I'm trying to think of a better way to characterize Rangel's remarks. How does one capture his apparent belief that they have no responsibility whatsoever to address Iraq in any way:
So now that the Democrats have won control of Congress, what should they do about the war in Iraq?
“I never understand that question,” answered Charlie Rangel, the incoming chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. “You have a President that’s in deep shit. He got us into the war, and all the reasons he gave have been proven invalid, and the whole electorate was so pissed off that they got rid of anyone they could have, and then they ask, ‘What is the Democrats’ solution?’”
Am I being too harsh? I suppose a defender of Rangel would argue that since there's no solution to it, there's no reason to address it.
I imagine that the logical extension of this is that the Democrats should offer no criticism of the President regarding Iraq, nor attempt to interfere in any way with his prosecution of the remainder of the conflict.
Does Mr. Rangel not believe that the American people selected the Democrats to lead in Washington? If not, he better be prepared to surrender his Ways and Means Committee chairmanship.
Back to the top.