A few months ago, I wrote an article about how the Patriot Act was renewed in the Senate by an overwhelming 89-11 vote. This lopsided margin makes one wonder what all the fuss is about, as legislation passing by such a margin, with even 33 out of 44 Democrats voting in favor, is simply not controversial by any meaningful degree.
In the same way, a Senate vote on withdrawing US troops from Iraq by the end of 2006 was defeated by an even wider 93-6 margin. This time, 37 of 44 Democrats voted in favor of and only 6 voted against keeping US troops in Iraq beyond 2006. This effectively means that most Democrats are willing to incur several hundred more US troop fatalities in the hope of helping Iraq achieve a stable Democratic society, and that they too believe that victory is on track (by 2008, in my estimation). Furthermore, along with the vote on the Patriot Act, this is ample proof that despite their rhetoric in order to appease fringe anti-American voters, most Democrats fully agree with the most basic principles of the War on Terror.
This is also an indicator of how far from the mainstream the media has drifted. When the media pours so much energy into positions that 89-93 Senators do not favor, and manages to persuade fashion sheep (those who form political opinions based on watching under 20 minutes of television news per day), it does extreme damage to our national security. It also hastens the demise of the traditional media at the hands of the blogosphere, where the decentralized model and huge number of participants ensures that issues are inevitably given an amount of coverage in exact proportion to their importance and gthe political leanings of the general population.
The 6 Senators who voted for troop removal contain, predictably, Kerry, Boxer, Kennedy, and Feingold, who depend on a substantial number of fringe leftist, fashion activist, and even fifth column voters to stay in office. For the remaining 37 Democrats, I have sympathy, as they are caught in the absurd situation of having to say one thing on television, but quitely voting the opposite way on the floor, hoping that the media does not publicize their actual voting patterns. Hillary Clinton was recently heckled when addressing an audience of extreme leftists, and will have difficulty finding issues to unite her prospective voters around during her Presidential campaign.
Some fanatics believe that any supporter of the Patriot Act or Iraq occupation is 'dumb', 'evil', or both. If that amounts to 89-93% of all Senators, that is also the approximate percentage of the population that would reject the traitorious views of the fifth column in the absence of media sympathy for these extremists. Only 8-10% of the US population is a fifth column that sides with terrorists, but the majority of normal Americans have still not quite figured this out yet, even if the Senate has.
As usual, Cox and Forkum always puts a thousand words in a picture :
The democrats argument for this wide margin vote would be that now that we're in, we need to finish business for the fruits of the labor to be realized. But this doesn't mean they agree that we should have gone to war to begin with.
For those who don't know me, as I'm more a lurker than a poster, personally, I am pro-Operation Iraqi Freedom, but I am simply stating what I know most of my democrat friends who support keeping our troops in, but still maintain it wasn't a good idea to start the war to begin with, will say.
Posted by: Kosha | June 19, 2006 at 11:41 AM
Kosha,
So good to hear from you, and happy 28!
Democrats don't actually say what you are suggesting, so it is not a real example you have heard, but just a hypothetical. Democrats won't admit that the war actually CAN be won.
The rhetoric from the Democrats most prominently featured in the media (Kennedy, Kerry, Boxer, and then Murtha, Pelosi, etc. in the House) is for a withdrawal.
Complaining about the decision to go in 3 years ago (which they also voted for 77-23 at the time) is not constructive.
So they voted 77-23 to go in. They vote 93-6 to stay in, but they complain about being lied to and the war being a quagmire. Plus voting 89-11 for the Patriot Act (despite complaining about it) is also hypocritical.
The thing you should ask your friends (who's knowledge may be more fashion-driven than anything else) is :
"So, now that we are there, what should we be doing differently than we are now?"
or
"What is your suggestion on how to handle Iran, which is openly pursuing nuclear weapons and threatening to use them?"
or
"Which is worse, for Iraq to succeed and Bush getting credit for it, or for Iraq to fail and the Iraqi people not have Democracy, and Bush to be humiliated? Which would you rather see?"
Your 'Democrat' friends will not have answers to any of these questions, as they don't have answers memorized for them.
The truth is, many of them would rather see Iraq fail than for Bush to get any credit, even if that means 1-2 million Iraqis could die. These questions will reveal what they really care about.
Posted by: GK | June 19, 2006 at 12:23 PM
Thanks for the b'day wishes!
If I asked these ppl those questions I know that all they would say is the war was a bad idea to begin with, and that we shouldn't engage in Iran either. Who are we to "butt into the world's business"... "where does it end"... "do we wage war with any unstable country building nuclear arms?" etc, etc. You know the drill.
The other point, that they voted 77-23 for the war in the first place, and then 93-6 now, is great data, and something they will for sure not have an answer for as they won't even know the numbers.
Incidentally, a lot of these liberal friends I speak of are European, and so they're not even talking about the American Republican vs. Democrat debate anyway. They roll it all together, and that if, as a country, we're voting 77-23 or 96-6 for preemptive war, then we're all screwed up anyway, Democrat or Republican.
So what would be interesting, would be to see a European begin an America-bashing rant, and then an American liberal agreeing with the 'cultured European' (something I see often), but then steering them towards these vote numbers, and then seeing what would happen.
i.e. allowing them to mingle in seeming agreeance but then exposing the fact of how their own (democrat) representation actually DISagrees with the Europeans... and then seeing what would happen.
I think it would be priceless, and would actually be a good strategy to figure out who the moderates/fashion-sheep are vs. the extreme "5th column" ppl.
Posted by: Kosha | June 20, 2006 at 08:00 AM
Kosha,
If you really want to leave these Euro-sheep stunned, merely forward them these articles (which you have read before) :
Why many countries in the world are pro-US.
Why the US will still be the only superpower in 2030.
How voting for Bush corelates to higher income - a contradiction to the European belief that Bush supporters are 'dumb'.
How the future of Europe is irrevocably ruined due to their own decadance.
Really, this blog has an endless supply of articles that they will be unable to debate. Print a couple out and carry them folded-up in your purse if you want.
Posted by: GK | June 20, 2006 at 10:12 AM
Yeah, I know :) I've read them all, as well as many other sources, obviously, and they're in my head (so no need to 'carry them around in my purse').
The issue isn't knowing what to say, the issue is picking your battles (based on who it is, who cares, energy required, etc).
Anyway, look forward to the next article.
Posted by: Kosha | June 20, 2006 at 11:58 AM
Why is US in Iraq?
No reason other than OIL.
The other reaon is:
Iran (again due to OIL)
The 3rd Reason is to Wipe out Israel's enemies (Like Syria in particular)
The Overall stratergy with Iraq & Iran in US pocke will be World Supremacy.
All nations will listen to US in toto.
Posted by: Max Makhija | June 24, 2006 at 11:11 AM
Max Makhija,
To say that the US is in Iraq for oil is ignorant and unintelligent.
The US already buys oil from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the UAE, Mexico, Nigeria, Canada, Russia, etc.
Why would the US spend $200 billion on Iraq just to buy more oil?
I doubt you will reply to this question, as it is not an answer you have memorized from somewhere. You are a Maoist, after all..
Posted by: GK | June 24, 2006 at 12:51 PM
It is very much a well known fact that the Oil is on a Declining Curve. The oil Prices have gone up from $18 to $70 currently- Analysts expect $100 or more. Oil is a Commodity the Wars can be fought on.We are talking about the 3rd Largest Oil Source in the World. Who is talking about Buying ? The Asset is in American Pocket. They can do what they like with it.We need to have Night Vision in Night. We need to see things more clearly and Intelligently.
I doubt the world events would ever show you the Clear intentions or Motives if you take things at face value. One has to look much beyond at hidden depths of reasoning and Logic.
It is not possible for the US to spend so much money without expecting Returns. So why has it spent so much money- Just to be a Nice Guy ? Than why not CONGO or SOMALIA ? Congo was asking for Aid of 18 cents per person ($250 Million) it got only 3 Cents. Here is where the Poverty is on its severest why not go and help CONGO ?
Why Iraq ?
Look at Khalistan - How it orignated when Russia was in Afghanistan and when Russia left Khalistan cause automatically died.
Many people died.
What was behind Khalistan?
If you look Closely I am sure you will find an answer.
Clue: From a 0% provider of Heroin /Cocaine in the World- Before War. How did Afghanistan Emerge as one of the Largest providers of it after the War ?
Please do not under estimate shorter lines posted anywhere. It might be that the Person doesnot have the time to explain.
But Please look closely at events. There is more than Meets the eye.
Posted by: Max Makhija | June 24, 2006 at 04:44 PM
Max Makhija,
Are you saying that America just takes oil, rather than buying it? Are Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Mexico, Nigeria not getting paid by America for oil?
You suggest that the US give aid to African countries. The US has no obligation to do this. Why doesn't China give aid to them, if China is so great? Or maybe China is too busy killing its own people, so helping foreigners is out of the question.
Posted by: GK | June 24, 2006 at 06:27 PM
I am not saying anything, $200 Billion for what then?
Let us make a list:
1.To satisfy US Viewpoint?
2.To remove a State so far away to cause any harm to US ?
3.To use old nuclear Warheads ?
Ok Just imagine if the US$200 Billion was used for Fighting Global Warming, Bird Flu, Cancer, Aids, Poverty- What could have been achieved.
No one spends money if there are no Returns.
We are not SAINTS.
Believe what you Believe- But look at the Picture more closely is all I say.
Posted by: max makhija | June 24, 2006 at 07:40 PM
Max,
What you are saying makes no sense at all.
Are you saying that terrorism against the US is the fault of the US?
Of course the US benefits from turning Iraq into a Democracy. The whole world benefits.
What is your point?
Posted by: GK | June 25, 2006 at 07:35 PM
Pretty nice site, wants to see much more on it! :)
Posted by: Ron | August 05, 2008 at 07:43 AM
Pretty nice site, wants to see much more on it! :)
Posted by: john | August 28, 2008 at 07:37 PM
Fascinating site and well worth the visit. I will be backI
Posted by: Melissa | September 27, 2008 at 04:42 AM
I think it would be priceless, and would actually be a good strategy to figure out who the moderates/fashion-sheep are vs. the extreme "5th column" ppl.
Posted by: chanel outlet | November 02, 2010 at 12:32 AM