A PIG IN A POKE

As I said in a previous post, now the Dems have won, and they HAVE to decide what to do. The past diversity of thought on Iraq won't wash when it's matched to power. And now, as though to make comedy out of tragedy, they're already fighting with themselves over Iraq...Hoyer vs. Murtha in the House. When the war isn't ended, as it won't be soon, and the fight begins between the Webbs and Hoyers and the lunatic base of their party, it'll become all but comical. Not to worry, it'll be soon, as Kuchinich has already called for defunding our troops in the field.


"I want to say that there's one solution here, and it's not to engage in a debate with the President, who has taken us down a path of disaster in Iraq, but it's for Congress to assume the full power that it has under the Constitution to cut off funds. We don't need to keep indulging in this debate about what to do, because as long as we keep temporizing, the situation gets worse in Iraq.

"We have to determine that the time has come to cut off funds. There’s enough money in the pipeline to achieve the orderly withdrawal that Senator McGovern is talking about. But cut off funds, we must.


Byron York refreshes our memory "Does the new Democratic leadership in the House have a clue about what to do in Iraq?... Read the whole thing)

Last December, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was asked by the Washington Post what Democrats would do about the war if they were to win power.

This is the Post’s account of her answer:

“Pelosi said Democrats will produce an issue agenda for the 2006 elections but it will not include a position on Iraq. ‘There is no one Democratic voice ... and there is no one Democratic position,’ Pelosi said.” ...There still isn’t. The only thing that is different is that Pelosi will soon be Speaker of the House.

Last November and December, when Rep. Murtha (D-Pa.) came up with his proposal to “redeploy” U.S. troops out of Iraq — “My plan says redeploy to the periphery, to Kuwait, to Okinawa, and if there’s a terrorist activity that affects our allies or affects the United States’s national security, we can then go back in” — few, if any, Democrats dared to publicly embrace his idea. But then Pelosi spoke up. “I’m endorsing what Mr. Murtha is saying,” she said. “I believe that a majority of our caucus clearly supports Mr. Murtha.”

...a party leader who not only doesn’t know what to do about the war — she doesn’t even know what to call it...“This isn’t a war to win,” Pelosi told Fox News’s Brit Hume last week. “It’s a situation to be solved.”

...it’s fair to conclude that Pelosi believes the way to solve the situation is to redeploy from the situation.

It leads one to wonder: What kind of policies would Pelosi have advocated had she been in power during...World Situation II? (When the U.S. was actually fighting in Okinawa and could have redeployed to the periphery in Iraq.)

Now, while it’s completely fair to say that Pelosi does not appear to have any idea what to do in Iraq, it’s not fair to say that she’s alone in that. Most Republicans seem to be in roughly the same boat. And in the days ahead we’ll probably find out that the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group doesn’t really know, either. But the difference is that Pelosi and her colleagues are now in power...


These "leaders" can deny Victory, but as for leadership of this country, "there's no there, there." It won't be long before Official Washington starts fretting over what will the electorate do when they awaken to find out what a pig they've bought from the Dem's poke.

If it weren't so scary, it'd be fun.