The idiocy & arrogance of the Congressional elite

In A New York Post online editorial by AP's Hope Yen ("Republicans Urged Not to Block Iraq Vote"), Diane Feinstein officially goes on record with her quote that Republicans wishing to block a vote on the Senate's non-binding, finger-shaking no no to the WH on the proposed (and already being implemented with notable successes) troop surge is "obstructionism".

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee is cautioning Republicans against blocking a vote Monday on a resolution opposing President Bush's troop increase in Iraq, saying it would be a "terrible mistake."

"It's obstructionism," said Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. "This is not tolerable in a situation where it's the number one topic in the nation, and the Republican party prevents the Senate of the United States from debating."

snip - read entire article at text link above

First allow me to point out the absurd obvious. To force a vote (which clearly does not have the required 60 votes) while simultaneously blocking the alternative resolutions is a better example of obstructionism and the "prevention of debate". Moreover, they've been debating this now for weeks, and the media has given it more coverage that it deserves. So try not to feel too "silenced", Ms. Feinstein. And please do not mischaracterize who is actually "preventing a debate". Point is, most of us out here are tired of hearing Congress whine about this when, in the long run, it is absolutely meaningless.

Click on the link and read on... if you can stomach it. It's a whirlwind of nuances about the competing resolutions, their authors, and who's siding with whom. Yawn.

But the real capper from Ms. Feinstein?

"I think it's a terrible mistake to prevent this debate," she said. "If we can't get this done, you can be sure, a month or so down the pike, there's going to be much stronger legislation."

By that second zinger, does Feinstein imply if they can't agree to throw her particular flavor of resolution in the pot now while preventing ensuing resolutions (proving forever to us commoners that no one in Congress has a clue, or can agree on, solutions to Iraq) that she will lead legislation to defund the war efforts?

Speak up, and speak clearly, Ms. Feinstein. Tell us now, without mincing words, that your goal in Iraq is failure. Or is honesty far too risky a path?

Fact is this. It's all about politics and elections, this resolution. All the electees are aligning themselves with their favored resolution, carefully constructed to appeal to their next election base while accomplishing zip, nada, zilch in US foreign policy in Iraq. They are beside themselves to concoct ways to show voters they are doing something - anything - after their much touted ride to power on the "anti-Iraq" voter coat tails.

Note to Congress. It's as simple as this. Stop talking and wasting all of our time and money with worthless actions. If you genuinely want to end the Iraq war, stop the funding for the existing troops there immediately. It's certainly a more humane way than the Dem held Congress did to US troops in the Vietnam era - i.e. slowly, steadily... like an advancing cancer - making the battles and living thru them more difficult each day for the troops on the ground.

What is very telling is that Congress will not do this. To do so is an open admission of the desire for failure. And Congress and it's mixed party bag of anti-Iraqi supporters won't even go there, or they truly die a political death. Instead the elitist electees are keeping one eye on the polls, and another on ways to position themselves in the media as a Congress member who appears to be "making a difference".

Congress mouthpieces can suggest that Americans "want out" of Iraq all they want. But truth is, Americans do not want, and do not like, losing. And to give up without giving it our all, as defunding the troops now would do, is a very un-American throwing in of the towel before the final game clock runs out.

But back to Ms. Feinstein. For her to label anything to do with meaningless, unfruitful resolutions of political rebuke as "obstructionism" is far fetched. And she should know better. "Obstructionism" is a label the former minority Dems know well.

Evidence the dragging of feet and blocked debates on the original 2003 military funding bill that included funds for needed armor and gear for the troops. They managed to delay this passage by 6 months. It took until May of 2004 for finally allocated funds, to the manufacturers, to the equipment being ready to send overseas to the troops. A full nine months after the process started. They adeptly "obstructed" armoring the troops, and then blamed it on Rumsfeld and the WH for political capital.

Ahhh, to hold the purse strings and the ear/eyes/pens of the media is to truly hold much power.

Then, of course, there is the infamous Dem obstructionism of the WH's judicial appointees over the years. Yes, Ms. Feinstein. You and cohorts should know all about obstructionism. But to use this term for any of these non-binding resolutions?

Either Congress is composed of idiots, or they are arrogant in assuming we, the people, are idiots.

As a tax payer, I'd sure like to know what these elected elite do for their money. Watch C-Span and you wonder why we have a Capitol Rotunda at all. It's virtually empty most of the time, and we are to assume that our representatives are busy working from their private offices, monitoring the debates and discussions that are "much ado about nothing" on closed circuit TVs. This for the few days a week they officially work.

Yo Congress. We don't need no stinkin', meaningless resolutions that attempt merely to clear your names from failed campaign promises. If this cowardly, pacifist Congress truly believes they were elected to get the US out of Iraq now - then get on with it. Put your (defunding of) money where your mouths are, and stop with all the show and tell BS.

And oh, BTW, be prepared to take responsibility for the consequences of such action.