Senate Votes 80-14 to Fund Iraq, No Timetable Attached

I have been writing for a long time about how Democrat Senators are stuck in the unenviable situation of having to appease the far-left component of their base (which includes the 8-10% of the US population that are an active fifth-column), while not straying too far from the 70% of the US population that is pro-US, in order to have any chance of getting 50% of the vote in an election.  Thus, each Democrat has to appease two different constituents with diametrically opposed goals.  This leads to nearly unavoidable yet massive contradictions between the words and actions of prominent Democrats.

Previous articles on this topic include :

Senate Renews Patriot Act 89-11 (written March 2, 2006).  That is a pretty strong majority even of Democrats, particularly after they had 4 years to hear criticisms of the Patriot Act.  All the leftist fuss over the Patriot Act is meaningless if they can't even convince more than 11 Democrats to vote against it.

Senate Votes 93-6 to Keep Troops in Iraq (written June 17, 2006).  All the fuss about ending the war is meaningless blather, if only 6 Democrats actually vote along those lines, while 37 did not. 

Now, another major example of the same divergence between words and action has occurred. 

The Senate has just voted 80-14 to fund the Iraq War, without any definite timeline for withdrawal.  Only 14 out of 49 Democrats voted against continued funding, despite the last 6 months of wasted airtime devoted to such propaganda.  This is even a greater margin than the 77-23 margin in 2002 to invade Iraq in the first place.  Interestingly, Hillary Clinton was among those who voted for the war in 2002, but is among the 14 voting against funding it now.  This will be very damaging in her quest to win the votes of moderates. 

Actions speak louder than words, and most Democrats continue to vote in favor of two items that fifth-columnists hate - the Patriot Act and the Iraq War.  Ignore the talking heads and left-wing media, and just look at the votes.  That is the only barometer of where their true opinions reside. 

Related :

The Way to Debate Iraq

We Will Decisively Win in Iraq....in 2008

Comments

[Chris]

I seriously wish you would stick to posts about technology and its impact on the future, your posts on politics are really tiresome and seem to lack the logical and coherent arguments you make about the other things you discuss.

[GK]

Chris,

Exactly what is 'illogical and incoherent' in this article? It is merely stating a pattern of Democrats voting in favor of measures in the WoT that indicates continual support of it, despite verbal posturing to the contrary.

Why not rebut what I have stated, if you think your opinion is a logical one? What is your alternative explanation for why most Democrats have been voting in this manner?

Update (5/29/07) : It appears that Chris is unable to back up his claims, much less answer my simple questions. As Sun-Tzu has said, the pinnacle of success is not to engage in a lenghty battle (debate) and win, but rather to get your opponent to retreat even before starting the fight, knowing that they are no match for you. This is what has occurred here. Use these tactics in your own battles, as they will serve you well.

[World Citizen]

Democrats are not the same anymore... Republicans and Democrats are really blurring together... USA need fresh blood, maybe Greens or Independents will take over, I hope.

This war in Iraq is really annoying and pointless... the only happy people in it are those who profit there, not even Iraqis...

[usnjay]

GK:
Good points.
I'm working a project for the "Coalition Provisional Authority Transition
Team", or CPATT. Their job is to transfer things we control to the Iraqi gov't in an organized, intelligent manner. Basically to build Iraqi institutions.

The project was delayed because of funding shortages due to the Congressional debate, so some Transition projects were placed on hold. Ironically, the Democrat's silliness on funding actually lengthened the time CPATT would stay here.

LT Nichols

[GK]

usnjay,

Keep doing what you're doing. Most Americans support you, as you know.

Do you feel that dramatic progress will happen in the next 18 months, as far as strengthening institutions in Iraq?

[usnjay]

GK:
Depends on the standard for dramatic progress. If the standard is progress from no government (what existed immediately after Saddam’s fall) to stable democracy I think dramatic progress has already been made. If you define it as progress which will be reported in the media as dramatic, I doubt that will ever happen.

I work next to the Iraqi national police academy, the Iraqi police forces are currently developing logistics and command and control at a rapid pace, and the military is ahead of them. When we start withdrawing from some areas in 2008 it is unlikely any external (AQI) or internal (JAM, Sadr’s army) will be strong enough to gain control of the gov’t. As long as we are able to make a controlled hand-over, the future of Iraq is good.
Regards,
LT Nichols

[Josh]

I've demonstrated that your arguments on this topic are flawed on several occasions. Why do you keep repeating them?

[GK]

Josh,

Where have you come anywhere close to demonstrating any such thing? Better yet, why are you unable to demonstrate it now?

Answer the simple question : If Democrats consistently vote in favor of continuing the Patriot Act, and continuing to fund the Iraq War without a timetable for withdrawal, doesn't that indicate that they are not voting in accordance with what the far-left wants?

[Josh]

I've demonstrated it several times - look through your archives. I'm not inclined to reprise my attemts to educate the ineducable yet again.

As for your question: No.

[GK]

I've demonstrated it several times - look through your archives. I'm not inclined to reprise my attemts to educate the ineducable yet again.

er..Let's run through the long list of debates in which you were reduced to hurling juvenile insults rather than answer a question posed to you 2, 3, or, in one case, a whopping 11 times.

Over here, when asked an incredible 11 times for ideas on how to win the War in Iraq, Josh refused to present any. At the same time, he insisted that he simultaneously has the right to criticize the ideas others present, and the right to treat hindsight as foresight. This was a stunningly shameful display of legendary proportions.

A few weeks later, Josh repeatedly ignored evidence provided both by me and others that the US media has a leftist bias, and insisted that this is evidence is weak, despite providing no countering evidence from a credible source to support his position, even when asked at least 4 times. Josh lost this debate to me and to Assistant Village Idiot.

After that, Josh flamed out again by erecting a strawman even weaker than his previous ones. He insists that I claim the Washington Post is not important - a hilarious allegation since it is the basis for the whole article, including the title. At the same time, he won't address the main question, which is why Senators Biden and Hagel knew, in 2002, that building post-Saddam Iraq was a decade-long undertaking, yet are acting surprised about it now, in order to capture short-term political winds. Josh resorted to immature name-calling against Rich Casebolt.

So Josh has a long record of losing debates in increasingly shorter periods of time. His debate stamina appears to be converging with zero.

Now, coming back to this article.

As for your question: No

Josh - Perhaps you can elaborate your claim on how continual Democrat votes to support the Iraq War without a timetable for withdrawal are NOT the opposite of what Leftists want, despite Leftists SAYING that they are livid over Democrats voting this way.

How do you account for the fact that the Leftist blog linked is, in fact, unhappy?

[Josh]

You appear to be confusing burden-shiftingm ad hominem, and hand waving with defending your positions.

I see you edited your comment to insert a "not", so that now it makes sense. Now the answer is yes. Do you have any substantive points to make or are your rhetorical powers limited to asking silly questions?

[GK]

Now the answer is yes.

So then, tell me, why do you think they chose to vote in support of what President Bush wants, rather than with what the leftist component of their base wants?

[Josh]

Presumably because they think it was the best available option. Why don't you just make your point, like someone who's actually interested in discussing issues? Or is playing these silly rhetorical games and "winning" e-debates all you're concerned with?

[GK]

Josh,

Let me request this again :

What, exactly, in this article, do you dispute, and why?

Or is playing these silly rhetorical games and "winning" e-debates all you're concerned with?

An odd thing to say, given I actually write articles, most of which are not about politics.

Perhaps you should look in the mirror.

You have never, ever commented on any articles here outside of political ones, even though two-thirds of this blog is on topics other than politics. Is it only because technology is not a subject suitable for your goals of pettifoggery?

Even among those political comments, you have never contributed a single constructive idea or link.

[Josh]

What, exactly, in this article, do you dispute, and why?

Your assertions about a fifth-column, for one.

An odd thing to say, given I actually write articles, most of which are not about politics.

You should continue to write those articles. I would suggest abandoning the political articles altogether.

Is it only because technology is not a subject suitable for your goals of pettifoggery?

I'm not particularly interested in technological trends.

Even among those political comments, you have never contributed a single constructive idea or link.

I think you'd find my demonstrations of your myriad errors constructive, if you'd reflect on the points I've made instead of childishly lashing out.

[GK]

Josh,

Your assertions about a fifth-column, for one.

There is a fifth column, by the own admission of many members. The second paragraph here proves it. By denying there is one, you will have to defend how each of those articles, with titles such as 'Why I Hate America', is not representative of an eagerness to undermine the US.

Or is your quibble only about the percentage (8-10%)?

I would suggest abandoning the political articles altogether.

All this, rather than you answer my simple questions (some of which were posed 11 times).

I think you'd find my demonstrations of your myriad errors constructive, if you'd reflect on the points I've made

I see you as nothing more than an ineffective pettifogger who won't answer simple questions, and will find an imagined technicality to use as an excuse to justify a lack of constructive contribution to any topic.

You are analogous to someone who would criticize a supermodel based on a 1 mm freckle, which later turns out to be a dot of ink that is simply washed off.

[Josh]

Certainly there are some people who hate America. Your numbers are way off though.

GK, the entire premise of your liberal media post was flawed. I took great pains to demonstrate it to you (how demonstrating that an entire post is based on a fallacy constitutes pettifoggery is incomprehensible to the rational-minded), and you wouldn't even admit it. Even now you're trying to minimize your error. You also made unsupportable assertions about the reasons for Bush's decline in popularity.

When these errors are pointed out to you, rather than defend your points or correct your mistakes, you seek to cloud the issue and shift the burden on to your critic by asking a series of pointless questions. This childish tactic is unworthy of even a high-school debate team and certainly not an indication of someone who wants to discuss the issues honestly and rationally.