Redstate

By streiff Posted in Republicans — Comments (1) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Today’s Wall Street Journal runs a story (subscription only) headlined Democrats' Bill Pays For Surge, Sets Limit. In it we get some details of the Son-of-Slow-Bleed strategy that Murtha and his cronies have cooked up to ensure US defeat in Iraq and our own Academic Elephant covers the bill in detail here.

More troubling than this expected and run-of-the-mill perfidy is that some Republicans, apparently including former speaker Denny Hastert, actually think it’s a good idea.

Read on.

The strategy is a complicated three-cushion bank shot that probably won’t survive its encounter with a Conference Committee.

The crucial language, threatening an earlier withdrawal, appears more of a policy statement than a strict use of the power of the purse, because the funding bill itself runs out Sept. 30. But [Rep. David] Obey says the goal is "to put in print what the limits of our patience are with the Iraqi politicians on the military and the political front."

The basic structure would call for the president to certify if the Iraqi government had met specified political and military benchmarks by Oct. 1. If Mr. Bush can't certify such progress, the U.S. would withdraw forces over the next 180 days. If Mr. Bush feels the standards have been met, withdrawal wouldn't begin until next spring.

Nowhere, you might notice, is the idea of long term US involvement contemplated. Rather than Slow Bleed this is Hare-versus-Tortoise on the way to the roof of the embassy in the Green Zone.

As I said, given the inherent gutlessness of the national Democrat party and the infatuation its supporters have for American defeats and consigning our allies to various killing fields none of this is surprising. In fact, this might, by comparison to the Democrat proposals that have circulated, even qualify as statesmanship.

What is disappointing is the reaction of former speaker Hastert.

Republicans are threatening to withhold their votes, which puts a greater burden on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to hold her party together. Defeat of the bill would be a dangerous victory for Republicans, because in the next few months the Pentagon will run short of money needed for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan through the rest of the fiscal year ending Sept. 30. "If the president is stuck and needs money to fund the war, you don't shoot the burro that's carrying it," said Rep. Dennis Hastert (R., Ill.), Ms. Pelosi's predecessor in the speaker's chair.

This is not only fatuous but dangerous and represents the process-over-principle thinking that toppled Hastert from the speakership.

The article is correct, this is a tough vote for Democrats because they will be on record as voting to require a US withdrawal. Contrary to the article, this is an easy victory for Republicans.

In a worst case scenario, the Department of Defense will proceed under a series of smaller appropriations or with a continuing resolution. Most likely, if the bill passes, the withdrawal language will not survive a conference committee. Ideally, defeating this bill will set up another vote and another and another where Democrats are forced to choose between defunding the war this year or alienating the moonbats who are expecting to be danced with.

We should be forcing these votes, shooting “burros” left and right if need be, and not giving Pelosi and Murtha political cover.