While the right likes to accuse “defeatocrats” of being the party of obstruction and that liberals more generally aren’t interested in the welfare of the nation, but rather just like to shut down things simply because Republicans or Bush support them. This is why their reaction to the Democrats’ anti-terrorism bill completely baffles me.

Several Republicans criticized the legislation as little more than political posturing in the early hours of a new Democratic-controlled Congress. Democrats want to “look aggressive on homeland security. This bill will waste billions of dollars, and possibly harm homeland security by gumming up progress already under way,” said Rep. Hal Rogers, R-Ky.

Yikes, this sounds serious. Could it be that the party that has campaigned for the past few months (years?) about fiscal responsibility and reigning in the irresponsible spending is now throwing out costly measures simply to put up the image of strength? Let’s take a look at the legislation itself.

Patterned on recommendations of the commission that investigated the Sept. 11 attacks, the far-reaching measure includes commitments for inspection of all cargo carried aboard passenger aircraft and on ships bound for the United States.

Wait. So the Democrats want to implement the suggestions of the 9/11 Commission, including things that would have easily blocked the British plot that was flaunted as evidence of the need for Bush’s “decisive leadership”, and the Republicans are whining that it’s all posturing and expensive. Awesome.

Okay, a possible project for the upcoming week or so: upgrading from podcasts to radio. The service is Blog Talk Radio, you can see my host profile here. This would be live, it would allow callers, and it would be more regular than the podcasts (since it’s live, I need to have a set schedule as opposed to whenever-I-feel-like-it).

Let me know what you think. I don’t often outright ask for feedback, but I am this time. Let me know if it’s something you’d actually listen to.

I do like Ted Kennedy, as unpopular as he seems to be with many. He’s principled, and he’s passionate. And his latest, preparing for the offensive against Bush’s “troop surge”, is yet another reason he repeatedly earns my respect. Specifically, introducing legislature that would “require congressional approval before force levels can be increased”.

“The American people sent a clear message in November that we must change course in Iraq and begin to withdraw our troops, not escalate their presence,” Kennedy said, referring to the November midterm elections in which Democrats wrested control of Congress from Republicans.

This seems to be the subtlety that is eluding Bush when it comes to the Democratic victory in Congress. He for some reason looks at it as though the Democrats and Republicans now have to work together to do the same thing the Republicans did by themselves, as though the fairly massive overhaul had no meaning behind it. I’ve written about this before, of course.

More brilliance:

Kennedy also said that the original mandate authorizing the Iraq war has expired because “the mission of our armed forces today in Iraq bears no resemblance whatever to the mission authorized by Congress.”

The Iraq War resolution “authorized a war to destroy weapons of mass destruction. But there were no WMDs to destroy. It authorized a war with Saddam Hussein. But today Saddam is no more. It authorized a war because Saddam was allied with al Qaeda. But there was no alliance,” Kennedy said.

Exactly. Ex-friggin-zactly. The war today is not the war we were sold in 2003. We were sold a war of prevention. A war that would stop Saddam from attacking us with the WMDs he could also give to Al Qaeda. No WMDs, no Saddam, no links. Thus, the war as were given it is long over. As there were no links, nor were there WMDs, the war was over as soon as Saddam was toppled.

Thus the president is no longer a “war president”, because the war has been over for a while now. The suggestion these days seems to be that because Congress authorized some kind of war in Iraq, as long as there is fighting in Iraq it’s the same thing. So his authority “in the time of war” is a sham. And it needs to be halted as soon as possible.

White House spokesman Tony Snow said Democrats are going to have to make a choice when it comes to Iraq.

“They’re going to have to decide where they stand in terms of two issues: No. 1, do you want Iraq to succeed and, if so, what does that mean? And No. 2, do you believe in supporting the troops as you say and how do you express that support?” he said. “Those are questions that will be answered in the process of public debate and also in a lot of other considerations.”

Now me, I’d think the Republicans should have to answer that as well. Though I honestly think the “support the troops” is a bullshit issue anyway. Everyone supports the troops. Al Franken’s performed for them in Iraq time and time again. But the troops are only a part of the debate, the core is the policy and its failures. The troops are just doing their job, it’s the job we disagree with.