Tuesday, May 15, 2007

Laughably inept commentary about Iraq

Arianna Huffington makes mountains out of molehills over at the Huffington Post (author's hyperlinks):
Just listen to John McCain -- the biggest supporter of the war outside of Dick Cheney -- on this week's Meet the Press. Tim Russert asked him about the fact that 144 members of the 275 person Iraqi parliament signed a legislative petition last week calling on the U.S. to set a timetable to withdraw:

RUSSERT: The duly elected people's bodies, the U.S. Congress and the Iraqi parliament, say they want a troop withdrawal. That's more than a poll. Isn't that the voice of the people?

McCAIN: ...There is a certain amount of domestic political calculations involved there in what the Iraqi, quote, "parliament" said.
You could almost see the contempt dripping off McCain's lips: "The Iraqi, quote, 'parliament.'"

So what, pray tell, is the difference between a "parliament" and a parliament? To McCain it's apparently whether the parliament agrees with him. And, by the way, Senator, there is another word for "domestic political calculations": democracy. But McCain, like Bush, is too arrogant to believe that real democracy could ever include disagreement with their wishes.
Ah, but the reason why McCain isn't quaking in his boots over this legislative petition is because it's non-binding:
Reached by phone in Baghdad on Tuesday, Al-Rubaie said that he would present the petition, which is nonbinding, to the speaker of the Iraqi parliament and demand that a binding measure be put to a vote. Under Iraqi law, the speaker must present a resolution that's called for by a majority of lawmakers, but there are significant loopholes and what will happen next is unclear.
So why should McCain renounce his support for the U.S. military presence in Iraq over a non-binding Iraqi resolution when he hasn't even done that for a non-binding American resolution? Not every single piece of legislation that passes the Senate is voted for unanimously. Does that make all of the dissenting senators somehow anti-democracy? No, because the whole point of being a senator is having an independent judgement; it is a perogative of senatorial office to judge that the voting majority is wrong and to vote against them. Somehow this simple fact from "Poly-Sci 101" didn't occur to Arianna Huffington when she wrote her post.

The most hilarious aspect of Arianna Huffington's article is that she is oblivious to the hypocrisy oozing and dripping from every word. Do you doubt it? Then suppose the American legislature passes a non-binding resolution declaring that abortion should be banned. Do you really think she would seriously be prepared to argue that the Supreme Court should therefore immediately acquiesce to the wishes of the democratic majority and overturn Roe v. Wade at the very next opportunity?


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home