The Senate Panders. Decency surrenders.
The entire blog-world is up at arms about the Senate's vote yesterday to require Iraq to repay some $20 billion of the $87 billion aid-and-reconstruction package currently up for vote.
Of all the stupid, craven, shit-headed...
Go read. Start with John Cole, who has links to about 80 percent of the rest of the blogsphere. Cole writes, "[A] coalition of greens, sociaists, liberals, center left Democrats, center right Republicans, little-l libertarians, and conservatives in the blogosphere all think this is a shitty idea. Can we all be wrong?"
Not if I agree with you, you can't! Write your Senators and Congressmen today!
[alsø wik] MuffinMan comments that the Senate is not being stupid, in that they know exactly what they're doing in catering to their constituents. Fair enough. But I think it is stupid yet very clever at the same time. That is, the Senate is pandering to some focus-group constituency in demanding that Iraq pay back money we're giving them to rebuild after we kicked their asses. Clever for pandering and stupid for demanding! Two great tastes that taste great together!
[alsø alsø wik] A while back, Buckethead compared America's foreign policy obligations to Spider-Man: "with great power comes great responsibility". In a comment (now lost) I observed that there is a crucial difference between the two: after Spidey defeats Doc Ock, he isn't obliged to stick around and make sure that his minions and slaves get housing, food, hot water, etc. The US, to some measure, is.
I now wish to augment my point. Buckethead is right, I think: the US is like Spider-Man. It's a fun metaphor with a lot of truth in it. So can you imagine a situation in which Spidey sticks someone with a bill for rescuing them?
"Don't worry ma'am, I'm here to save you!"
"Spider-Man! I'm so glad you're here!"
Biff! Sock! Zook! Kazsh! Bort! Arrrrgh!
"Oh, Spider-Man! Thank you!"
"All in a day's webcrawling, ma'am. I think he'll be tied up for a while... um... you wouldn't happen to have your wallet on you, would you?"
"What's this?"
"Just your friendly neighborhood invoice, ma'am. My terms are 30 days."
on
| § 2
§ 2 Comments
[ You're too late, comments are closed ]
Passing the $87bn with the
Passing the $87bn with the $20bn repayment is not stupid, because the majority of the lawmakers' constituents believes that it makes sense. Does it *actually* make sense? Not in the slightest. But Congress doesn't play to the blogger set; they play to the Today-Show-Jay-Leno-Reader's-Digest-on-the-toilet set.
However, the majority is being bamboozled into thinking this will ever be repaid.
The funniest part of this is that the money isn't even needed until next May (http://www.house.gov/schakowsky/04-Supp-availability_of_Army_funds-memo…), despite what Rumsfeld and Bush have told Congress. And search the WP archives for this article "In GOP, Concern Over Iraq Price Tag; Some Doubt Need For $20.3 Billion For Rebuilding," Washington Post, 9/26/03, p. A01., if you want to question if this money is needed at all.
Of all the lefty slogans
Of all the lefty slogans regarding Iraq, the one that I have agreed with is, "You broke it, you bought it." While I feel that we had sound reasons for invading Iraq, regardless - having gone ahead with the invasion, we have an obligation to not leave the Iraqis in the lurch, or stick them with the tab.
And really, considering all the money our government spends on completely ridiculous crap, I should think that we can cough up an extra $20 large to help the Iraqi reconstruction (for their benefit) and insure that our foriegn policy goals are met (for our benefit.)
It may be clever pandering, but it is bad statecraft.