The Opposition Party Is Dead Apparently

8:06 pm EST June 15th, 2006 | Politics | 11 Comments

The White House greets the death of the 2,500 American in Iraq with a shrug declaring that “tt’s a number” and no more.

That makes me ask: where are the Democrats? Why does the Democratic party continue parading around with a sock in it’s collective mouth? This poll tested mealy-mouth positioning has led the Democrats to electoral defeat after defeat after defeat. More importantly, the Democrats so lacked the intestinal fortitude to oppose a president dead set on going off half-cocked to war, they gave him a blank check and then tried to stupidly move on to “safe” issues.

These are simple lessons children learn. If the stove burns you when you put your hand on it, quit sticking your hand on the oven!

The President and his party say 2,500 Americans dying in the service of no larger mission as “a number”. I’d like to think the opposition party thinks something a little more complex and intelligent than that. But all I hear is silence.

Related Posts

  • No Related Post
«
»

11 Responses to “The Opposition Party Is Dead Apparently”

  1. scratch says:
    June 15, 2006 at 9:06 pm

    Actually, the President and his party say that those men and women DID die in the service of a larger mission. And I believe, as I think they do, that there is no difference between the 2500th and the 2475th.

    Republicans have traditionally valued the service and sacrifices of the armed forces. The Democratic instinct to mark these major “number milestones,” on the other hand, can’t help but reek of politics.

  2. Jay C says:
    June 15, 2006 at 10:06 pm

    The White House greets the death of the 2,500 American in Iraq with a shrug declaring that  tt s a number and no more.

    You write this and have the nerve to blubber about Glenn Reynolds being wrong?

    The Democratic instinct to mark these major  number milestones, on the other hand, can t help but reek of politics.

    Dude, you hit the nail on the head.

  3. Quaker in a Basement says:
    June 16, 2006 at 12:06 am

    Republicans have traditionally valued the service and sacrifices of the armed forces.

    They certainly have.

    “Valuing the service and sacrifices” wins votes even better than praising Jesus.

  4. Oliver Willis says:
    June 16, 2006 at 1:06 am

    Being wrong? There’s video of Snow saying that 2,500 is “a number”. Look, one side of the political discourse has to acknowledge that people are dying in Iraq, sorry if it’s an inconvenient truth for y’all.

  5. midderpidge says:
    June 16, 2006 at 1:06 am

    Apparently using the troops for quasi-legal military actions while shorting them on equipment, benefits and VA health care = valuing the service and sacrifice. That and yellow ribbon magnets. Good job guys.

  6. Scott Free says:
    June 16, 2006 at 2:06 am

    If I’m not mistaken, the Allies lost over 2,500 in 48 hours during the Dieppe Raid in WW II (which was a complete failure). Kind of puts things in perspective.

  7. frameone says:
    June 16, 2006 at 2:06 am

    “Kind of puts things in perspective.”

    How so?

  8. scratch says:
    June 16, 2006 at 7:06 am

    Midderpridge…

    Can you identify a period during U.S. history when soldiers and vets did not think they were shorted on equipment, benefits, and VA health care?

  9. Jay C says:
    June 16, 2006 at 8:06 am

    Being wrong? There s video of Snow saying that 2,500 is  a number .

    Oh and he said it with a “shrug” as you claim? The context of his comment was, “Who gives a shit?” Nothing could be further from the truth. So either you’re wrong, or your purposely lying. Take your pick.

    Snow is absolutely right. The reason why he said it was “a number” is because 2500 is no more or no less significant than 2499. But as scratch says, the Democrats proclivity to latch on to these numerical ‘milestones’ is driven purely by politics.

    Does anybody need proof? Your entry right here is a perfect example of that. Would this have been posted were the total still at 2498? Well, I don’t need a magic eight ball to answer that. Want to know? “Would Oliver have posted that were the number 2498?” Answer: (A shocker!) Not frigging likely.

  10. Frank_D says:
    June 16, 2006 at 2:06 pm

    they also provide an opportunity for reflection about how far we ve come and where we re going.
    That’s true in anniversaries, birthdays, and speedometers, maybe.
    But, for the Democratics, it’s time to reflect on exactly one thing: How fast can we get out of Iraq, and devil take the hindmost?

  11. Quaker in a Basement says:
    June 16, 2006 at 2:06 pm

    The reason why he said it was  a number is because 2500 is no more or no less significant than 2499. But as scratch says, the Democrats proclivity to latch on to these numerical  milestones is driven purely by politics.

    Denying the obvious again, Jay?

    Haven’t you ever taken the time to watch the odometer on your car roll over to a round number? Did you do anything special on New Year’s eve when 1999 rolled over to 2000? Did you have a big party when you turned 20 or 30?

    We humans pay special heed to round numbers in many different circumstances. Are they all “just numbers”? Of course they are, but they also provide an opportunity for reflection about how far we’ve come and where we’re going.

    Something tells me your criticisms would be exactly the same if OW noted death number 2503.