People I’m Sick Of (Part IV): David Sirota

Aren’t you sick of “antiwar” activists who are nothing but shills for the Democratic party? Because I sure as hell am. I’ve written about the Democratic “antiwar” legislation that recently passed the House, slated for a quick veto by the White House, and I note the complete capitulation of the “liberals,” i.e., the Out of Iraq Caucus, made up almost entirely of Democrats, with Rep. Maxine Waters, Lynn Woolsey, and Barbara Lee being three of the leading lights. After pressure was exerted by the Pelosi-crats — including threats of cutting off the federal gravy train to their districts — the California trio gave in to the Speaker and pledged not to lobby against H.R. 1591. Previously, these three had rightly opposed — and urged others to oppose — a bill that gives more money for the military than requested by Bush — and which, as Military Families Speak Out avers, makes it very easy for the White House to circumvent those much-vaunted “benchmarks.”

None of this matters to David Sirota, the resident “radical” over at the HuffPuffPost. He hails the “principled and shrewd” move by the “progressives” to capitulate to the Pelosi-crats. In a veritable cascade of Orwellian doublespeak, Sirota claims:

It is a courageous move because it is never, ever easy to swallow a compromise, even if it is clearly the right thing to do to achieve long-term goals. These Members of Congress played hardball from the beginning, and that hardball made sure this bill included strong, binding legislation to end the war.

If this is “strong and binding,” then one can only wonder what would be weak: read it and you ‘ll find that the actual wording of the legislation leaves it up to the White House to “certify” whether “progress” is being made in Iraq – in which case none of the requirements, including a withdrawal of our forces from Iraq, have to be met. It’s true that such a certification would only delay “redeployment” of our troops, but then all the President has to do is assert that forces remaining in Iraq after March 1, 2008 are specifically in pursuit of Al Qaeda, or other terrorist groups with “global reach” — which is the argument he’s been making since Day One — and they can stay — indefinitely.

This is “strong” and “binding”?

Sirota babbles on:

These progressive lawmakers are true heroes because they are displaying a seriousness about ending the war, rather than merely a seriousness about protesting the war. Protest and pressure are critical in the lead up to legislative action – but when it comes time for that action, we hire lawmakers to do just that: make laws.

What sophistry: there is nothing in this bill that would seriously end the war, and Sirota knows it. Anyone can see that there are enough loopholes in this “serious” legislation to drive a few tanks through. It is typical, however, of these “pragmatic” types that their “pragmatism” is eminently impractical, and almost never leads to the intended result. The reality is that this “emergency supplemental” funds the continuation of the war: without it, the war could not be fought. By voting for it, and supporting it, “antiwar” Democrats and the party bosses are giving the Iraq war their imprimatur.

In another typical “pragmatist” trope, Sirota avers that antiwar opponents of the Pelosi measure are “just blowing off contrarian steam,” and that it is them who are really “selling out,” because, you see, “the contrairians [sic] are selling out – selling out a viable way to end the war in order to grandstand for the cameras.”

Look who’s talking! Pelosi and the Dems are the ones grandstanding for the cameras, by loudly declaring that they have passed a “timetable” to end the war — with an easy escape hatch for the President to wriggle out of this “strong” and “binding” legislation. This partisan legislation — larded with pork, in order to make the sellout more lucrative — attracted only a few Republicans, and this was quite intentional: the Democrats would much rather have the war as an issue during the election than actually do anyting meaningful to end it. The result is that Bush’s veto will be sustained, and this “serious” legislation will wind up in the congressional dustbin — where it belongs.

The real story of the Pelosi “antiwar” bill is that it pitted the “progressive” leaders against their own supporters — and one can only wonder how long the latter will put up with it.