I'M WITH BLUNT-- AND BOEHNER IS STILL THE MOST IGNORANT MAN EVER ELECTED TO A LEADERSHIP POSITION IN THE HOUSE

The debate on the meaningless, nonbinding, symbolic resolution, meant to take people's minds off ending the war in Iraq, began in... earnest? So far my favorite line came from Republican Minority Whip Roy Blunt: "If the Democrats want to end the war, they can end the war-- put that resolution on the floor." Blunt may be a reactionary, corrupt greedball but he isn't a compete fool. He knows that between the reactionaries, the AIPAC puppets and the congressional cowards on the Democratic side there would be enough Democrats voting with the Republicans to keep the war going... probably forever. I'd like voters to see this in time for primary season.


On the other hand, John Boehner, Blunt's boss, is a complete fool. He briefly pulled himself away from his tanning salon in order to weep a few crocodile tears and warn Congress that if the U.S. leaves Iraq the aftermath will be as bad as it was in Vietnam. A truly uneducated and ignorant man, Boehner is probably unaware that the U.S. ending the war in Vietnam is universally recognized around the world-- outside of reactionary circles in the U.S.-- was the best thing to have happened for the Vietnamese, Southeast Asia and the Americans since the U.S. invaded that country. In all likelihood 4 or 5 dozen Republicans will desert their warmongering president and reactionary congressional leadership on this. Even utter rubber stamps like Tom Davis (VA) and Howard Coble (NC) are finding it painless to jump ship on this. Sensing defeat-- and realizing it doesn't mean squat-- even Cheney has stopped threatening Republicans who vote with the Democrats.

Some Democrats are promising more bite than the bark which in essense is all this resolution is. "Waiting in the wings is binding legislation that would fully fund Bush's $100 billion request for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but add four conditions: Soldiers and Marines could be deployed to Iraq only after being certified as fully trained and equipped. National Guardsmen and reservists could be subject to no more than two deployments, or roughly 12 months of combat duty. The administration could use none of the money for permanent bases in Iraq. And additional funding for the National Guard and reserves must be spent to retool operations at home, such as emergency response." That seems like a tiny step in the right direct, though nothing compared to bills by antiwar Democrats like Lynn Woolsey and Russ Feingold, which are more in line with what most Americans would like to see happen.