“Democrats Flock to War”
Let me just preface this by saying that it wasn’t too long ago now when then Senators Kerry, Hagel, and Biden, along with Hillary Clinton, were singing the praises of Assad (or at least, lecturing on the use of diplomacy) — with the putative Democrat frontrunner for the 2016 presidential nomination going so far as to call him a “reformer.”
It’s true! I have video — and it wasn’t even made by the dude who caused the Benghazi “street protests”!
Today? Why, Assad is the Devil himself, a form of concentrated evil that has crossed Obama’s red line (which isn’t his, though he and the greyhound-faced yachtsman ought really to confer more before doing their various press events), so much so that even the uber Dove Howard Dean is beating his chest for intervention in a civil war on the side of the Al Qaeda / Muslim Brotherhood team. YEAAAARRRRRGGGGGGHHHHH!
Being an antifoundationalist means never having to say you’re sorry, I guess.
Katrina Trinko, NRO:
Democrats are peaceniks no more.
In a letter to Democratic House members released Tuesday, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi argued forcefully for authorizing the president to strike Syria, writing, “It is in our national interest to respond to the Syrian government’s unspeakable use of chemical weapons.”
That, to put it mildly, is a change of tone from Pelosi’s language in the George W. Bush years. In 2002, for instance, Pelosi, then House Democratic whip, called on House members to vote against authorizing the Iraq War.
“These costs to the war on terrorism, the loss of life, the cost to our economy, the cost in dollars to our budget, these costs must be answered for,” Pelosi said in 2002. “If we resolve this issue diplomatically, we can show our strength as a great country.”
“Let us show our greatness,” she concluded. “Vote no on this resolution.”
Two years later, Pelosi’s opposition continued. “This war has been a grotesque mistake that has diminished our reputation in the world and has not made America safer,” she said in a radio address. In 2006, when Democrats won control of the House, Pelosi singled out Iraq as a key issue for the legislature her party now controlled. “Mr. President, we need a new direction in Iraq,” she said.
But don’t think Pelosi is the only Democrat who’s suddenly decided to give war a chance.
Eleanor Holmes Norton, the D.C. delegate in the House, who doesn’t have a vote, baldly admitted in an interview Tuesday that if she could vote, she would consider supporting the resolution authorizing President Obama to attack Syria — just so Obama wouldn’t be embarrassed.
“If he gets saved at all, I think it’ll be because of loyalty of Democrats. They just don’t want to see him shamed and humiliated on the national stage,” Norton said on The Bill Press Show.
Pause there and let this marinate: Eleanor Holmes Norton (and, she intimates, a wagon-circling group of astoundingly hypocritical Democrats) would let countless people die — and embroil the US in a civil war on the side of al Qaeda – just so Obama won’t look bad. Perception being reality, and politics being all.
I eagerly await Cindy Sheehan’s Hooverville tent city springing up in Ms Holmes Norton’s driveway.
But beyond that, let me just point this out: people vote for these lying, politically craven morons. Repeatedly, even!
As of Wednesday night, according to the Washington Post’s tally, eleven House Democrats and eight Republicans support the resolution authorizing military action in Syria. (One hundred and three House members are undecided, while the rest are against the resolution or leaning no.) Some of those Democrats did vote for the Iraq War. But others, like Pelosi, were more doves than hawks in the Bush years.
Take Texas’s Sheila Jackson Lee, who is now supporting the resolution. Not only did she oppose the Iraq War, she actually filed a lawsuit along with other Democrats to try to prevent the president from launching it.
Suddenly, it’s looking like the anti-war party has lost the courage of its convictions in the Obama years.
Well, in all fairness, Code Pink has a war against a war against women to wage. And Obama is a Democrat and a “progressive,” so by his very identity he can do no wrong, because it is that identity that provides pre factum proof of his absolute righteousness.
So let’s not be getting to snotty about what are, if you look at it correctly, perfectly consistent positions: Republicans are doing it and they are evil, therefore what they are doing must be evil too. Alternately, a progressive is calling for it and progressives are good, therefore what they are calling for must also be good, no matter how badly it may turn out.
See? Life as a progressive really is kind of like the life of an inbred touched royal. All the power bestowed, and the bliss of ignorance to protect you from conscience and consequence!