Washblog

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Supplemental Appropriations bill we will consider here today.

Let me be clear, I strongly disagree with the President on our course in Iraq. [sic]

Just in case we didn't get the "course" metaphor, she immediately repeats it:

As one of only 23 members of the U.S. Senate to vote against going to war in Iraq, I am committed to changing the course . . .

In the next sentence, she can't bear to use the word "course" a third straight time, so she finds a synonym and links it to "change" (just in case we missed its derivative in the previous sentence):

I have voted time and again for resolutions and amendments to change direction.

Alas, Bush doesn't listen to her about the importance of "changing course":

I believe the President is wrong to continue on . . .

And he apparently has a problem with the "c" word, too:

But I also believe the President is wrong . . . in his stubborn refusal to change . . .

And to make sure we understand that the reason Bush is "wrong" is because he won't "change," she rounds off her fourth paragraph with:

The President was wrong, but the President still hasn't changed his mind.

After that uninspiring analysis, she returns to her prevailing metaphor:

With this bill we have taken the responsible path forward . . .

The journey metaphor--suggesting that the war is, after all, nothing more than a walk in the park--is brought together with her other big idea in the rhetorical flourish that concludes the first section of her speech:

In just 5 short months, Democrats have provided a new commitment to the American people and a new direction in Iraq and we will continue on this new path to change.

In the next section of her speech, Murray reviews a little history and reminds us how the voters feel about our Iraq war misadventures:

In November, Americans voted for an end to this. They voted for Congress to stand up . . .

Once Congress was up, Democrats could then demand to know where, exactly, the opposition was doing its standing:

We forced Republicans to make clear to Americans where they stood on the war.

In a rhetorical question, Murray makes it clear that the Iraqis, too, should get off their duffs:

Are they for allowing Iraqis to continue shirking responsibility, or for forcing them to stand up?

The Iraqis can apparently take a lesson from the way in which Republicans and Democrats stand:

Congressional Republicans refused to criticize the escalation. They stood by the President, and attacked anyone who spoke against the surge. But Congressional Democrats stood strong.

Murray loses a rhetorical opportunity when she fails to combine her speech's major metaphors: that is, you can't move forward in Iraq until you're at least on your feet. Be that as it may be, she doesn't fail to remind us how Bush should have interpreted the previous appropriations bill they sent him:

We hoped he would realize it was the best way forward in Iraq.

Alas, Bush vetoed the bill, and while we might think the new bill is a sign that Democrats have backed down, Murray assures us:

[M]ore and more of our colleagues on the other side are beginning to stand up to the President, demanding benchmarks and a timeline for change in Iraq.

To console us, Murray recounts the good things in this new bill:

So today we have a bill that:

• Takes a step forward toward changing course in Iraq.
  
• Forces the White House to acknowledge the will of the American people, and the role of Congress.
  
• Pressures Iraqis to stand up . . .
  

Murray explains that because a bill that included benchmarks would have been vetoed by the President, "we're moving ahead." In the meantime, "Americans will continue to hear where Republicans stand on this war."

To clarify her larger foreign policy objectives, Murray says we "need to refocus our fight back to the war on terror, and we need to rebuild our military." While the idea of a war on an emotion--in this case "terror"--makes about as much sense as a "war on sullenness" or a "war on irascibility," Murray nonetheless spouts this Bush-era propaganda and assures us that she supports "a new direction in Iraq so that we can focus on the larger security challenges our country faces."

Of course, all long journeys require a first step, and Murray concludes the Iraq war section of her speech by reminding us just where it has to take place:

Redeploying our troops from Iraq is a critical first step toward getting our priorities straight. It is a step that the Senate must take. Just as passing this bill today is a step we must take.

The first question we might reasonably ask is: who, exactly, writes this drivel?

Beyond that, we might wonder how someone displaying such poverty of thought managed to get herself appointed fourth-ranking Democrat in the Senate. Never mind the obvious lack of logic in arguing that she's supporting the troops by voting to continue to put them in harm's way. Never mind the disingenuousness of arguing that she's "standing up" to Bush by acceding to his demands. And never mind that she's employing the very language Bush uses against Democrats to say that she's resisting him. All that is sadly common among Congressional Democrats these days. My question is: how is it that someone so lacking in genuine intellectual effort can be a leading voice for Democrats in the Senate?

In Washington State, we Democrats are not lacking in intelligent, serious-minded public servants who know how to craft policy, pass legislation, and explain their positions articulately. We can't do better than Patty Murray?