Everything is About 2008
Nancy Pelosi was talking last week on This Week about the genocide resolution and SCHIP. And she made one thing absolutely clear: everything she is doing is about winning in 2008, mostly by trying to make Iraq even more of an issue than it is. Nothing is about principle or helping people, it's just about attacking our mission in Iraq in order to win in 2008.
Take the genocide resolution. The resolution is essentially meaningless. It doesn't change anything about U.S. policy, and all it does is anger our allies who are helping us in Iraq. That is all it actually does (in violation, by the way, of separation of powers, since this represents Congress doing foreign policy, which is the purview of the Executive).
This was made more clear when Pelosi was asked about a resolution to call Iran's guard a terrorist group. She asked what the point would be. (Answer: to clarify who are actual enemies are, as opposed to the point of the genocide resolution, the point of which is to make an enemy out of an ally.) She said that's not the Congress' job (as opposed to its job being to play historian?). So what's the difference between the two resolutions? The Iran resolution may escalate chances of further conflict, and the genocide resolution will make it harder to continue the existing conflict. That's the difference.
On SCHIP, this is a block grant program: so why not just let the states put their own money into it, instead of taking the money from the states just to give it back to them? The answer is again simple: Iraq. Pelosi's main argument is that her SCHIP expansion costs less than Iraq. If we let states dump their own money into it, Iraq isn't made part of the issue. If you make it a federal issue, then Iraq can be compared to it. That's it, in total. This is why Pelosi says she won't compromise: because if she compromises, SCHIP gets passed, and it's no longer about Iraq.
Everything is about Iraq. It's not about helping anyone. It's all about Iraq, because it's all about 2008.
Next year is going to be UG-ly.
Take the genocide resolution. The resolution is essentially meaningless. It doesn't change anything about U.S. policy, and all it does is anger our allies who are helping us in Iraq. That is all it actually does (in violation, by the way, of separation of powers, since this represents Congress doing foreign policy, which is the purview of the Executive).
This was made more clear when Pelosi was asked about a resolution to call Iran's guard a terrorist group. She asked what the point would be. (Answer: to clarify who are actual enemies are, as opposed to the point of the genocide resolution, the point of which is to make an enemy out of an ally.) She said that's not the Congress' job (as opposed to its job being to play historian?). So what's the difference between the two resolutions? The Iran resolution may escalate chances of further conflict, and the genocide resolution will make it harder to continue the existing conflict. That's the difference.
On SCHIP, this is a block grant program: so why not just let the states put their own money into it, instead of taking the money from the states just to give it back to them? The answer is again simple: Iraq. Pelosi's main argument is that her SCHIP expansion costs less than Iraq. If we let states dump their own money into it, Iraq isn't made part of the issue. If you make it a federal issue, then Iraq can be compared to it. That's it, in total. This is why Pelosi says she won't compromise: because if she compromises, SCHIP gets passed, and it's no longer about Iraq.
Everything is about Iraq. It's not about helping anyone. It's all about Iraq, because it's all about 2008.
Next year is going to be UG-ly.
"It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt."
Leave a comment