cover all the bases.

The delegates called for immediate steps to be taken to impeach Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush.

The Democrats and the war opponents are digging a deep hole even deeper. I'm sure if Mr. Bush had heard of this, he would have responded with "Bring 'em on!"

Posted by 10 fingers 6 strings at June 24, 2005 07:49 AM | TrackBack