Somewhere, parody is finally giving up and beginning to drink heavily:
Bush hits out at critics of Iraq strategy
US President George W. Bush has warned opposition Democrats against cutting funds for the Iraq war, and challenged those who oppose his new plan to put an alternative on the table.
"Those who refuse to give this plan a chance to work have an obligation to offer an alternative that has a better chance for success. To oppose everything while proposing nothing is irresponsible," he said in his weekly radio address.
Take it away, readers.
THOROUGHLY DEPRESSED OBSERVATION: Don't say I didn't warn you. Back here, I wrote about the possibility of the Democrats, having been powerless for the last six years to do anything about Bush, now suddenly being made the targets of blame, as if this disaster is all their fault. And sure enough:
"Those who refuse to give this plan a chance to work have an obligation to offer an alternative that has a better chance for success. To oppose everything while proposing nothing is irresponsible."
In short, having completely fucked this up in every way imaginable, Bush is now painting the Democrats as irresponsible obstructionists. I told you people this would happen, didn't I?
Jesus, sometimes I hate the fact that I'm never wrong.
NOW HERE'S A THOUGHT. There's an old trick in politics that, if you're in the minority, you can always vote as stupidly as you want -- perhaps pandering to your brain-dead constituency -- knowing that the opposition majority will outvote you anyway, so you really can't do any damage. But what happens if the majority won't play that game?
There is really only one way that the Democrats can't be held responsible for the unfolding and inevitable disaster in Iraq and I've mentioned this before -- they have to let George W. have free rein for the next two years to fuck things up so horribly and kill so many American troops and provoke so many terrorist attacks on Americans that the Republican Party will be marginalized for decades to come. And how exactly do they do that? Easy.
Whenever an Iraq-related vote comes up in the U.S. House or Senate, the Democrats don't vote in favour. And they don't vote against it. They simply don't vote. (I'm assuming they can technically abstain, right?) So what exactly does that do?
As I'm sure you can figure out all by yourself, that puts enormous pressure on the Republicans to act sanely. At the moment, there are already a small number of Republicans who are publicly breaking ranks with the White House, either because they understand the political danger or, even more amazingly, they're not idiots and they understand just what kind of lunatic George Bush really is.
However, it would seem that there are still more GOPers who are prepared to keep voting the White House line, perhaps to mollify their bloodthirsty constituents, but who know full well that they can vote like idiots since the Democratic majority will still bail their sorry asses out of trouble. But, as I said, what if the Dems refuse to play that game?
If the Dems take a stand and announce that they're not going to get in George's way and will simply sit out every vote related to Iraq, the wingnut members of the GOP will suddenly be under serious pressure from the sane ones to not be such total idiots. There would suddenly be intense dissension within the GOP itself, as the ones who are not clinically insane try to keep the psychotics from dragging the country further into war and the party further into oblivion.
And the beauty of this is, the Dems could sit back for the next two years and watch the GOP tear itself to pieces. Sure, it would cost billions more dollars and thousands more American lives. But, come on -- that's a small price to pay to destroy the GOP as a party, don't you think?