In Part 1, I mentioned a possible positive Iraq War report and the potential reactions by some different groups.

Then there are the panderers, you know, the one's running for president. Voting for use of force, not just against Iraq, but anyone else who is a threat - wordplay for war approval. Explaining the vote, and bragging about it when Saddam went down. But when it was politically expedient, they apologized for the vote, or said they were duped. Then the one-upsmanship of saying they'll get the troops out on X date, followed by a promise of a few months earlier, then a few months before that, followed by "immediately", then "yesterday". Is this an auction?

But the polls are doing a funny thing. Congress's numbers are down below Bush's, and this spread can't go on forever (zero is as low as you can go). Could be the news on the war is helping Bush, I don't think he really cares about his poll numbers, but I'm pretty sure Congress is concerned with theirs. Comon, who thought last November these numbers would be like this? I sure didn't. If it is proven there is a direct correlation between the war and these numbers, there isn't a bandwagon big enough for all of these people.

The number one job of a member of congress is to get re-elected, or to get elected to a higher office, say President. The handwriting is already on the wall. In a recent New York Times article, a few candidates who couldn't pull the troops out soon enough are basically admitting they (the troops) aren't going anywhere anytime soon. To that I say "duhh". I don't see how anyone who watched "Shock & Awe" and what followed, and the history of this region and warfare in general, could ever think this was going to be anything but a long, long process. This wasn't Grenada, or even Gulf War 1. Whether you were for it or against it, once it started, it was " on", as they say. You can kick and scream all you want, but for better or for worse there was no turning back.

But back to these evolving opinion ideologues (also known as flip-floppers), what will their goal be, mass public amnesia of everything else they've said? That may have worked prior to the "new media" and the internet, but not anymore. It's all on record, including voting records and resolutions. Perhaps the latest "hawkish" comments of militarily invading allies will fog the memory of the public, after the laughter wears off that is.

I think the most telling comments were in the following Washington Post interview of House Majority Whip James Clyburn (Democrat-S.C), further pointing out, to me anyway, that " politics above all else" is the way it is for a large contingent of our (so-called) leaders. He was asked "What do Democrats do if General Petraeus comes in in September, and says, "This is working very, very well at this point. We would be foolish to back away from it"? His answer " Well, that would be a real big problem for us, no question about that." At least he's honest. But what's the problem? That things are "working very well"? I thought we were on the same team.

I guess the joke's on the dolts who voted for some of these people thinking they'd do anything differently. They never were going to deviate from the original strategy, just like they never were going to change the way pork flies out of the Capitol (that would be earmarks, not "flying pigs") and now they've even approved warrantless wiretapping! The words "lies" and "lied" have been used a little too liberally (no pun intended), guess we'll see where the double standard "lies".

©2007 Chris Rodriguez/Wrongmont.Com
(Chris Rodriguez is a Longmont resident, and the editor and publisher of Wrongmont.Com, a community website that raises local issues to increase public awareness and interest)