Stoopid Stuff

McConnell's Law: For Every Action, there is an Equal and Opposite Inaction

Wow. That's some dynamic congress we've got in Washington, huh? Let's check in with them on Iraq. The Senate has stopped even arguing about whether we should argue about "The Surge". Apparently, some Republicans led by John Warner got together with Harry Reid to craft language on a Non-Binding Resolution that they could all vote for. They actually co-sponsored the bill, signing their names to it's content. Then the Republicans, led by John Warner, voted against cloture, so the bill could not come to the floor for a vote. Is this what we get? Is this the best they can do? Is anybody embarrassed, even a little?

Ok then, let's go over to the House of Representatives. Surely, with the strong Democratic majority and the less esoteric rules, they've got something going. And sure enough, they are spending three days giving each Representative 5 minutes to offer their position on the bill. Let's see what kind of tough, angry language they're using in H. Con. Res. 63.

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), that -

(1) Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq; and

(2) Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.

Waitaminute. That's IT? Nothing about the lies, the deceit, the waste, the fraud? Nothing about ending the futile bloodshed? Congress disapproves of the escalation? This is what we celebrated our victory in November for? This is what we get? A stupid, meaningless, useless expression of disapproval? This is obscene. Do they not understand that the American people understand this was a stupid political stunt, an illegal war of aggression, a war of choice? That we know what we're looking at, and we want it over? NOW!!

My gawd, what is it going to take to get the politicians to respond to the will of the people? We elect them to do OUR business. They act as if they came to these positions dynastically, by virtue of blood or marriage, as if they are not answerable to their constituency. They need to act, strongly, forcefully and directly, without political subterfuge. And if there is not the political will in congress to end this war, the 2008 elections will look a great deal different than the punditocracy thinks.

Well, anyway, at least in the House they are having a debate, right? I'm sure that they are offering thoughtful, reasoned opinions that will cause us to think, to consider, to perhaps understand. Here's Roy Blunt:

''While there is no silver bullet to make our mission in Iraq easier, it is clear that eliminating or cutting funding for our men and women who wear the uniform of the United States of America is not a plan for ensuring stability in the Middle East. It is, rather, a recipe for empowering our enemies and endangering our troops.'' _ House Minority Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo.

Huh? He said what? Setting aside, for a moment, that there is no legislation on the table that cuts funding to the American military operations overseas, lets consider what he's actualy saying. The Congress is elected to go to Washington to do the people's business. To represent the people of their district and support their opinions in the legislature. Instead, out of an embarrassing fear of people halfway around the world, they seek to stifle debate in order to appease those people who are threatening us. May I offer a small suggestion?

FUCK THEM!!

This is the United States of America. We are going to operate our representative democracy, we are going to do the people's business, we are going to exercise our values without fear. And if some people in the Middle East don't like it, we are NOT going to alter our democratic values in hopes they don't attack us or our interests. So Mr. Blunt? Grow a pair, or go home...

posted by mikey @ 2:06 PM