Advice for the President: how to handle the antiwar Democrats.

No, really.

I read with some interest this article which describes a supposed Blue-on-Blue fight looming over the upcoming reduction of troops:

Congressional Democrats’ misgivings about President Barack Obama’s plan to reduce troop levels in Iraq has set the stage for potentially major conflicts between Capitol Hill and the White House in the months ahead.

Obama’s announcement Friday that he will leave between 35,000 and 50,000 troops in Iraq after August 2010 brought lukewarm responses from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

Both leaders have publicly questioned the decision to leave that many troops there indefinitely.

Also causing consternation is the president’s decision to finish the drawdown in 18 months. As a candidate, Obama had promised a complete withdrawal within 16 months.

Being a kind and generous soul who understands that we’re all in this together, on behalf of the neoconservative movement I am here to offer the President a little advice on how to keep antiwar legislators in line. We did it for eight years, after all; two of which were years where our party was ostensibly not the one running Congress. Heck, our best work was done between 2006-2008. So you can believe that we know that we’re talking about. Continue reading Advice for the President: how to handle the antiwar Democrats.

The curious incident of the antiwar movement in the night-time.

Please, by all means: assume that I’m equating them with dogs.

[UPDATE]: Welcome, Instapundit readers. Interested in DC School Choice Rally videos?

Whipped ones, in fact, as Environmental Republican demonstrates (via Glenn Reynolds). You see, he went looking for the Usual Antiwar Suspects’ outrage at the drone strikes in Pakistan, and discovered… well, that apparently it wasn’t really worth noting at all, really. His conclusion?

So what con we surmise from this little investigation? How about the left-wing of this country is populated with hypocritical ideologues who not only hated Bush but had a severe dislike for America. Now that they have a leader who they feel a kinship with, well, it’s all good.

You shouldn’t be surprised: the terrorists that got attacked weren’t Europeans – which is my polite way of saying that they weren’t sufficiently white and Western for the groups running the antiwar movement to particularly care, especially since caring might embarrass a President who isn’t a Republican. Was that too harsh? No? OK, let’s try again: the antiwar movement is run by racists who only like brown people when they can be used as clubs with which to beat anybody to the antiwar movement’s Right.

Well, anyone to their Right, and Jews. A quick perusal of the major players in question indicates that they’re all really upset that Israel isn’t baring its collective neck for the knife.

Moe Lane

PS: If you won’t respect yourself, don’t expect me to respect you, either.

Crossposted to RedState.