The Demopublicans

by Stephen P. Pizzo
May. 25, 2007

Let's see if I have this straight.

Four years ago Democrats in Congress "trusted" that George W. Bush would use their vote authorizing him to use force against Iraq as a negotiating tool, and that he would only actually use force as an absolute last resort.

Instead he took the money and ran with it. Suckers!

Now, four years and a hundred thousand plus deaths later, Democrats in Congress say they are ready to trust the serial liar in the White House again.

Rather than do what they promised us they would do if we voted for them last year, to get our troops out of the Iraq meat grinder, they produced an Iraq-war funding bill that contains NO time line for withdrawal. It's a monumental, possibly even a historic, betrayal.

But wait, there's more, of more precisely, less.

The bill also contains NO enforceable benchmarks imposed on either this administration or the other dysfunctional government in Baghdad. Instead Democrats settled for fuzzy benchmarks then granted President Bush the authority to waive even those if the Iraqi parliament blows them off, as they have every benchmark to date.

Of course, the President asked them to trust that he would only waive the benchmarks as a last resort.

Suckers!

Then the lying little bastards – (Oh sorry. I need to clarify. I am referring here to the Democrats here) – the lying little bastards then had the shameless chutzpah to climb in front of TV cameras to declare that, "the days of giving this President blank checks is over."

Holy cognitive dissidence Batman! It makes me feel like someone used my brain as a spitoon just repeating that crap. (BTW, the spit came from Nancy Pelosi and that little worm Rham Emmanuel. Remember that.)

From my friend Tony Seton over at Quality News Network: "Yep. Dear Nancy, it appears you intend to be the only woman speaker of the house, that you will be in power – oops, I mean, you will vacuously hold the title – as Cheney stages a coup. They probably won't even bother to take you and the other Dems out, since you have proven a level of ineffectiveness that manages only to induce scorn and tears."

Over on the Senate side it was the utterly mediocre Democratic Senate Leader, Harry Reid, buttering the turd.

"Sure there's a lot of disagreement over this," Reid muttered into the microphone, head down, no eye contact, like my dog when he knows I know he just crapped on the living room rug. "But I see that as a positive thing. It means that neither side got everything they wanted."

How wrong is that? Come on Harry, tell us – how gigantically, enormously, provably, obviously wrong it that statement? Because we all know that President Bush got everything he wanted – just like he did four years ago. And that Democrats (or at least those who voted them into office) got NOTHING – NADA – ZIPPO – BUTKUS.

And just like four years ago BUSH got what he wanted with an alarming amount of help from Democrats.

So, that vote four years ago – how did that work for us, Harry? Did Mr. Bush keep his word four years ago? He said he'd respect you in the morning, then had his way with you, and hasn't called since. Now we're all stuck trying to raise his homicidal bastard child. Now this week we discover Democrats on their backs, legs in the air, once again.

So what's this war funding bill all about. In trying to suss all this out I can only guess why:

Democrats suffer from a severe and apparently incurable learning disability.
Democrats are compulsive liars.
Democrats are moral cowards.
Democrats are just Republicans with gay friends.
Democrats are – Crap! I just ran out of guesses.

Of course the Demopublicans have their own explanation for why they they betrayed those who put them in office. They say that, since they did not have a veto-proof margin for a bill containing a time line or enforceable benchmarks, they had to go along in order to get along.

What?

How about instead sending Bush a bill containing a time line and enforceable benchmarks then let the President veto it. Would that have been such a disaster? Would it have been MORE a disaster than what's already gone, on and is going on, in Iraq anyway?

And so what if Republicans in Congress refuse to provide the majority needed to override that veto. So what? Whose problem would that have been really? Best I can tell it would their problem – the Republicans and their President's problem.

"Oh my! No no no," cowardly Dems snivel, "We couldn't do that, because (voice drops to a whisper) Republicans would have accused of cutting off our troops."

Oh really! Gag me with a DNC press release. God forbid that Dems should go over the President's head to the public and actually explain that such an allegation is false, in both content and intent. That the only way our troops get "cut off" is if the President continues his petulant refusal to accept a bill that makes him and his unruly surrogates in Baghdad accountable for results – for the first time – ever.

My, my, my. Today over two-thirds of Americans oppose the war in Iraq and what our troops out of that black hole of a country. But even with that enormous – even historic – level of public support and backing, Democrats are still too timid – afraid – to shoulder the responsibilities and burdens of leadership.

Last November we put them back in charge of Congress. Now Democrats want us to put them back in charge of the White House next year as well.

Which now leaves me, and I am certain millions of fellow Americans, with just one nagging question:

Why bother?