When life gives you lemons.....

Tuesday, November 15, 2005
Today the Senate passed a nonbinding resolution calling for the Bush administration to provide the Congress with progress reports in Iraq. The vote was 79 to 19, pretty definitive.

The right whines and the left spins.

The Democrats lost their vote to call for a timetable for running away. For a bunch of people who love to talk about how every vote counts, the millions of Iraqis voting does not seem to impress them.

However, I do think we have become so partisan that any attempt at compromise is seen as defeat.

The Democrats got shot down and the military gets the resources its needs and yet the GOP is not happy because the Congress will be interjecting itself into the war...as if it is not there already.

The pundits say it reflects weakness and of course the left will be more than happy to spin it that way.

I think it will give the administration the oppurtunity to make public progress reports on the good news from Iraq. Someone other than the media and a lot of hyper bloggers will be making a public case here.

Perhaps we should also realize that however deeply irresponsible the Democrats behavior may be in regards to the war, the Republicans are going to have to deal with them.

Time and again the right gains power only to lose it through infighting and self destructive hissy fits such as the public flogging of Bush for nominating Harriet Miers. If not the hysteria over judges there is the constant complaining from libertarians that they are just going to go home and sulk if the worthless Congress does not say how high when they say jump.

Grow up people..we have a war to fight and an enemy who would like nothing better than to see Hillary Clinton or John Kerry as president.

I hope the Bush administration takes that vote today and makes some lemonade with it.

And we have to realize that people are tired of bad news. They want something positive to happen and until they hear more good news, they are going to blame the man in charge: George Bush. He has been too nice for too long. He should have started fighting back a long time ago.

I want George Bush to come out swinging and it would be nice if the same people who expect so much from him could be a help rather than a hindrance.

35 comments:

vnjagvet said...

More common sense from Terrye. James Joyner at OTB agrees. I do to, as I indicated there.

Congress should be involved. Remember the Truman Committee in WW II. That is why he ended up as VP in 1944 and President in 1945.

terrye said...

vnj:

I checked out some of the pundits and they are beside themselves.

as usual. they are such a help.

First they complain about Bush and then the complain that Warner dares intrude..

Well what do they expect?

When Bush needed them..where were they?

This can help if it is handled correctly.

ambisinistral said...

Every war the US has fought has had Congressional involvement in it. Lincoln was driven crazy by Congress over his handling of the Civil War. Madison's Mexican War, and his sabre-rattling towards England over the Candian boarder received quite a bit of opposition. I haven't read much about it, but as I recall the Spanish-American War was extremely unpopular in many qwuarters -- viewed as little more than a naked imperialist colony grab.

The Courts and congress are supposed to be involved in public matters. I see no problem with reports to Congress being made, and of course both Parties will play politics over them.

As an aside, I think HDS would top BDS. I know it is a futile hope, but both parties need to knock that kinda nonsense off.

JoeC said...

I heard someone say something about our political system and clusters.
Or something to that effect.

Jamie Irons said...

Terrye for president!

I am serious.

We need a down-to-earth, sensible, principled pragmatist.

Jamie Irons

Syl said...

Well, I've been heartened by the pushback. And postings on the Whitehouse webpage no less!

Did Bush hire somebody new?

I don't know how it's going on lefty sites, but at Tom Maguire's place the lefties fought back against the pushback and then seemed to just, well, deflate.

It got awfully quiet.

What's bothering me in D.C. is that the Reps seem to be all over the place. Unite on something, will ya guys?

Anyway, Terrye, spot on!

Rick Ballard said...

Terrye,

It doesn't pay to watch too closely for too long. It breeds contempt and leads to cynicism. The Republic is fortunate when there are 3-4 Senators in office who have convictions and are willing to stand by them. A guy like Wellstone is a treasure, even if I thoroughly despised his politics. Right now, I only count Mitch McConnell as having any principles worth mentioning. There may be a few others but they guard themselves from view fairly well. The bloviating jackasses we see constantly on the news are as pathetic a group as have ever cut a cloak room deal.

The current deal is smoke and mirrors. The drawdown will start in the spring and all the egos masquerading as Senators will break their arms patting themselves on the backs for achieving something that a 13 year old JROTC cadet could figure out.

It sure would be nice if Senators were easier to fire.

ex-democrat said...

great post terrye. perhaps it would help if GW put some more stick about. even o'reilly was silenced (well, almost) tonight by his guest Wayne Simmons, a "former CIA operative" who said, with passion, that the American public (yes, they that can do no wrong) needs to get with the program. He allowed no 'ifs' or 'buts' - demanding instead that jane and john q public wake up and grow up. period.
i don't know much about politics, but i'm pretty sure that spineless unprincipled toads like Reid, Dean and Durbin would come to heel pdq if that was the case.

terrye said...

jamie:

With my past? I am blushing.

I not only inhaled, I saw pretty colors and floated in the clouds.

And then there was that whole free love episode..ahh well enough about my misspent youth.

I do mean it though, everybody needs to buck up. The world is watching this and I for one am tired of the freak show.

After all that is what France is for.

terrye said...

Rick:

I tend to agree that most Senators think they are jr. Presidents..but they do have a responsibility to their constituents too. And when people call in and bitch bitch bitch, they fear for their survival.

John Adams said that the greatest threat to our system was the establishment of political parties and the resultant partisan rivalry.

And btw, BDS pales next to ADS.

It is highly unlikely that the constiution would have succeeded without John Adams, but he was everybody's whipping boy anyway.

His beloved wife Abigail never did forgive them.

markg8 said...

I say congress should have been involved from the beginning.
It is their responsibility to declare war but for decades they've ceded the actual power to the executive branch. I don't think we've declared war on anybody since WW11 but we've sure fought a few. If in Oct. 2002 congress had passed a resolution calling for the president to come back to congress for a declaration of war before beginning hostilities against Iraq instead of a blank check to use whatever force necessary to disarm Saddam they might have voted in March 2003 to delay the onset of the invasion until the UNMOVIC inspectors had finished their work. An unlikely scenario I admit but if congress had taken the vote and declared war we wouldn't be having this argument right now about who is to blame for this mess.

Knucklehead said...

Vnnagvet,

"More common sense from Terrye. James Joyner at OTB agrees."

Ummm... first time I ever heard "common sense" and Off Track Betting used in the same sentence - or paragraph for that matter. I suppose it just goes to show that each side in the Culture War is determined to gain or retain every tribe out there that might potentially be in play.

Joseph Samuel Friedman said...

terrye,

I would definately agree that this is a great opportunity for the administration to get their side of the story out, but this has always frustrated me about this President. I think this has something to do with Bush just trying to do his job while his enemies at home aren't quite so mature and thoughtful. Could anyone imagine President Bush if he were in Harry Reid's position doing anything other then be mature and supportive where it counts? There are enough ideological positions to take as a means of true opposition, but personal character assassination seems the only thing that satisfies these people which makes me look back and realize what a decent opposition leaders Bob Dole, Howard Baker were. Tip or Sam Rayburn would never do as the Democrats are now doing and if they think this is the path to a permanent majority status they are mistaken.

I said three years ago that politically it could be trouble if under Bush's leadership we were not again attacked because he would get no credit and be left with little to rally a complacent people around. It is ridiculous to me that it would take another attack too make people wake up, but since we don't feel threatened at the moment the Democrats exploit this as Bush lying over-reacting and trying to scare everyone, like 911 was a fluke!!! And while I hear arguments about Saddam Hussein having no link to Osama Bin Laden, my question is did our cutting out of Iraq in Gulf War I and leaving Saddam in power have any hing to do with the boldness of our enemies? I am disgusted becuase the arguments we have are arguments due to the luxuries of not feeling threatened at the moment.

If Bush were some fantasy "West Wing" Democrat we would be getting from the MSM more of the good news aspect and the certainly the MSM would be very clear the WMD story wasn't a lie but rather common knowledge. Evan Thomas's comment about the MSM making a 15 point difference to the Democrats didn't hold up at election time but it sure is now. The Democrats are playing a dangerous credibility game because sooner or later the truth will come to the surface and let the chips fall where they may.

Knucklehead said...

Ex-dem,

I happened to stop clicking while boiling up my evening gruel at just the right time and electromagnetic spectrum to see Wayne Simmons, a "former CIA operative".

He was downright Terrye-esque and a real gust of fresh-air. He only pulled one punch and he might have thrown that if time had allowed. I was standing there half-expecting his closing remark, after a wonderfully refreshing bit of "its high time for Americans to grow up", to be along the lines of, "if you're too petty to pay attention, or too undisciplined to listen, or too stupid to understand, then just shut up and leave things to the people who aren't."

I loved it. Made me wish I'd thawed a hank o' red meat to gnaw on.

Knucklehead said...

Terrye,

John Adams said that the greatest threat to our system was the establishment of political parties and the resultant partisan rivalry.

The "beware of political parties" schtick was pretty common among the prominent founders. For the most part they were busily organizing, or at the very least carefully nurturing, their political parties while they delivered the Beware Schtick.

But back to Adams. He is yet another of the fascinating characters - truly great men - without whom the Great Experiment could not possibly have gotten launched. I never tire of learning about their strengths and flaws.

Not anywhere near least among Adams' great strengths, and quite possibly the key strength that kept him from allowing his flaws to overcome him, was Abigail. She may well be the most important Founding Mother.

Knucklehead said...

The matter of "declaring" war vs. "waging" war and the separation of powers for doing so is interesting.

Lest we fall into some trap of telling ourselves that once upon a time, in the Golden Past when men were men and women were glad of it, we declared the wars we fought it is helpful to examine the historical record.

I prefer to be careful about citing Wikipedia as a source but they seem reasonably accurate about this matter and I'm too lazy to do more than a cursory check.

Eleven times the congress has declared war. Each has been at the request of the POTUS. Of the eleven, six were for WWII and two were for WWI. Only three times has congress declared war otherwise with the last of those being the Spanish-American War in 1898.

It is clear that we've engaged in far more military conflicts (wars), both before the first ever declaration (War of 1812) and since the last (1898), than either the eleven declarations or the five wars those declarations were issued for.

There are at least 13 conflicts that congress authorized but issued no declaration of war for. And there is Korea where UN authorization was considered sufficient.

Peter UK said...

I think that President is probably a bit too much for Terrye to start with,perhaps Senator for a couple of weeks first whilst she gets the hang of things.
Make a change from all these overbred brahmins.

Knucklehead said...

PeterUK,

Not senator, definitely not senator. Governor of a medium to large state would work. She'd steal the Governator title from Ahnald in a few days, maybe a week - tops.

Peter UK said...

Knuck,
I thought she might like the chance of handbagging Tedda the Hutt.

Knucklehead said...

Peter,

Hadn't considered that. That's a powerfully attractive lure you're dangling... the prospect of deferred gratification might not be able to overcome that one.

Peter UK said...

Not to mention hiding their hairspray,can't be important with unimportant haur.

terrye said...

Peter:

Well I do not wear hair spray.

I do wear bifocals though and they give me a school marmish look which can be quite severe.

I would just love to look at John Kerry and in a very prim voice say "Sit down and shut up Mr. Frenchy britches".

Peter UK said...

Terrye,
I would pay good money to hear you say "Teddy! Have you been drinking again?"
Mind you ,you might find it tedious after a while.
You could certainly push for breathylising them before they speak,if they have to make speeches about those with their lives on the line it at least behoves them to be sober.
No wonder they claim they didn't know about pre-war intelligence

terrye said...

peter:

I think it would be funny if I could accost him on the Senate floor and say "Teddy, don't you remember me? That night on the yacht, you...me... the moonlight...the booze."

I bet I could get the old fart going.

markg8 said...

C'mon terrye, I'm sure you're a delightful example of female pulchritude but Teddy probably has that rap down pat. He'd lean in close and whisper a verse of his Aretha Franklin imitation of "chain of fools" under his breath with a wink and if that didn't work introduce you to his wife, the flinty steely eyed lawyer who specializes in protecting his reputation.

Peter UK said...

Terrye .
I hope you can swim.

Knucklehead said...

Terrye,

I have one small addition to make your chat with Teddy even more fun...

" "Teddy, don't you remember me? That night on the yacht, you...me... the moonlight...the booze. Our son would like to meet you. He should be here any moment."

Knucklehead said...

BTW, Welcome Joseph! (JSF). Glad you could stop by. Always good to hear from you.

...this has something to do with Bush just trying to do his job while his enemies at home aren't quite so mature and thoughtful. Could anyone imagine President Bush if he were in Harry Reid's position doing anything other then be mature and supportive where it counts?

There are a number of things at work here, IMO. I suspect Dubya was raised with "don't lower yourself to their level" which has been leavened over time with the Christian "turn the other cheek". And no, I can't imagine him behaving anywhere near as reprehensibly as his seditionist opponents behave. With the nation at war I have no doubt that George W. Bush (not to mention his father, brother, mother, or wife) would all fall into the "aggree and commit or disagree and commit" mode.

Whether they agreed with the POTUS or not they would put their weight, in whatever capacity appropriate, into winning the war. When they had constructive criticism to offer they'd offer it discretely rather than drawing the greatest possible attention to it. Disagreement is a very different thing than undermining. The seditionists are commited to disagreement, they are committed to undermining.

...character assassination seems the only thing that satisfies these people which makes me look back and realize what a decent opposition leaders Bob Dole, Howard Baker were.

Precisely. If Bush were a Dem the same idiots who can't STFU with their seditionist rants would, instead, look like the Dallas Freakin' Cowboy Cheerleaders. Haven't heard a single word from a single one of them asking when the troops in the Balkans will be home - will it be by Christmas?

Knucklehead said...

Dangit! I meant to type:

The seditionists are not committed to disagreement, they are committed to undermining.

markg8 said...

It ain't only Democrats that are getting under his skin. The split with his dad is reportedly over Poppy approving the interview Scrowcraft did last month that ripped Dubya.

From Drudge:

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash4.htm

Bush rarely speaks to father, ‘family is split’
Tue Nov 15 2005 11:23:51 ET

President Bush feels betrayed by several of his most senior aides and advisors and has severely restricted access to the Oval Office, INSIGHT magazine claims in a new report.

The president’s reclusiveness in the face of relentless public scrutiny of the U.S.-led war in Iraq and White House leaks regarding CIA operative Valerie Plame has become so extreme that Mr. Bush has also reduced contact with his father, former President George H.W. Bush, administration sources said on the condition of anonymity.

“The atmosphere in the Oval Office has become unbearable,” a source said. “Even the family is split.”

INSIGHT: Sources close to the White House say that Mr. Bush has become isolated and feels betrayed by key officials in the wake of plunging domestic support, the continued insurgency in Iraq and the CIA-leak investigation that has resulted in the indictment and resignation of Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff.

The sources said Mr. Bush maintains daily contact with only four people: first lady Laura Bush, his mother, Barbara Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Undersecretary of State Karen Hughes. The sources also say that Mr. Bush has stopped talking with his father, except on family occasions.

terrye said...

mark:

That sounded like a soap opera.

I was in the line at the grocery store and there was the Globe saying the same thing.

The national enquirization of the American media.

In truth every president has had a slump.

It was much worse for Carter.

terrye said...

knucklehead:

The very thought of mothering yet another Kennedy was such a shock I went right into menopause.

Peter UK said...

The sources said Mr. Bush maintains daily contact with only four people: first lady Laura Bush, his mother, Barbara Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Undersecretary of State Karen Hughes. The sources also say that Mr. Bush has stopped talking with his father, except on family occasions.


This really is nepotism,all these Sources working for the Government,why have they all got the same innitial,Worse than Little House on the Prairie,"Goodnight Al,goodnight Abe, goodnight Ann!

Daily contact of courses means people one sees daily,there is no reason to see everybody on a daily basis,not in real life.
As for government officials,they get their briefing then go and do the job,not popping in and out,it is called delegation.

markg8 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
markg8 said...

terrye I agree it sounds like a soap opera. I wouldn't have bothered posting it except for the source. I don't trust Drudge or obviously, the supermarket tabloids. But INSIGHT is the magazine section of the Washington Times, a virtual house organ of the the Republican party. Whether they are just making stuff up or reporting real facts, a year ago this is something they'd never print.

The rats are leaving the ship. And that can mean only one thing.