Terrorists: Rep. Ellison Has Scheduled An Appointment For You

The people of the Fifth Congressional District sent Keith Ellison to Congress.

That’s how democracy works.

I don’t care that he was the most “progressive” candidate for the job; people have the right to vote for anyone they want.

I care not in the least that he is Moslem.  It is entirely possible that electing a Moslem to that most mainstream of American institutions, the Congress, is exactly one of the messages we need to send to Islam around the world – the ideal that in America, through work and study and peaceful (if, in Ellison’s case, often irate and prickly) coexistence with one’s fellow man, one can achieve liberty, comfort and spiritual freedom and fulfillment.  Granted, this would have been a lot more convincing had Ellison had cuddled up with the likes of CAIR, and people associated with funding terrorism, before and during the election.

I do care that Ellison, like most of the Democrat majority in Congress, is Ka danger to the long-term peace in the Middle East and, eventually, America:

The people of Fifth District sent me to Washington to end the war in Iraq and bring the troops home. On Friday, I voted to end the U.S. occupation of Iraq by voting to prohibit the building of permanent U.S. bases and setting timetables for the withdrawal of our troops. I voted to oppose the presidents policy of war without end.

Let’s be perfectly clear here; Ellison voted to opposed the president’s policy of war until the job is done.

Look – even conservatives are upset about the way much of the last few years of this war has gone.  The surge would seem to be meeting at least encouraging initial success; it seems to be answering some questions left long unanswered in Iraq (I remember one commenter in this space, grinning like a toddler who’d just made a big pants; “what do you mean, reign Moqtada Al-Sadr in?  He’s in control!  There’s nothing we can do about it!”  Sic transit gloria thug).  Why didn’t we do this two years ago?  Three years?  Suffice to say, many of us are looking for answers.

Keith Ellison and his voters aren’t among them.  They have a much simpler “solution”:

Residents of the Fifth District made the war the most important issue in the November election. For the first time since the war began in 2003, the war has an end date and Congress is confronting the president. This Congress has held over 90 oversight hearings on Iraq; the previous Congress held none. Folks who phoned and wrote their legislators, attended vigils, marched and prayed for peace made this possible.

Unlike most anti-war Democrats, Ellison may actually be right.

For most of the Democrats in Congress, my question remains – if you had such an all-fired mandate from the people to get us out of Iraq, then why haven’t you forced the issue?  Why wasn’t it in your first 100 hours, if it was such a statistical sure thing?

Because it wasn’t, of course.  American people are dissatisfied with the war.  That dissatisfaction takes many forms.  The smug plush-bottom Unitarian yoohoos I met last week at the pro-terrorism rally, the ones who wouldn’t fight if a group of thugs pointed AK47s at the crowd, want to not only bring the troops home, but discharge them from the service and pound their rifles into plowshares (which they’d use to decorate the walls of their condos, since none of them knows which end of a plow you milk a tofu cow with).

And then there are people who are deeply dissatisfied with the way the war itself is being carried out – who wondered if today’s surge, as welcome a development as it’s been, shouldn’t have been done first, rather than last.

Y’know – people like me.

People who look at statements like this, and realize that one of the two major parties can’t be trusted with the keys to the car:

Now, we must keep up the pressure to turn our country away from arrogance and death toward promise and life. This vote is only one more step toward peace.

Disengaging in Iraq would not mean peace…oh, wait.  Ellison is going to say something factual:

We have a lot of work to do to make this step meaningful.

Finally, the sweet waft of truth.

Yes, there is a lot of work to do to make the step meaningful.

First, there’s the little matter of convincing the Sunni Ba’athists and Al-Quaeda – the people who saw other peoples’ heads off – that the day after our withdrawal date isn’t a fine day to come back from Chechnya and pick up the job where they left off.

There’s the complicated bit about figuring out how not to have the parts of Iraq that aren’t  Sunni or Al Quaeda – the Shi’ites -  form immense militias for their own protection, and start ethnically-cleansing the parts where the two groups meet.  Y’know – the part we’re just starting to gain control of right now.

There’s the matter of having our departure not followed by money, toys and activists from Iran, it’s proxy Syria and, for that matter, Saudi Arabia flowing into the country to keep Iraq nice and unstable, and to take pressure off their own regimes.

Finally, there’s the ultimate bit – figuring out how to co-exist with the terrorist safe haven that Iraq would inevitably become if we pulled out before the job (killing terrorists) was done.

Given that any thought, Representative Ellison?

President Bush intends to veto this bill. His veto will be an admission that he plans to establish permanent military bases in Iraq and continue the war without end. By his veto, Bush will prove that he has no intention of letting the Iraqi people run their own country and has no intention of honoring the lives and service of the sons and daughters, wives and husbands, mothers and fathers who are fighting his war. His veto will mean that the deaths, American and Iraqi, mean little to him.

I want to save that bit there for the next election.  I want to print it on signs and wave it around outside the next batch of Ellison rallies.   This statement shows that Ellison is either an idiot, or that he’s cynical enough to think that his voters are.

When the president calls for a “clean” appropriations bill, he is asking for a blank check to continue current policy. I will absolutely oppose any “clean” appropriation bill.

Good.  You keep that up.  It’s good to have some Democrats putting their cards on the table.  Granted, most of the rest of  Pelosi’s majority doesn’t have the guts to do that – because they know the real facts behind the polls.

Americans dislike the war because they dislike not winning.  We – and I’m one of them – dislike sacrifice without result.

We also dislike sacrifice in vain.

There is still much to do. People working for peace have led us this far. Some of us disagreed on strategy this time, but I assure you I have not wavered from doing all I can to stop this war. Together, we must carry the soldiers and their families at the top of our attention at all times and demand the same from our leaders.

Great message, Rep. Ellison.

Let’s see how it plays outside the Fifth CD.

31 thoughts on “Terrorists: Rep. Ellison Has Scheduled An Appointment For You

  1. “Let’s see how it plays outside the Fifth CD.”

    Pretty well from the looks of it:
    “A solid majority of Americans say they want their congressional representative to support a bill calling for a withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq by August 2008. Nearly six-in-ten (59%) say they would like to see their representative vote for such legislation, compared with just 33% who want their representative to oppose it.”

  2. Rick, recall that immediate withdrawal was brought up in the last congress and was shot down by a huge margin in the Senate (93-6).

    Even with the Senate changing hands, I doubt that a huge reversal is coming.

    I also wouldn’t put my faith in polls. Especially the ones that don’t reveal the questions asked, and aren’t linked to.

  3. Paul:

    Google it yourself. Links seems to mess up Mitch’s comments.

    The 93-6 vote you refer to happened in June 06 and called for the troops to be out by Dec. 06. It does not tell us a whole lot about who will set an Aug. 08 limit. We already have 48 Senate votes to set some timelimit.

    Anyone want to take bets on who cracks first Coleman or Ramstad? I bet at least one will vote for a deadline before the end of 07.

  4. Terry:
    “But way more than 59% percent were in favor of invading Iraq back in 2003!”

    Yes. Public support for the war has collapsed. I think a lot of people are thinking “fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.”

  5. Speaking as a resident of the 5th may I say that our BPUO convention last Saturday (GOP, of course) was very well attended. Rick’s diversion into “A solid majority of Americans” being set aside as irrelevant, of course.

  6. Public support for the war has collapsed. I think a lot of people are thinking “fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.”

    “ALL of my friends oppose the war!”

    Rick, approval for the way the war is/was being run has collapsed – including among people like me.

    Let me reiterate – if the Dems felt they had a mandate last November to end the war, they’d have moved on it. If they felt the American people supported cutting and running, they’d be standing foursquare behind the idea.

    And yet, outside the Neville Chamberlain caucus – which is one of several duelling sects in the Dems on Capital Hill – they are not. Oh, they’re dabbing at the edges of withdrawal, and fighting brutally amongst themselves about it…

    …and why?

    Because many Democrats in Congress know that “disapprove of the war” doesn’t mean “support abandon everything and skulk away and declare peace”.

    If they didn’t know that to be a fact, then they’d be acting very different right now.

  7. Anyone want to take bets on who cracks first Coleman or Ramstad?

    No action on that bet. Ramstad.

    Much as it pains me to say it about a fellow Jamestown native.

  8. 59% is close the number of people who vote against gay marriage when they are given a chance.
    I think we should be out of Iraq by 2008 or even sooner — provided we win before we leave.
    It’s funny how ‘the mistakes we made in Vietnam are being repeated!’ mantra ends the timeline in 1973.

  9. “Google it yourself. Links seems to mess up Mitch’s comments.”

    BS. To paraphrase your own words, Rick, if you’re not man enough to back up what you post, don’t comment.

    “We already have 48 Senate votes to set some time limit.”

    There’s a difference, Rick, between voicing support and going on record with a vote. The Dems were two-faced when the vote was 93-6, and I seriously doubt that has changed.

  10. “Let me reiterate – if the Dems felt they had a mandate last November to end the war, they’d have moved on it.”

    OK you are losing me. They have passed a deadline of Aug. 2008 in the House and look close to passing a similar deadline in the Senate. The poll I cited shows broad support for that position. You can say this is bad policy. Or you can say that the poll is not an accurate representation of public opinion. But if Democrats think the poll is accurate, you can not accuse them of not acting in accord with public opinion and what they see as the mandate of the election.

  11. They have passed a deadline of Aug. 2008 in the House and look close to passing a similar deadline in the Senate.

    Barely, and only after Pelosi committed $24,000,000,000 in bribes graft pork to buy the four votes she needed to barely get over the top. You gotta admit, Rick, that House vote was hardly a ringing endorsement of the Dems’ clarion-clear commitment to “peace”.

    It is bad policy, and I think the polls (or at least the way they’re being portrayed) are inaccurate, indeed.

    But the very vote you cite does, I think, indeed show they’re acting in accord with the reality of public opinion; people don’t like the war (no sane person likes war), but “cutting and running” is not necessarily what people have in mind.

  12. “Does your mommy have to tie your shoelaces too?”

    Does your mother know you’re a lazy bum?

  13. FWIW, Ellison seems to be taking quite a bit of heat from his anti-war base for voting to give any further funding for the war.

    Its been interesting to watch on the Minneapolis issues list. Some have supported him on it but a lot, including the anti-war committee and quite a number of Greens (which are a somewhat significant block in the Minneapolis area) have really been complaining about this vote.

    Anyway, whatever. As far as I’m concerned, it doesn’t matter how it plays outside the 5th – he represents the 5th. It’ll be interesting enough to watch how it plays out inside the fifth.

  14. Paul:

    “Does your mother know you’re a lazy bum?”

    I do your work for you and you call me lazy.

  15. “You gotta admit, Rick, that House vote was hardly a ringing endorsement of the Dems’ clarion-clear commitment to “peace”.”

    Sure – but I do not think the Democratic party has the “clarion-clear commitment to “peace”” you attribute to us. Although, a majority of Democrats have been against this particular war, we are not a pacifist party, never have been.

  16. “Although, a majority of Democrats have been against this particular war, we are not a pacifist party, never have been.”

    Quite so. Woodrow Wilson sacrificed hundreds of thousands of Americans for the real “Biggest Nothing in History”. LBJ was Hell-bent on killin’ and more Killin’. The only person in history to ever deploy nuclear weapons was a Democrat.
    Yes Rick, your party’s pedigree as bloodthirsty warmongers is very sound.

  17. Sure – but I do not think the Democratic party has the “clarion-clear commitment to “peace”” you attribute to us. Although, a majority of Democrats have been against this particular war, we are not a pacifist party, never have been.

    Especially not since so many of the Democrat wins last November were Clintonian blue-dogs who are NOT especially on-board with the anti-war agenda, and had to be bribed porked coaxed into the “winning” “majority” in last week’s four-vote victory.

    No, the Dems aren’t pacifist. They – or their leadership for the past thirty years – are merely clueless about defending this nation.

  18. “merely clueless about defending this nation”

    You have screwed the pooch on two wars in less than five years.

  19. Afghanistan isn’t “screwed”, and Iraq isn’t over.

    Wasn’t it you that was tittering like a little girl that Moqtada Al-Sadr had us by the giblets?

    Where is he, now?

    The Democrats, while not pacifists, have a fifty-year record of screwing the pooch for real; millions died for the Dems’ sins in Southeast Asia, hundreds of thousands more in Africa and the Middle East.

  20. “Afghanistan isn’t “screwed”, and Iraq isn’t over.”
    Well, like they say, opinions differ, but I am looking forward to the elections. I meet a majority of Americans will disagree with you, again.

    “Where is he, now?”

    In Iran building his relationship with the new regional super-power. Congratulations you drove the one Shia leader with relative independence from Iran into their arms. He will be back in Iraq and more allied to Iran.

    It should be noted that plenty of Iraqi leaders are ‘out of town’.

    http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/24/news/web.0124noshow.php
    “BAGHDAD: Mahmoud al-Mashadani, the speaker of Parliament, read a roll call of the 275 elected members with a goal of shaming the no-shows.

    Ayad Allawi, the former prime minister? Absent, living in Amman and London. Adnan Pachachi, the octogenarian statesman? Also gone, in Abu Dhabi.

    Others who failed to appear Monday included Saleh Mutlak, a senior Sunni legislator; several Shiites and Kurds; and Ayad al-Samaraei, chairman of the finance committee, whose absence led Mr. Mashadani to ask: “When will he be back? After we approve the budget?”

    It was a joke barbed with outrage. Iraq’s Parliament in recent months has been at a standstill. Nearly every session since November has been adjourned because as few as 65 members made it to work, even as they and the absentees earned salaries and benefits worth about $120,000.”

  21. Paul:
    “There’s a difference, Rick, between voicing support and going on record with a vote”

    Well looks like a time limit is picking up speed. In the Senate Dems went from down 48-50 to up 50-48
    http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/mar/27/senate_measure_to_nix_withdrawal_timetable_falls_short

    Looks like Hagel and Gordon Smith have flipped and now support some sort of time limit. Could Norm be next? What will he do if the conference bill comes back with the House language?

  22. Hey RickDFL!

    Supporting your argument is your job. It is not for Paul, or anyone else, to do.

    Since this forum is connected to the Internet, you can easily do that with URLs. If you don’t want to support your argument that way, please don’t complain when your argument is disparaged or ignored. Expecting everyone else to search the Internet for resources that support your argument is not only unrealistic, it is an incredibly inefficient use of time.

    If you post clean links (use A tags or none at all), it probably won’t mess up any formatting.

  23. Norm was apparently not next.

    And he certainly won’t be, if my email to him is any guide.

    Oh, by the way, Rick?

    In Iran building his relationship with the new regional super-power.

    You saw it here first – Rick acting as spin doctor for a couple of mass murderers!

    Riiight, Rick. In an age with the internet, cell phones and email, Al-Sadr skips to Tehran the moment 4,000 Yanks bum-rush his neighborhood – and it’s a win!

  24. “acting as spin doctor for a couple of mass murderers”

    No. I think the new Iran/Sadr relationship is very bad for the U.S., Iraq, and humanity. I think one terrible result of our invasion of Iraq has been a tremendous increase in Iran’s regional power. It is as if WWII left France and Italy in the grip of bloody civil wars while the USSR took over everything east of the Rhine, including all of Germany and the Low Countries.

    “it’s a win”

    Sadr because he was not an exile and because he had built a power base in Iraq, was the one major Shia player in the government who had relative independence from Iran. The ‘surge’ has hurt him only in the sense that he now is more dependent on Iran. So great – we win a temporary PR win, while consolidating Iran’s control of Iraq’s Shia militias.

Leave a Reply