The easy answer is always the wrong answer

| March 13, 2007

My half-century of living has taught me one thing; the easy answer is always wrong. Whether it’s deciding what to do on a Saturday afternoon, or assaulting an armed, dug-in enemy force.  The corrollary to that would be; if it looks like the easy answer worked – duck!

So Congressional Democrats are trying to forge an easy answer to the Iraq War and the easy answer is wrong according to the Washington Post editorial board;

In short, the Democratic proposal to be taken up this week is an attempt to impose detailed management on a war without regard for the war itself. Will Iraq collapse into unrestrained civil conflict with “massive civilian casualties,” as the U.S. intelligence community predicts in the event of a rapid withdrawal? Will al-Qaeda establish a powerful new base for launching attacks on the United States and its allies? Will there be a regional war that sucks in Iraqi neighbors such as Saudi Arabia or Turkey? The House legislation is indifferent: Whether or not any of those events happened, U.S. forces would be gone.

The Democrats have given not a thought to the future – what the consequences of their demands will bring. Not to the Iraqis, not to American citizens and interests. Just a timeline, at the end of which there will be no American troops in Iraq – regardless of the situation in Iraq or the world. It’s the easy answer. Crafted by simple people who’ve been cloistered in their little world of rhetoric and performance theater.

They’ve even stripped out their provisions forbidding action against Iran (thankfully);

Officials said Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other members of the leadership had decided to strip from a major military spending bill a requirement for Bush to gain approval from Congress before moving against Iran.

Conservative Democrats as well as lawmakers concerned about the possible impact on Israel had argued for the change in strategy.

Stripped it out because they’re looking for more easy answers. Rather than working with the Administration to come up with a plan that everyone can unite behind, the Democrats think that their slim majority in Congress gives them the mandate to dictate to the Administration. The president even invited them to the White House to discuss options back in January. What did he get for his effort? Snippy little punk-ass Jim Webb and his crybaby tantrum.

And it appears that their slim majority is getting slimmer every day as the membership discovers that they didn’t win the election so they could surrender. They mistook the very loud and Kos Kids as their base and they’re beginning to realize that their real base is the American voter – not some bunch of whining-ass punks with more money than brains.

“Dingy” Harry Reid kowtowed to the “easy answer Left” on the Fox News debate issue and it seems that Democrats will not have a snowball’s chance in Nevada now. Says the Wall Street Journal’s editorial board;

So the Democratic Party of Nevada has decided to kill its planned debate among Presidential hopefuls on Fox News, and the left-wing bloggers who precipitated the coup are whooping like Howard Dean in triumph. We wonder if Democrats have really thought through the implications of this capitulation.

The and DailyKos crowds had no doubts about their motive for seeking to bar Democrats from debating on Fox News. The left blogosphere thinks the most popular cable-news network leans too far right, and so Democrats should not legitimate it by appearing. The bloggers got their way last Friday, when Nevadan and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid pulled his state party out of the debate. 

* * * * *

This may be a good strategy for the blogosphere, where the echo-chamber is often the message. But we doubt it’s the way to win the Presidency. Whatever one thinks of Fox’s news coverage, its research shows that about half its viewers age 18-54 are either Democrats or Independents. And since Fox News has about twice the audience as CNN, refusing to appear on the channel means missing a big potential voter pool. The Congressional Black Caucus was smart enough to figure this out in 2004, when it co-sponsored two Democratic debates with Fox News. (We have our own weekend show on Fox News, and Mr. Reid is welcome to come on any time.)

The larger issue is the message this episode sends about who is running the Democratic Party — its candidates or the bloggers with pitchforks. We still recall the famous boast from the “MoveOn PAC team” in 2004 that “Now it’s our party: we bought it, we own it, and we’re going to take it back.”

Read the unbelievable process Reid arrived at his new opinion at Little Green Footballs. Apparently he conference calls the nutroots to find out what he thinks about stuff.

Dick Cheney is still out there calling the Democrats’ bluff on their “we support the troops” hypocrisy;

“Anyone can say they support the troops and we should take them at their word, but the proof will come when it’s time to provide the money,” Mr. Cheney said during a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
    Mr. Cheney said Congress is “undermining” U.S. troops when lawmakers “pursue an anti-war strategy that’s been called ‘slow bleed,’ ” prompting applause from the crowd of about 6,000 at the Washington Convention Center.

And Hypocrit Harry Reid responds;

   The office of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, fired back that Mr. Cheney was “spouting overblown and overheated rhetoric directed toward the critics of his administration’s failed Iraq policy.”

Of course we’ve not heard any overblown, overheated rhetoric from the critics of the administration, have we, Harry? More easy answers from the simpletons.

Category: Politics, Terror War

Comments are closed.