Okay, we all heard the remarks. The for right is calling for his...wait, they're afraid of him. They haven't said squat, except for a few media outlets like Savage, (sorry members of the right, I really dislike what Savage has to say.) Limbaugh and Pat "the Fallaffel King" O'reilly. (It's just a harmless jab. Get over it.)
Right on queue they've stated exactly what they would be expected to say, in unison:
His Words are Killing Americans and destroying democracy for Iraq!!!
...ummm, no. Not quite. Unless he gained some new gun like on the planet of Dune it ain't happening. Ted may have his ominous mysteries but being Moadib is not one of them. Words don't kill very often, unless you scream fire in a crowded theatre, but that's something different, hopefully.
So what's my take on it? What do I think about it? I think he's doing what he can to marginalize the Iraqi elections politically. He's doing what he can to play damage control for his beloved party, even if it makes himself look bad.
Okay Jeremy, What the hell are you talking about?
What I'm talking about is everyone has believed for some time now the the elections in Iraq are going to turn into a great big mushroom cloud with thousands upon thousands of Iraqis and Americans killed. By the end of the day some might have even fathomed Zarqawi standing on a ten foot tall pile of dead bodies, hands at his hips in one of those "king of the mountain" poses, laughing at the stupid and foolish American infidels.
I'm sorry to say this, but that would be the absolute best scenario for the Democratic party. It would kick everything Bush stands for sqarely in the balls. If this were to happen I doubt even the hardest hard line Republicans would be able to stare it in the face. The only natural thing for any red (or blue) blooded American would be to vote against the party that stretched America's neck out so that terrorism could lop our heads off. (No intention of any joke there for those that have been decapitated in Iraq.) It would mean a windfall for the Democratic party come election time, or maybe even before then.
Great, so if it's a complete disaster the Democrats get to feed off of the carcass of Iraq's false Democracy?
Hold on there sparky. Democrats don't want to kill anyone. Even though they would be the beneficiaries of such an act I doubt any blue blooded Democrat wants to see anyone die in this. (Except maybe Zell Miller who just want's to challenge people to duels all the time.) Democrats, traditionally, have been the most compassionate caring people on the planet. Go get a head count from the Peace Corpse and you'll probably find an 80% ratio of democrats in it.
Okay, great! They don't want to kill anyone. Could you get to the marginalization part?
By saying that this election in Iraq does not make solid and safe Democracy he hopes that it will form some sort of subconsious damage control. It allows the Democratic party to critique the monthly tolls of death and lawlessness. It plants the seed of paterned loss in Iraq that gives you the retrospect to believe that free elections in this area are not really that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things.
That's a load of crap! What he said was completely preposterous! No one would believe all of that! It's all made up stories. It won't make one lick of difference in anyone's hearts and minds!
On the contrary. If it was really that insignificant we wouldn't hear it in the news and half the 'sphere wouldn't be blogging about it today. Even if every word that man said was a bold faced lie there are those that will believe them because he's a respected Senator in the United States. People will not feel the need to fact check and those that do just dismiss his words as frivolity will be adding to the ponderance on the statements. It's a very functional phychologic tactic. The only way to dismiss his words effectively is to dismiss them with hard facts.
That's the trick of it. Most of what he said was at least partially defensible. The beliefs that he shot down were accepted beliefs by some, if not all in some cases. The one I remember the most was the "Falujah will break the back of the insurgency" statement. Many in the media were trying to push people into saying it. The MSM asked the question several times "Will Falujah break the back of the Insurgency?" Every time, the answer was no, it will not finish them off. However, the seed of understanding was pushed into the minds of Americans that this event would be the end of attacks. That was an inadvertent lie to the world.
Let me give you another example in the media: Michael "share your bed" Jackson has been had the crap beat out of him in the media. Nearly everyone that has uttered his name on television calls him a predator of the worst kind. We still don't have any direct evidence in the matter other than the testiminy of one teenager. Until the jury comes back with a hanging decision he is an innocent man, period. The seeds of thought over Michael Jackson have made him a guilty mind in over half of America's minds. Yet, there has still been no trial. Thank you media for being judge and jury.
Now, back to Teddy. Most of his ideas will be shot down, like I just did with the Falujah incident. Some will become the topic for heated debate. Others still with be difficult to gain a foothold against. Overall though, it will make us think about what is, and is not going right in Iraq. It is an attempt to marginalize the election to the American people. It's an attempt to save his party in case the Iraqi elections are more valid than our own. It's a sacrifice fly ball so the runner on third base can score for his team.
As preposterus as I find many of his statements I have to hive him, "gulp" , respect for taking one for the team.
2 hours ago