|That's some shoddy Congressing there, John
||[Sep. 3rd, 2011|12:21 pm]
Back in March when the Libyan revolution was just starting, I wrote to President Obama asking him to support NATO intervention in Libya. After a week or so, his office sent back a nice email saying he was planning to do exactly that. Among the many things I can fault President Obama for, his ability to reply to letters is not one of them.
And then there's my congressman, John Campbell (R-CA). Rep. Campbell has previously been mentioned on this blog for his campaign flyers promising to "reign in spending". At the same time I wrote Obama, I sent a similar message to Representative Campbell, the Spending King. I never heard back from him.
And, to be honest, if it had ended there, I probably would have come out with a slightly raised estimation of His Financial Majesty. After all, NATO did intervene in Libya, so the government must have been at least vaguely in favor, and short of checking the position of each elected official, some of that halo effect rubs off on everyone, including King John.
Except that I got an email from him. About a week and a half ago. That is, five months after I contacted it.
The Lord of Cash begins by thanking me for my message, and then goes on to talk about all the excellent work Representative Campbell has been doing in...trying to prevent NATO from effectively intervening in Libya. He details how he heroically sponsored the "Protect America From US Military Expenses In Libya Act", which would force the President to withdraw all American forces from Libya, and how bummed out he was that the House decided not to vote on it. Then he goes on to talk about how stupid "Obama's war" in Libya is, since it will waste billions of dollars, kill many American lives, and the president has "no military plan or exit strategy".
This, by the way, is the same John Campbell who cosponsored H Con Res 315, a bill with no other purpose other than to have the House of Representatives officially declare that the War in Iraq is GREAT and everyone who says maybe it shoulda been handled a little bit better is a whiny loser.
So, as I understand it, the Taxation Emperor believes that when a Republican president sponsors a war that does kill thousands of Americans, does cost trillions of dollars, does and get us inextricably embroiled in a quagmire from which there is no escape, that's fine and even deserves special Congressional acclaim - but when a Democratic president gets us in a war that ends with complete success on all objectives within five months with zero American casualties and less than a billion dollars spent, then John Campbell needs to sponsor bills to "protect" us from the outrageous cost of this irresponsible adventuring.
The Lord of Cash then continues by saying "If the Arab League or the UN wants to engage there, let them do it with their jets, their money, and their blood. They have plenty of all three."
So, first of all, the UN has jets now! "Plenty" of them, apparently! Awesome! I am sure tyrants and dictators are quailing before the unparalleled might of the UN Air Force. I can only hope the UN Navy has enough aircraft carriers to transport all their jets to all of the countries the UN declares war on. However, I want to go on record as saying I don't think the UN should get the Bomb. That's going too far, and if it began researches in that direction, I hope it would have the moral courage to place sanctions on itself.
I'm not sure that the Duke of Deficits actually comprehends how the UN works: that America would have to sponsor or at least support a UN resolution, and then American forces would have to go in under the UN flag to enforce that resoluion. That the UN isn't some vague "other" from the far-off exotic land of New York, but an international body that we Americans actually belong to.
The part about the Arab League is even worse. There's something here that seems just a bit...cavalier? ...dismissive? ...racist? The Arab League has "plenty of blood"? It almost sounds like he's saying "This is an Arab problem, so let the Arabs handle it, and if lots of people die, well, they're just Arabs". And I know this goes against my usual Principle of Charity, but I really don't see any other way of interpreting his remarks. Why, exactly, is this a duty for Egypt and Saudi Arabia but not the United States? Is it cause Arabs are supposed to care about Arabs and white people are supposed to only care about other white people? If there weren't at least a little of that sort of thinking going on, why does he think it's a Saudi or a Jordanian's duty to protect Libyan civilians from death squads, and his duty to "Protect America From US Military Expenses In Libya", to quote again the name of the latest bill he sponsored?
But leaving behind the Count of Consumption's deficient moral fiber, his attitude just floors me. Ignore my email for five months, and then send a reply telling me I'm wrong at exactly the moment when the war in Libya is being won? It's as if some staffer in his office hates him and is trying as hard as possible to present him in a good light.
Anyway, it just reinforces how happy I am that America is being run by courageous, principled people like Barack Obama (haha! gotcha! no, really...) rather than bumbling hypocritical morally decrepit rein-mispelling crypto-bears like John Campbell.