Journal pudge's Journal: Ted Kennedy Supports the Surge 4
Ted Kennedy today on Meet the Press expressed his support for Bush's troop surge:
I suggest that the President has the responsibility to demonstrate and prove to the American people that the surge will work.
The only way to "prove" that the surge will work is to try it. So, Kennedy supports trying it. QED.
Of course, he didn't really mean what he actually said. What he really meant is that he will vote against it no matter what Bush says. It's odd, isn't it, that Kennedy has been against this war from the beginning, and yet now his plan for "success" in Iraq happens to involve drawing down the American troops? Just weird!
Kennedy isn't above lying, as we all know. Kennedy said that they should consider cutting off funding for the war if the President goes forward against "if we have a President who is going to effectively defy the American people, defy the generals, defy the majority of the Congress
As we all know, the American people are not being defied. They voted to elect, and re-elect, Bush. Period, end of story. The people had their say, and public opinions polls don't change that. We have four-year terms for a reason: so the people can have their say every once in awhile, but not often enough to be able to drastically influence policy.
Also, the generals are not being defied, as it perfectly clear. Some of the generals are being disagreed with, but this surge is the actual idea of other generals. But more to the point, "to defy" implies opposing someone with authority, and generals have absolutely no authority of any kind over the President. Indeed, for Congress to require Bush to follow what his generals say (to not "defy" them) would be a clear violation of the Constitution.
And then there's Congress. Congress has a say, but not through any nonbinding resolution. Congress' say is to either revoke the authorization for the use of military force against Iraq, or to revoke funding. That is, you don't revoke funding as a consequence for defying Congress, because Congress cannot defied unless Congress actually takes some action that can be defied.
So, as usual, Kennedy is lying: not only would Bush not be defying anyone at the point Kennedy claims, but it is not possible for Bush to be defying anyone at that point. Take action, then complain about defiance. But don't pretend that your nonbinding resolution means squat, or that the President has any obligation whatsoever to follow what your cherry-picked generals say, let alone public opinion polls.
Another whopper:
The American people never voted to authorize to send American troops in the midst of a civil war. They authorized it to look after weapons of mass destruction that weren't there, to look after the issues of the operational association between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, they looked at the violations of the UN Resolution, but not a civil war. Today, we have a civil war.
In fact, the authorization for the use of military force against Iraq was in part, explicitly, to stop the "brutal repression of its civilian population," which would likely continue -- with worse results than before -- if we left now. Sorry, Charlie.
Worst poll of the day: Russert quotes an NBC poll that asks, "if Congress passes a resolution against the President's position on more troops, should President Bush proceed?" Sixty-five percent said no, thiry percent said yes. But, of course, no one has been talking about any such resolution. There is no such resolution under any consideration. The only resolution people are talking about does not do that, it is a meaningless nonbinding resolution. This resolution is not actually against the President's position, because it is not actually meaningful in any way. [Note: jamie points out the poll Russert quoted notes the resolution is nonbinding. But that doesn't change what I said, as my emphasis is on the fact that the resolution is actually meaningless, not on whether the poll mentioned this fact.]
And worse, that percentage is also the same as support for the war and the surge even regardless of any resolution. My guess is the respondents recognize it is meaningless, too.
You really care about the Iraqis? (Score:1)
In fact, the authorization for the use of military force against Iraq was in part, explicitly, to stop the "brutal repression of its civilian population," which would likely continue -- with worse results than before -- if we left now. Sorry, Charlie.
No. I'm sure your reasoning is specious. You don't have to look at others to see the problem. Not only do you not care, but this is just a drop in the pudge bucket. I think I know your ideology well enough by now. Focusing your keen eye on Taxes, NBC, the Liberal Conspiracy, etc...is really a waste!
You know the U.S. war machine is not a touchy-feely, repression fixing tool. If you still believe Bush is interested in Democracy for Iraqis--good luck finding your way back to reality, my friend. You have absol
Re: (Score:2)
You really care about the Iraqis?
Yes.
In fact, the authorization for the use of military force against Iraq was in part, explicitly, to stop the "brutal repression of its civilian population," which would likely continue -- with worse results than before -- if we left now. Sorry, Charlie.
No. I'm sure your reasoning is specious.
I'm sure it's not. :-) Kennedy said that we did not go in for a "civil war," but we did go in -- specifically, according to Congress, though without Kennedy's vote -- to stop Sunni-on-Shia atrocities. If we left now, it would be Shia-on-Sunni atrocities. You can say that you don't like that reason, but it is a reason Congress gave. This is a fact.
You don't have to look at others to see the problem.
What problem do you refer to?
Not only do you not care
False. And intentionally misrepresenting me is grounds for being Foe'd. Do not do it again.
I think I know your ideology well enough by now.
Entirely false.
Focusing your keen eye on Taxes
Yes.
NBC
Huh? A
Re: (Score:1)
I'm sure it's not. :-) Kennedy said that we did not go in for a "civil war," but we did go in -- specifically, according to Congress, though without Kennedy's vote -- to stop Sunni-on-Shia atrocities. If we left now, it would be Shia-on-Sunni atrocities. You can say that you don't like that reason, but it is a reason Congress gave. This is a fact.
We seem to be at cross-purposes. I don't dispute any of the facts you give, however selective they may be. My main hope was for you to turn your powerful microscope-like mind on the very folks you naturally always defend. Forgive me if I doubted your sincerity -- your caring about human rights -- specifically regarding those of the Iraqis.
I don't care to break down each point of this losing battle. No one can argue you into believing! I also have a deep pride in discovering things for myself. I fear my poi
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure it's not. :-) Kennedy said that we did not go in for a "civil war," but we did go in -- specifically, according to Congress, though without Kennedy's vote -- to stop Sunni-on-Shia atrocities. If we left now, it would be Shia-on-Sunni atrocities. You can say that you don't like that reason, but it is a reason Congress gave. This is a fact.
We seem to be at cross-purposes. I don't dispute any of the facts you give, however selective they may be.
They were "selective" only in that I used only the facts necessary to make my point. Kennedy listed several reasons why we went into Iraq, and said this one reason wasn't one of them. I pointed out that indeed, it was. How else should I make that point? Why should I list lots of other reasons why we went in, when my point is only to rebut his statement that we didn't go in for that reason?
It wasn't the main reason, and I never said it was, although your use of the word "selective" seems, to me, to impl