Another Gift for the 'Defeatocrats'

Over the last few years, the Democrats have been given huge caches of political ammunition that should have cemented their prospect of turning the red Congress blue again. Illegal wiretapping, the (ongoing) Katrina debacle, the continuing instability of Afghanistan, the right's total disregard of the climate crisis, massive fraud, graft, theft and corruption surrounding nearly every aspect of the illegal Iraq war, and so on and so on. In every case, Democrats have demonstrated an uncanny ability to take a stick of political dynamite and transmogrify it into a firecracker. And not even an M-80 or something, but a ladyfinger. It's pathetic.

Once again, they have been gifted a doozie: Pakistan, our 'ally' in the 'War on Terror', has signed a 'peace deal' with the Taliban who hide within their borders. Even better, Major General Shaukat Sultan Khan informs ABC News that Pakistan would opt not to take Osama bin Laden into custody, as long as he behaves himself "like a peaceful citizen".

If the Democrats can't -- or won't -- use this (and a million other indicators of the incomprehensible levels of incompetence and disingenuousness of the Bush Administration) to reexert Congress' rightful role as a check against executive power, then they are truly useless.

In a sane America, the primary question on voters' minds would not be whether candidate X supports Bush's wars or not, but whether candidate X supports Bush's (then Cheney's) impeachment.

I can only hope that once they've retaken Congress after November's elections, impeachment will be at or near the top of their priorities. If not, they will have proven one of the White House's talking points against them, namely that they suffer too high a testicular deficit to be effective warriors against a monstrous enemy, in this case, the Bush junta.

Update: Pakistan has denied the notion that bin Laden would not be apprehended if found in Pakistan. The claim is that the ABC News interview misquoted Maj Gen Sultan. Seeing the transcript, it's not hard to see how the guy could have been misunderstood:

Q. ABC News: If Bin Laden or [Ayman al-] Zawahri were there, they could stay?

A. Gen Sultan: No-one of that kind can stay. If someone is there he will have to surrender, he will have to live like a good citizen, his whereabouts, exit travel would be known to the authorities.

Q. ABC News: So, he wouldn't be taken into custody? He would stay there?

A. Gen Sultan: No, as long as one is staying like a peaceful citizen, one would not be taken into custody. One has to stay like a peaceful citizen and not allowed to participate in any kind of terrorist activity.

That 'No' at the end was apparently interpreted to be an answer to the first question of the pair ("So he wouldn't be taken into custody?") rather than the second ("He would stay there?"). I think Sultan deserves the benefit of the doubt and would agree that bin Laden couldn't be considered to be a 'peaceful citizen', aside from a semantic argument over the meaning of the word 'citizen'.

Still -- my point stands. If BushCo is willing to allow Pakistan to adopt a laissez-faire stance toward a tribal region that might be harboring bin Laden, they are vulnerable to a full-frontal attack, assuming the American people can be reminded that Osama bin Laden is still alive and is actually culpable for the attacks of 9/11, rather than Saddam Hussein. While they're at it, it might behoove the Democrats to remind voters that BushCo let bin Laden get away in the first place, favoring the Iraq invasion as their centerpiece for the 'war on terror'. But really, who can blame them? Iraq would have been a total piece of cake if it hadn't been for all the liberals and abortionists and gays and the like blaming America first and emboldening the insurgency. (Golly gee, as Rumsfeld would say -- I should start up a right-wing blog. That hackneyed brain-dead shit is so easy!)