Despite the fact that they’ve done nothing of consequence to change the U.S. war effort in Iraq, Democrats are still talking about doing that, somehow, some way:
Frustrated by the lack of political progress in Iraq, under pressure by antiwar groups and mindful of polls showing that most Americans want the war to end, the Democrats last week put forward a $50 billion war spending bill with strings attached knowing it would fail.
…
All signs indicate that Democrats will continue proposing such measures as long as Mr. Bush remains in office and troops remain in Iraq. “We are going to keep plugging away,” said Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, chairman of the Armed Services Committee.
It would have been refreshing if Levin had said that Democrats are going to keep trying to pacify the left wing of their party by talking tough about doing something and then, at the last minute, pretending to decide not to for the next 15 months. It’s part of party policy to take this tack, even though following through on their rhetoric would be the height of irresponsibility. Small wonder they’ve accomplished nothing.
Yet there are some who would actually abandon Iraq to the jackals, namely one Christopher Dodd:
“The perception is that we are not leading on this issue. I get it every single day, wherever I go.”
Mr. Dodd said lawmakers should just stop financing for the war. “Congress has one authority here, and that’s the funding,” he said. “The founders never intended for us as a body together to manage a conflict.”
Happily, Dodd has about as much chance of becoming president as I do.
Dodd is right about Congress not being able to micro-manage war efforts. Senator Mel Martinez of Florida hits this nail right on the head:
“The commander in chief is the guy in charge of running a war, and they can’t affect that,” said Senator Mel Martinez, Republican of Florida. “And they are not going to get the votes to do what they are trying to do, so I don’t see why they continue.”
“The Democrats have been pursuing a very political agenda, rather than a get-things-done kind of agenda.”
Exactly. As the Times says:
[Democrats'] explanation for their latest foiled effort seemed to boil down to a simple question: “What else are we supposed to do?”
How about putting petty partisanship aside and doing what’s right for the future of both America and Iraq?
h/t memeorandum
That’s never going to happen Marc
It’s a good point: it’s all politics. They’re not trying to actually get things done. As I see it, they’re hoping that Americans continue to oppose the war so that they, in 08, cay say: we tried to end it, really we did!, but the Republicans made it impossible for us to do so.
“Vote Democrat!”
Etc.
If the Kos people (who seem to be the traffic directors in the Democrat Party at this time) are correct, the 2008 campaign will be run against George Bush and not the Republican contender.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/70978
Democrats Tell Moderates and Independents to Go To
Yesterday I repeated a question to the Democratic politicians that I had asked previously and have been waiting for an answer to, after showing what their choices were regarding Iraq:Via the New York Times we receive their answer.
Well, there you go, Marc. You still cling to the notion that the Iraq War is “what’s right for the future” of America despite the fact that there is no tangible evidence that going to war with Iraq has made this country one bit safer.
It certainly hasn’t made us any freer. But as the cost of the war approaches half a trillion dollars, it certainly has made us a lot poorer.
If one believes that a war in inherently just, then, yes, it makes sense for people to put their differences behind them and unite behind the war, and support it both in good times and in bad.
But if one believes that a war is inherently unjust (as many liberals, libertarians, and paleoconservatives do), then it makes little sense for he or she to support it.
Yeah - there *you go* Marc.
how dare you lol, it is much better for Dem’s to pretend to be against the war. Just enough to rack up votes that is.
The whole war stance, for or against, is moot at this point in the conflict. The time to be against, was before. That was a small percentage of the US population during the beginning. At this point in the War we are in the stage Huckabee talked of: you break it - you buy it. It is not going away in the near future which ever path we trod.
No…This isn’t consistent with how wars are supported. Think Vietnam. That war was supported by a majority of Americans until the drip…drip…drip of weekly loses with no end in sight gave rise to a majority against the war. Two Presidents gave Vietnam a go (well one to get it going and another to use it for political gain), but in the end it was the vast majority of the American people turning against it that gave Congress the nerve to begin cutting the funding and instituting timelines…
Do you remember that? If not then read this. This occupation could easily end the same way. Perhaps not the best way to end a bloody conflict, but when the CiC refuses to listen to Congress and the people, then it is up to them to take away his keys…
I lived through the Vietnam War Jim. I had relatives over there in it. One spent some time hosted by the VC. But you cant get him to talk much about it. The VC knew what real torture was. And there was three presidents that gave the Vietnam War a push. Kennedy, Johnson (the big push) and Nixon who won his election using the same anti-war rhetoric that the Democrats started with this war. But we screwed the pooch from start to finish in Vietnam, no doubt about it. And though every life lost in conflict is one life to many, comparing the loss of life totals of Vietnam is poor comparison. Our military losses are not even close. And the civilian life was horrendous before and after the way Nixon abandoned untold amounts of people to be slaughtered. We bought and paid for this war as a country because we were pissing and defecating in our pants after 9-11. WE now need to find a way out that does not leave us in a worse position than we already are and that leaves Uraq in a position to protect its sovereignty.