Harry Potter Vs. The Democrats

NonParty Politics couldn’t help but notice the similarities between the the long awaited, movie, Harry Potter And The Order Of The Phoenix, and the debate currently going on in American politics:
The wonderfully sardonic, condescending and controlling Umbridge, played by Imelda Staunton, embodies every shameful ounce of Democratic obfuscation and denial when it comes to the war on terror. She contains elements of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Jack Murtha, and John Edwards in her persistent and eager desire to reduce any hint of danger to mere misunderstanding or hyperbole, seeking to silence dissenters (Through the implementation of torturous quills, if necessary).

I agree. I mean, check out this exchange:
Dolores Umbridge: Your previous instruction in this subject has been disturbingly uneven. But you will be pleased to know from now on, you will be following a carefully structured, Ministry-approved course of defensive magic. Yes?

Hermione Granger: There’s nothing in here about using defensive spells.

Dolores Umbridge: Using spells? Ha ha! Well I can’t imagine why you would need to use spells in my classroom.

Ron Weasley: We’re not gonna use magic?

Dolores Umbridge: You will be learning about defensive spells in a secure, risk-free way.

Harry Potter: Well, what use is that? If we’re gonna be attacked it won’t be risk-free.

Dolores Umbridge: Students will raise their hands when they speak in my class.[pauses]

Dolores Umbridge: It is the view of the Ministry that a theoretical knowledge will be sufficient to get you through your examinations, which after all, is what school is all about.

Harry Potter: And how is theory supposed to prepare us for what’s out there?

Dolores Umbridge: There is nothing out there, dear! Who do you imagine would want to attack children like yourself?

Harry Potter: I don’t know, maybe, Lord Voldemort!

In case some of you thicker readers missed the parallels, I thought it might be instructive to just change the names, and a few of the words, leaving the essence of the exchange intact.

Senator Reid: Your performance in Iraq has been disturbingly uneven. The war is lost. But you will be pleased to know, that Congress has voted to send you home by Sept. ’08 at the very latest, and from now on, we take a defensive posture, yes?

American Soldier: So we wait until they hit us again… and then we hit them back?

Senator Reid: Hit them back? Ha ha! Well I can’t imagine why we’d want to do that!

American Soldier: We’re not hitting them back if they hit us?

Senator Reid: You’ll be learning how to take a defensive posture, in a secure, risk free way! And you can be one of the first responders!

American Soldier: Well, what use is that? If we’re gonna be attacked it won’t be risk free.

Senator Reid: Does anyone else have a question? (pauses).

Senator Reid: It is the view of congress that a theoretical knowledge of a defensive approach to all (perceived) threats is all we really need in the world today. Which, after all, is what living in our global community is all about.

American Soldier: And how is theory supposed to protect us from the threats that are out there?

Senator Reid: There’s nothing out there dear! Bushco has exaggerated the threat. Who do you imagine would want to attack a nice soldier like yourself?

American Soldier: I don’t know…maybe Al Qaida!