Friday, November 03, 2006

Watch Out, Democrats!

Today, and perhaps for the next several days, I am going to pretend to be a prophet, a political prophet. This does not make me a real prophet, but it surely makes me a pretentious one. Nor does this imply augury, divination, seeing into the future through blogfeeds or by looking for patterns in the grindings left by burning brakes along the guardrails of the Jersey Turnpike. I am not plying through the entrails of pigeons; I am not pursuing scatology to inform my eschatology. What my pretense means is simple: I am playing. And playing, as you know, is all about having fun.

What could be more delightful, really, than to take a shot at what will happen to the Iraq War should the Democrats take control of the United States Congress?

A DIRE WARNING TO ALL VOTERS (followed by one to all Democrats):

Trust the mighty prophet: The Democrats have no intention of ending the Iraq War -- or "occupation", or "quagmire", or "regime-change strategy" -- or even bringing US troops home in the next two years. Why? Because they need Iraq to remain unstable, unpopular and chaotic so a Democrat can win the White House in 2008. Does anyone really think that the next Congress, one controlled by Democrats, is going to allow President Bush to do as he hopes, which is to win in Iraq and scale back troop deployments? Come now! Who are you kidding? Democrats NEED Iraq to fail, continually, for the next two years. And we know this because they are exploiting the war NOW in order to win the popularity of the masses: a successful Iraq campaign renders the Democrats superfluous and thoroughly impotent. But a quagmire; a mistake built on lies; a botched campaign; a boondoggle; a civil war fomented by incompetence. These are a Democrat's ticket to power!

So, my dear friends, particularly my anti-war friends, prepare yourselves for the biggest political disappointment of your lives. My sources tell me that the Democrats in Congress are poised to bring Washington to a halt with impeachment hearings, you know, Impeach Bush procedures. And those will be followed by Impeach Cheney hearings, and, well you get the picture: political chaos and quagmire for pure political gain, and pure control of US Treasury disbursements. Oh, and there is one more thing: much of the impeachment motivation comes from those who believe Bush was NEVER duly elected. In other words, it's about payback.

But our troops will be hung out to dry by congressional Democrats intent on maintaining their vision of a better governed world.

AND HERE IS THE CRAZY WARNING TO DEMOCRATS: Look for the offsides trap

In soccer, there is a defensive play called the offsides trap. It occurs when defenders, pretending to maintain a position between the goalkeeper and the nearest attacking forward, suddenly move to a position behind the forward when a ball is sent into the scoring zone. If a referee is paying attention, the forward will be caught offsides, and the whistle will be blown. The defending team regains possession of the ball with a free kick.

Remember the Vietnam War.

Let's look back at that fine time for a moment. Recall that it was Democrats in the White House (presidents Kennedy and Johnson), and Democrats in both the House and Senate (some of the largest Democratic majorities in modern US history), who escalated US involvement in Vietnam. In fact, both the executive and legislative branches under Democratic Party control escalated US involvement to dizzying heights, so high, in fact, that 50,000 troops would die in that distant land.

But remember what happened in 1968. Republican Richard M. Nixon won the White House at a time when popularity for the war was extremely low. And what did the Democrats do? That's right. They turned the Vietnam War into the Nixon War. They made Vietnam a Republican problem. After all, how many school kids today -- in America -- learn that Vietnam was really a Democratic Party failure? How many kids learn that it was the Democrats who drove American soldiers deep into that jungle quagmire?

So, let's talk payback now. Impeach Bush might be a Democrat strategy for doling out vengeance on the allegedly stolen 2000 election (and the alleged theft of Ohio in 2004). But Republicans not really fighting to keep control of the Congress today might in fact be an offsides trap being played -- in a great gamble -- by Republican strategists as payback for, well, everything (including Vietnam). Iraq, perhaps, is about to become the Democrats' War.

If there were just two types of teenagers in 1968, they were these: those who were anti-establishment, counter-cultural and anti-war, and those who were none of those things. Now, today, those two types of teenagers, 40 years older, are sitting in the White House, in Congress, in the offices of the RNC and DNC; they fill academia and the media. What you are witnessing, then, is a gargantuan struggle between those who believed that Vietnam was a lost cause and those who believed it could have been won (had we only FULLY stayed the course and supported US military actions there). In other words, if George Bush -- the establishment man -- wins in Iraq, it will not only mean that the Iraq-is-a-failure folks are wrong today; they were wrong in the golden protest years of yesterday about Vietnam. And if the anti-establishment hippies of the 1960's who are now in their 60s are right about the failure of Iraq, then, well, they will no doubt feel vindicated about Vietnam.

In reality, what you are seeing is a flashback of 1967-72. There might not be as much acid now as there was then, but there is surely more acid speech. But the Democrats need to watch out for the offsides trap.

Trust me. They don't know what they are about to win.

And remember: I am just a pretend prophet.

One final note to all voters: Does anyone really believe that the Iraq War is unnecessary, a war of mere choice, one completely begun at the President's bidding? For if that was the case, would he not have begun to withdraw troops on the eve of the elections, elections his party will lose? And if Bush and Co. control oil prices and oil fields, don't you think that, if they did so control them, we would have seen gas prices fall back to popularly low levels by now in order to secure political victory at all costs? And does anyone really think that President Bush is holding Osama bin Laden as some sort of ace-in-the-hole as we watch Republican popularity wane? Where, oh where, have the conspiracy theories gone? Were they all false prophecies uttered by false prophets? Are not false prophets supposed to be rejected, condemned; stoned to death outside the city walls?

But we all know they've been stoned before.

Peace, from your favorite prophet.

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

Technorati tags: ,

9 comments:

Jason Coriell said...

I admit, Bill, that I am usually not as interested in your political insights as am the religious. Not to disparage your political acumen, I am just not able to sustain attention to things political. For me, its too much like the plot of a common soap opera. Of course, I realize that much is at stake and the analogy is inherently false.

Anyway--I appreciate the parallels drawn between Iraq and Viet Nam. The obvious similarities have occurred to me before. However, I had never considered Iraq as the rematch of old Viet Nam foes. Of course, I was only born in '71.

I eagerly anticipate more prophetic utterances.

contratimes said...

Jason,

Thank you for coming by. It has been too long since we last connected.

I struggle, really struggle, about what this website should include. Is it a theological site? Is it a political one? Is it about the promotion of literacy?

You have given me much to think about. I will seriously consider your opinion; I think there is wisdom there.

Blessings to you, youngster (happy 35th!).

Gnade

LukeBuckham said...

As a former soccer player, I find your sports metaphor utterly brilliant, probably the best I've ever seen. We live in a world of horribly lame sports metaphors, as anyone who's ever listened to political speeches knows, so this is refreshing.

The article hits on something that I've been fuming about to some friends of mine who actually seem to believe that the country will get dramatically better when the Democrats take over. Of course, I hope that they're right, but I don't think they are.

Not incidentally, a recent article appeared in Rolling Stone entitled "The Worst Congress Ever". The author does not believe that things will get better when the Democrats take over, either, judging by an additional article of his which can be found on RS's website.

peas,

Luke

Honora said...

Cain and Abel, Abel and Cain, same ol' same ol', no?

Then came the Bushes:

The Burning Bush, the elder Bush, and this one.. Someone should tell two of 'em they're only Republicans, not God.

the commentator said...

Hey, I'm supposed to be the only soccer blog guy! Anyway, could not agree more about Vietnam. Al Gore really needs to let it go. By the way, I will personally hold him accountable for anything that does not come true in his movie. If history serves me right, I will win. Ironically, here in Canada (speaking of ironies) the dirty little secret is that the Liberals represent mainstream Canadian fews. What a piece of brilliant advertising on their part. In actuality, it was the Conservatives who brought in all these social programs Canadians hold so dear. Not only that, it was a Conservative who happened to be a true Nationalist when Liberals were selling this country down the river. People's political percpetions are directly inverted to the reality.

contratimes said...

Dear Honora,

You know what? Maybe I will tell them.

Thank you for your comment.

Peace, always.

BG

contratimes said...

The Commentator,

You said:

"People's political perceptions are directly inverted to the reality."

I like it.

Peace.

BG

Vigilante said...

Bill, don't you think if you could just get past your Nancy Pelosiphobia for a moment (hopefully before you vote), you might acknowlege that you need Democratic majorities in Congress to help you in restoring Conservativism to the Republican Party?

contratimes said...

Dear Vigilante,

Thank you for stopping by. And thanks for giving me some hope -- and a laugh. You are too kind. I am grateful that your good heart should try to find -- for me -- a silver lining in all of this. Thank you (seriously).

I did a search of my own blog: of my 366 posts since beginning Contratimes, I believe I've mentioned Nancy Pelosi three times. Twice I merely mentioned her name in a list of leading Democrats; once I quoted her in response to things said by Mr. Howard Dean.

I watched Howard Dean yesterday during his appearance on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos." I believe it would be fair to say that Mr. Dean is the head of the Democratic National Committee. If I am wrong about this, well, I am open to correction. During his commentary -- which I believe ranks near the top of the most deceptive commentaries I've ever heard from a political leader -- Mr. Dean flatly said "I do not know anybody who's arguing that we will leave Iraq immediately ... because we know the President's policies have caused us a lot of problems in Iraq." Of course, Mr. Dean's comments come after he said "We need to find a way to get out of Iraq;" this comment, however, is embedded in his analysis of the Democrats' shrewd "troop redeployment" rhetoric: "WE have a plan!" In other words, Mr. Dean has A) argued that we need to find a way out of Iraq; B) given us a Democratic plan out of Iraq (without intimating that he just contradicted himself); and C) created a safety-net for his party by blaming George Bush for policies that will make it too difficult for Democrats to bring troops home.

In other words, the Democrats know full well that Iraq must stay as a problem for as long as possible, so to breed discontent in the voters come the 2008 election cycle.

There is nothing "Nancy-Pelosi" about this. However, it is also worth noting that Mr. Dean says that issuing subpoenas against the President and Vice President are not out of the question; he merely states that they are not a top priority.

All this adds up to one thing: the Democrats want quagmire in Washington and Baghdad.

Furthermore, Mr. Dean tells us that the Democrats will NOT raise taxes on the middle class, but they are open to taxing the rich. Of course, Mr. Dean is counting on all of us to be stupid: taxing the rich IS A MIDDLE CLASS TAX HIKE, for it guarantees that investments will cool, prices will rise, and, well, you know all the rest. Plus, and here is the best thing: Howard Dean says that the FIRST THING the Democrats will do in Congress is increase the minimum wage. That Mr. Dean is again counting on us all to be stupid is a great thing about Mr. Dean; but it is a bad thing for America: increasing the miniumum wage IS A MIDDLE CLASS TAX HIKE. Since most small business owners are middle class, they will have to pay entry-level workers higher wages (and they will have to pay higher payroll taxes). This will deter employers from hiring more entry level workers; it will cut into other investment and development options, and it will result in higher prices, as employers seek to recoup their losses and profiteers gouge the poorest workers of their newly-acquired earning power. The whole thing is a sick joke. And it all hurts the middle class.

But I have strayed off-topic. The Democrats have no plans whatsoever to fix Iraq. Why? Largely because they know that things are not really that broken; if they were, they would make Iraq THE FIRST THING THEY ARE GOING TO DO IN CONGRESS. And they also know that, since this election appears to be based on voter discontent, the Democrats can ONLY WIN ELECTIONS BASED ON UNHAPPINESS. To win the White House in 2008, the Democrats NEED as much unhappiness as possible.

As for your quip about conservatism: The US treasury as we speak is receiving the highest tax revenues in US history. Though tax rates are lower, tax payouts are much higher (because of Bush tax cuts). Hence, deficit spending will be more swiftly drawn down. But if any Democrat thinks that Bill Clinton's surpluses went to paying down the NATIONAL DEBT, that person is wrong. He may have balanced a budget (under threat of Gingrich's Congress, no?), but he did not have plans for the actual debt. Hence, his surplus (which means that Americans were OVER-taxed), does not resemble anything conservative.

A great conservative principle is this: you've got to spend money to make even more money. Right now, it seems, the Democrats are poised to leap into an economy that is so vibrant, so Republican, that the only thing Howard Dean could find fault with it had something to do with Pell Grants.

Anyway, I look forward to seeing Democratic mastery over the next two years.

(I recognize that this is a long reply, but it really represents what I've decided not to post front and center on my blog. I think I am going to leave the politics for more erudite, more articulate and more gifted minds. My mediocrity has gotten the best of me.)

Peace to you, dear sir, and to everyone else.

Gnade