“Soft despotism is a term coined by Alexis de Tocqueville describing the state into which a country overrun by "a network of small complicated rules" might degrade. Soft despotism is different from despotism (also called 'hard despotism') in the sense that it is not obvious to the people."

Monday, July 16, 2007

Democrat Insurgents Set off another Bomb

These people know no shame and are as relentless as the bombers in Iraq.
Senate Democrats vow to hold all-night debate on Iraq in advance of key vote
Associated Press Writer

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nev. gestures during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, Monday, July 16, 2007, to discuss pending legislation on the Iraq supplemental. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nev., right, followed by Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., center, and Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., arrives for a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, Monday, July 16, 2007, to discuss pending legislation on the Iraq supplemental. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

WASHINGTON — The Senate this week will pull its first all-night debate on the Iraq war in advance of a vote on whether to bring home all combat troops by next spring, Democrats said Monday.

The rare, round-the-clock session Tuesday night through Wednesday morning is intended to bait Republicans into an exhaustive debate on the politically unpopular war, as well as punish GOP members for routinely blocking anti-war legislation.

"How many sleepless nights have our soldiers and their families had?" said Democratic Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill.

Democrats are trying to ratchet up pressure on Republicans who have grown uneasy with the lack of progress and begun questioning President Bush's military strategy.

Republicans shrugged off the planned marathon debate as political theater. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said Republicans "welcome further debate" but that there was no reason why the Senate couldn't vote sooner.

The political sparring came as several Republican congressional staffers met privately with Bush aides in the West Wing of the White House to hash out an effective communications strategy on the war.

Read the rest.

Behind the scenes, in the quiet corners of power, beyond the hearing of the public, the Democrats have surely affirmed to each other that General Petraeous must not be given the time to succeed. The Democrats are invested in defeat and in order for them to ensure victory in '08, George W. Bush must lose in Iraq. Whether Petraeous will be successful or not, we don't know, but having sent the man on a mission impossible, we are obligated to give him the time he needs to execute his plan. To do otherwise is shameful.


  1. Mr Bush shows no faith in his General, or his Plans' chance of success, or he'd declare it a military victory, today.

    Then force a political settlement on Mr Maliki, that creates a victory scenario. Handover of Security in January '08, phased withdrawal starting in March of '08.

    Instead Mr Bush chooses to wait, to let the actions of others set the tone.
    Abdicated his power to create events, he has.

  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

  3. By forcing the timelines now, the Democrats can claim in the '08 elections that they got us out of the Republican quaqmire. Also, it is imperative that they not inherit the responsibility for Iraq. They refuse to acknowledge the consequences of their actions and look only at the politics of the situation. They are contemptible and unfit to lead.

  4. "Abdicated his power to create events, he has."
    Not so!

    Fecklessness, inaction, and weakness is PROVOCATIVE, and provokes further abuses of the people with the misfortune of having such a leader.

    Negative Events, but events nonetheless.

  5. Thomas Sowell And Then What? A good question, one I've been asking myself, with no certain answer. But certainly, as Sowell says, no answer is forthcoming from Harry Reid, D-Bellagio.

  6. You think there's a difference? You're wrong. Check This out.

  7. If the democrats would say something a little like This they might gain some respect.

  8. This comment has been removed by the author.

  9. By not embracing timelines to Victory, Mr Bush has left the Iraqi government with no motivation and less hope that the US will ever leave.

    It has caused the expansion of the aQ factions in Iraq and has fostered a long term Civil War by arming anti-Government insurgents of the 1920 Brigades, in Anbar.

    The GOP resoluting stands by a Policy that cannot win militarily, as claimed by the Commander US Forces, Iraq, General P.

    Despite US military advances on the ground, the US is not a day closer to political reconciliation. In fact the Iraqi are due to start their 45 day vaction, to escape the heat of Baghdad.

    Such leaders, as would send US forces into a political quagmire, with no military victory possible, are contemptible and unfit to lead.

    As Dick Cheney told US all, in 1993

  10. I doubt that, regardless of the domestic political fallout, we will get completely out of Iraq for generations. The region is just too important to the world (US) economy and too volatile in it's current construction to ever permit us to disengage to the extent that the Left would like. That is, exert our will on the region with ... talk. Better get that strategy ironed out.