Democrats: Political Eunuchs On The Iraq War
By haystack Posted in Defeat | Democrats | Iraq | power grab | retreats — Comments (36) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
So says CQ's John M. Donnelly [subscription] anyway. Apparently, given their complete failure to force President Bush into a precipitous withdrawal and surrender, the Democrats have taken beating after beating from their kook fringe wing nuts and find themselves now in search of a new way to "frame" this "Iraq business" in a way they hope will garner votes and campaign donations in time for November.
Chastened by their failure to change President Bush’s Iraq War policies last year, anti-war Democrats are pondering a shift in their strategy.
Many Democrats expect a concentration on measures that would limit Bush’s war policies, rather than demand troop withdrawals, and fewer votes overall on the war this election year. In addition to guaranteeing a congressional role in any U.S.-Iraq security accord, these policy targets range from tightening controls over private contractors to ensuring minimum amount of rest and readiness for deploying troops, ideas that also were debated last year and drew some Republican support.
"I don’t think the passion of any of us who are against the war has decreased at all," said Jim McGovern of Massachusetts, a leader among anti-war Democrats in the House.
But he added that many Democrats were now trying "to get behind what we think can be passed. . . . Those of us who want this war to end are interested in concrete votes vs. engaging in votes just for the sake of therapy. It’s not the quantity, it’s the quality I’m interested in."
I have a suggested means of therapy, though I doubt any of these clowns would heed my call...but I digress...
You know, there's a striking parallel between this Congress and the Parliament in Iraq the Democrats are so wont to vilify. Poor legislation after poor legislation. Failed vote after failed vote. Failed compromise after failed compromise. Failed progress after failed progress. Disappointed constituencies and unbearable stalemate and bitter partisanship. I wonder...if we swapped them out, legislator for legislator, would we notice any difference? My bet is yes-at least the Iraqis are suffering fits and starts over trying to BUILD a country rather than trying to tear one apart.
The Democrats insist their threats to abandon support of the Iraqi Government has been the cause, moreso than the surge, of political progress there. If that is to become the proven mechanism for improving the performance of a stalled Government, perhaps such a technique might be considered here in the good ole U S of A...savvy? Well, it was a thought at least.
More fun and frivolity below the fold...
It's worth noting that the Democrats are looking to make sure they have a couple token fools taking up the other side of this failed strategy. Planning to to have Okinawa Jack and Barbara Lee (among others) continue beating the dead "withdrawal" horse, the Democrats appear set to game each side of their 3-sided coin hoping ANY outcome can be claimed as the one they planned all along:
Not all Democrats are on the same page over the more limited anti-war legislative strategy. Some, such as Barbara Lee of California and John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania, say they will continue pushing for measures that include withdrawal timelines.
"Whether there are more votes or less votes on timelines, that’s not the issue," said Lee, a leader of the party’s progressive wing, which comprises roughly one-third of the Democratic Caucus. "The issue is, are we moving the Congress in a direction where the administration has to once again be confronted? It’s important to have a host of bills."
How party leaders approach the issue is still taking shape. House Democrats begin a three-day retreat on Jan. 30 in Williamsburg, Va., where the party’s anti-war strategy is likely to be discussed.
That right there is a thing of beauty folks...the Dims planning a retreat to strategerize...
wait for it...
How to retreat.
AWESOME plan there guys and gals. Well done. Best of all the lunatics that eat up all this Liberal proselytizing didn't even "catch" that nuance.
Donnelly continues:
Behind the push within the party to shift its anti-war strategy are several new factors that have changed the political landscape. With Bush’s so-called surge strategy reducing U.S. casualties in Iraq, the domestic economy has now eclipsed the war as the top issue on voters’ minds. As a result, many Democrats are feeling somewhat less pressure to bring the troops home.
At the same time, anti-war activist groups have decided that last year’s Democratic approach of repeatedly forcing votes for withdrawal that ultimately failed in the Senate — where Republicans have the numbers to block any such legislation — is no longer viable. This year, they want to hold fewer such votes, placing greater emphasis on bills that stand a better chance of passing.
"I think people will keep pushing for [Iraq policy changes], but not multiple votes, that’s the difference," said John Isaacs, executive director of the Council for a Livable World, one of the anti-war groups.
Against that backdrop, Republicans now openly mock the Democrats as political eunuchs on the Iraq War.
Perhaps the most accurate and just representation Democrats...and of where they have taken this country in a time of war when we are all supposed to be pulling together and making whatever sacrifice necessary to see it through to an ultimate victory...eunuch captures it perfectly.
"All show, and no go" as we like to say around here - yep...them's the Dems all right.
I'm intrigued by this passage as well:
Democratic leaders have gone from calling for Iraq votes every week to refusing to say when they will schedule another," said Kevin Smith, spokesman for Minority Leader John A. Boehner, R-Ohio.
Combined with this:
With a war funding supplemental not expected to see action until this spring, Democrats have a few months before they take up any Iraq-related spending legislation.
Which I take to mean they don't want to talk about it and they aren't going to provide any further badly needed financial assistance to help get done sooner with finishing things up over there and letting us pull back as the Iraqis assume security control across the remainder of the country. Great plan, huh? The do-nothing Congress and their spellbinding strategy to facilitate their own foregone conclusions...what a way to run a country.
This just about sums it up for me:
Democrats are demanding a role for Congress in a final accord. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York introduced a bill (S 2426) in December that would effectively require the White House to submit any agreement to the Senate as a treaty for ratification. In the House, Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut filed a similar measure (HR 4959) on Jan. 15.
Also possible are measures that would strengthen oversight of war contractors and require the Pentagon to report to Congress on any plans to redeploy troops. There are also bills that would reduce the mission of U.S. troops in Iraq to training Iraqi security forces, fighting terrorists and protecting U.S. personnel. Additional Democratic priorities include measures to help veterans, especially those wounded in battle, and military families in general, aides said.
In advance of the party retreat, Murtha, chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, vowed to reprise many of his assaults on Bush’s war policy, suggesting that the Democrats’ discussion of their strategy was likely to be contentious.
Last year, Murtha wrote bills that would have set a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, required more time at home for troops between deployments and banned torture of detainees. If those fail again this year, he said, Congress will turn to addressing the training, equipment and health care shortfalls facing the military in the United States.
"We have to continue to force the administration to recognize the reality of the problems we have in the Army back at home," he said.
I have said for quite some time now that the Democrats were after two things preparing for and executing to plan in the run-up to 2006...usurp the powers afforded to the Commander in Chief in accordance with the Constitution they seem content to consider a list of "guidelines" rather than finite rules to govern by...and lose the war at all costs while making it look like the Republican's fault assuming their personal electoral success would be the by-product.
They may not achieve the second goal in this list, despite every effort; the US Military is just too good to be stopped by Democrats. If, however, they succeed with their first goal of usurping the President's powers to wage wars by assuming control over Military Security agreements, control of Defense contractors, and ultimate control over mission strategies and deployment and resource planning...they will have destroyed the powers of the Executive to quickly and forcefully defend and protect the nation from all enemies foreign and domestic.
How long do you think the Democrats would have taken to get through retreats and committees and hearings before a shot was fired by us in the aftermath of 9/11?
Yeah-that's what I think too...
« It Is Hard And Complex — Comments (26) | The Senate GOP Leadership Embraces the Minority — Comments (27) »
Democrats: Political Eunuchs On The Iraq War 36 Comments (0 topical, 36 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
I'm 23 years old and lean liberal. I'm trying to wrap my mind around the ideas we are in Iraq right now, and after the failed search for weapons and the shredding of a dictatorship to instill our American ways of democracy, I think it's our time to leave. As far as the GOP goes, I would support Ron Paul, who catches most flack from the party. He makes a great point in stating we have been attacking this country for 10 years. How would our country react if we were attacked for that long? I understand no one likes war, and at times it is necessary. But I think we need to admit when the job is not ours to do, and moreso why should we instill our views on a culture we don't truly understand? I have been chosen as a citizen journalist for www.purplestates.tv and www.newyorktimes. Check out my blogs there, and please feel free to let me know how you all feel.
citizen journalist for the NYT? Well, then, given your opinions on the war in Iraq and your support for Ron Paul, I'd say you just won the trifecta for being in the exact wrong place for mentioning any of this.
We support the war in Iraq here--big-time. We don't support the NYT---big-time. You must have taken a right turn when you meant to take a left on your way to Daily Kos. See ya.
It will be helpful for you to know that we are not, in fact, "attacking" Iraq. We are, at the moment, helping the democratically elected government of Iraq fight terrorists.
The war "against" Iraq has been over for some time now, whether you define the end as the toppling of Saddam's statue, Saddam's execution, or a big banner saying: "Mission Accomplished," they all work for me.
P.S., pass that along to Mr. Paul if you see him.
So, even if you are a Ron Paul fan, there's no particular reason for you to hate 'em.
Drift.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
While I do agree with you maybe 70% of the time (Okay, maybe 50% of the time), I do wish you would do me the favor of "disabling my account". I get so angry at some of the responses sometimes (several posts) that I do wish that I can NOT respond. I have been requesting this several times, but to no avail (I also do not want the unwanted email). Maybe you could help me? Unusual request I know...heh.
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
Click it, and you'll be no longer able to comment on the site - until you log back in, of course, but that should help you maintain.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
I lack the fortitude to refrain from logging in to counter the idiocy of some of the posts. I need your help... Come on, be a pal...
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
that we have left in the race, Lousy republicans in name only! Same as you by the way... Just what does it take for you folks to remove me from this site? You bunch of phony Republicans... If this is not enough, I can get worse... your choice.
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
You've really come to the wrong site. If you find it, please let me know. As it is, you still have a ways to grow in your analysis, but if you're seeking to understand why the war was fought, and what we should do now, then at least you've got that going for you.
Keep asking questions, its the only way to learn, but understand that the most important questions you have to answer for your self.
The truth can only be found by those who seek it.
Actually, that's not a suggestion: it's an instruction. You are quite done with insulting your hosts, Spidercrash. Do it again and your account goes away.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
I didn't think I was insulting anyone. This is a site for Conservative Republicans. Any debate will be limited by that fact. I understand the rationale of trying to keep a debate within reason and sometimes people are just fundamentally too divided on an issue that it takes quite a bit of time to find the right part to begin.
But we as a nation have become increasingly polarized. Were too afraid of offending anyone at work by talking about politics and then jump on a website were 90 % of the people agree with us. We need to do more than to just preach to the choir, we need to evangelize. And to evangelize, we need to understand the other point of view.
I understand this is not the website to do that. Thats what I thought I just said.
The truth can only be found by those who seek it.
it was only the responses of some here that should nothave happened. A good conservative is always welcome. Don't let MOE (resident liberal) dissuade you.
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
was responding to or you are being an asshole. Either way, you owe spidercrash an apology. You should own up to your mistake and let him know either way. He sounds like a solid conservative to me...
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
If you liberal, you'll never manage it. To manage it, you first have to be able to glimpse a culture that dates back to the 14th century (even further back if you want to fathom it) and I've never met a liberal who could glimpse 100 years ago let alone the 14th Century. Oh, they may be able to recite facts and figures, they may be able to regurgitate theories about why this or that happened, but they never understand it at the level where they can SEE why it happened and gain insight into something else and explain why some other thing happened. There's something in the brain that blocks that understanding if you are a liberal. Even your very remark that we have been attacking them for 10 years marks your failure of understanding. Ten years is a pittance to them. Ten years is how long they planned, tried, and planned again before they finally blew up the World Trade Center. Even the current crop of radical islamofascists goes back 60-70 years to WWII. They are the direct descendants of the fascists and nazis who escaped to the middle east. Ultimately, the terrorist seeds spring from the 14th century when Islam WAS spread by the sword. The early crusades were a DEFENSE against the Islamic invasion of Europe, because the enemy kept breeding and coming and the only way to stop it was to take the war to his home country. This fight is CENTURIES old, and you consider 10 YEARS a long time?
Would I rather not be nation building in Iraq? D*** skippy I wouldn't. But after 9-11, I can see the strategic need to do so, and where the fight goes after that, and what we eventually need to do to win it. And I can see that I need to not explain that strategy in the open, so that others who do understand it can continue to work on it because our enemies don't explicitly know what we are doing to overthrow them. We didn't start this fight, but it is up to us to finish it. And finishing it starts in Iraq.
Iustum et tenacem propositi virum non civium ardor prava iubentium, non vultus instantis tyranni mente quatit solida.
-Quintus Horatius Flaccus
This really shouldn't be that hard for the Dems to express.
to express it, but it would be called "honesty" and they just don't do that particular one at all well. I'd faint dead away if I actually heard them say something that forthright!
So three takeaways Hay;
Hillary sponsored a bill? What's that make it three now? She is guaranteed to keep the current average on bills sponsored and actually passed.
Second, I am confused. They try to starve our troops first. Now they want to provide more money for training and equipment (which Republicans have provided all along). Train for what?
Lastly, Democrats still have obviously not read the Constitution.Running the war is an enumerated executive role.
Same tact, same Congress. We need a majority change.
"Nec Aspera Terrent"
bene ambula et redambula
Contributor to The Minority Report
Iustum et tenacem propositi virum non civium ardor prava iubentium, non vultus instantis tyranni mente quatit solida.
-Quintus Horatius Flaccus
Troops fight harder without food and ammo.
Then, when forced to withdraw, they will appreciate rations, training and equipment more.
And that training can be used to set up the various refugee camps and then deploy against al-Qaeda & Co when they go forth from their new stronghold in Iraq.
The Iraq government to set up some "benchmarks" for OUR yahoos in Congress?
Betting ours would prove out to be less effective then theirs...
I don't think we are totally out of the woods yet. According to Eric's post today, they might actually get the last laugh.
amend the Constitution through an act of Congress by mangling the President's war powers, the same Constitution they never stop declaring their love for, and assuming credit for victory while herniating themselves for catastrophic defeat.
It's great being a liberal, just let the marbles roll around inside your head and whichever way they settle you're right.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
called the Dems problem on this and most issues frankly in December of 2006. He pointed out that they have way too many factions to govern effectively and he highlighted Iraq as just such a problem. The problem for the Dems is while they may have a majority, their factions never agree. The so called Blue Dogs are against a withdrawal and they side with the Reps. Suddenly on that issue, they are in the minority. If you look at most issues, their factions cause them to effectively be a minority. That is why they couldn't get anything passed on Iraq or otherwise. Here is how I wrote about this phenomenon.
Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor
The Democrats have had a majority for just one year, the Republicans have had complete control for 6 years before. That's a fact.
In 2007, the Administration finally, with the surge, adopted a "clear and hold" strategy. Good on them for that but this was proposed at the outset of this war. The Republican Congress had plenty of opportunity to push this working strategy early on but they didn't. It is working now.
You excoriate the Dems for being soft and pushing withdrawal. They are, and that is a fact too. But the status quo continues and the Dems, however you characterize them, have just made noise and kept a foot on each side of the line. Pretty ineffective.
The Commander in Chief concept, is clearly defined and I agree with you completely. However, as with all endeavors, and especially in a Democracy, the Commander must be a leader and garner the support of all the People. Polls show this is not the case and this is why there is a stark divide with respect to this war.
The Founding Fathers, in their wisdom, divided and limited power for each branch of government. Congress has much power with regard to war, it's just that for the last 50 years they chose not to exercise it. (mostly for political reasons) This abrogation of responsibility does not automatically transfer that power to the Executive but it does give the Executive extra latitude to act and move on threats on a longer term. But, in a protracted involvement, the President still needs to make the case to all the People. That has not been accomplished.
So, while the Dems have much to answer for, the Republican's hands are not clean on this either. The political reality is that with all the bad economic news of late, the near trillion dollar cost of the war will sour much of the electorate. This President is having difficulty making the case and economics will ultimately end our involvement in Iraq. The Dems will not have done anything but will take the credit if it turns their way. Sad, but likely.
I do appreciate your fervor on this and I applaud your convictions. I just think that without a Commander in Chief who truly leads our efforts in Iraq will end. Many have already accepted this.
Did Congress tell or direct Woodrow Wilson on the conduct of WWI, Lincoln during the Civil War, or for that matter Roosevelt in WWII? I don't think it's so much a matter of abdication as it is Article II, Section II as well as that forgotten force called tradition.
But regardless, the original post indicates an unwarranted and sure to be botched grab for power. War is not managed by parliaments or legislatures, as Oliver Cromwell could have said, and probably did.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
I'm still waiting for the left wing nut jobs to find a field out in the middle of nowhere and hold an anti Iraq War peace rally. (AKA Sex and Drugs Fest)
Lets hold our purple fingers in high in the air for the MoveOn and DailyKos crowd.
Now that Bush's new strategy in Iraq is working what are democrats going say. I can't wait until the hearing with Petraeus
Liberty and Freedom In Iraq = VICTORY
Congress threatened to do all sorts of things to Lincoln during the war.
The truth can only be found by those who seek it.
I would imagine Congress threatened Lincoln, particularly after a sitting Congressman, Valindingham, was arrested and deported out of state. Suspension of habeas corpus, calling the militia up, without Congressional consultation even, yes I'm sure they threatened him. But who was Commander-in Chief ?
My point above.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
there can be enough comic justice in this world that the Dems last vote on withdrawal from this war might fall on the very day that we finish handing over the last Iraqi province to the Iraqi Army? I'll bring the popcorn--the Dems will provide the entertainment complete with big clown shoes, red noses (see Jack Murtha and Ted Kennedy), and long stupid speeches saying exactly nothing.
As for the lot of them doing all they can to tie up the executive powers to protect and defend this country, well, that one's got to be stopped regardless, needless to say. Given their track record so far, I'm betting on our guys on this one.