Redstate

pass the popcorn... can I have a beer while you're at it?

By streiff Posted in Democrats — Comments (3) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Yesterday the scrappy but embattled Senate Majority Leader took time out from managing his real estate empire to hold a "test vote" on a proposal to cut off funding for the war in Iraq. The vote was on an amendment to a water bill and was defeated by a vote of 67-29 In the words of the NY Times.:

Congressional Democratic leaders signaled on Wednesday that they were ready to give ground to end an impasse with President Bush over war spending after the Senate soundly rejected a Democratic plan to block money for major combat operations in Iraq beginning next spring.

The 67-to-29 vote against the proposal demonstrated that a significant majority of Senators remained unwilling to demand a withdrawal of forces despite their own misgivings and public unease over the war.

Read on.

The proposed amendment was clean and straightforward:

a) TRANSITION OF MISSION.--The President shall promptly transition the mission of United States forces in Iraq to the limited purposes set forth in subsection (d).

(b) COMMENCEMENT OF SAFE, PHASED REDEPLOYMENT FROM IRAQ.--The President shall commence the Iraq that are not essential to the limited purposes set forth in subsection (d). Such redeployment shall begin not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

(c) PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS.--No funds appropriated or otherwise made available under any provision of law may be obligated or expended to continue the deployment in Iraq of members of the United States Armed Forces after March 31, 2008.

(d) EXCEPTION FOR LIMITED PURPOSES.--The prohibition under subsection (c) shall not apply to the obligation or expenditure of funds for the limited purposes as follows:

(1) To conduct targeted operations, limited in duration and scope, against members of al Qaeda and other international terrorist organizations.

(2) To provide security for United States infrastructure and personnel.

(3) To train and equip Iraqi security services.

What this shows is that for all the tough talk Senate democrats are unwilling to go out on the limb and actually vote to back up their anti-war rhetoric.

I suspect that they nervously check the headlines each day and are paralyzed with the fear that Petraeus's new emphasis on counterinsurgency rather than hunkering down is actually working. How will it look in 2008 if Iraq is stabilized and they face the voters having pressed for a premature withdrawal? Not good, they are thinking.

They know if the situation does not improve that there is still time to vote on another bill to cutoff funding, and to conduct that vote much closer to the 2008 elections to put Republicans on the spot.

So, why am I passing the popcorn?

House democrats found out how impatient the anti-war Frankenstein's monster they've created when they voted to continue funding the war but with a timeline for withdrawal. Reid's announcement after the vote can hardly make them any happier than they were after the House vote:

After the vote, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader and a co-sponsor of the Feingold plan, said he was committed to delivering legislation acceptable to Mr. Bush by the end of next week. He conceded that the compromise was likely to disappoint war opponents who had pushed Congress to set a pullout date.

“On this issue, Democrats in the Senate start with 49 votes, and the opposition has 50, so it is a little hard to flex your muscles too much when you start one vote behind,” said Mr. Reid, referring to the general split on war issues in the Senate.

As very few in the anti-war movement can count to 50 and seem to think shouting "mandate" in an ever louder voice means something other than the onset of schizophrenia, I think both Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are going to be in for a fun few weeks.