Democrats Try to Throw the War, Part Two
By streiff Posted in The White House — Comments (14) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
In the aftermath of the president’s veto of a patently unconstitutional defense supplemental bill last week, House democrats are busily at work in another attempt to guarantee US failure in Iraq and destroy American credibility with regional allies.
The question is now whether the Administration has the fortitude to face down this more serious challenge or will it default to its favored position when faced with determined democrat challenges: supine.
[UPDATE #2 by streiff]
Roy Blunt on the slo-mo surrender proposed by the democrats:
Key points:
"The idea that's been floated the last few days of not giving the Petraeus plan a chance to work - of having a second vote in July - seems to me to be the ultimate gift to a terrorist effort; the ultimate gift to an insurgent effort."
-- If Democrats are able to set a deadline to cut-off funds and withdrawal our troops, "the shorter that time period is, the more likely it is a terrorist group can meet it."
-- Democrats' plan puts "incredible, needless strings on the men and women we have serving in Iraq. It's an incredible gift to our enemies in Iraq. And beyond that, it doesn't give the Petraeus plan a chance to work."
[UPDATE by streiff] from AP:
President Bush would veto a bill drafted by House Democratic leaders that would fund the Iraq war only into the summer months, his spokesman said Wednesday.
The Democrats' proposal would pay for the war through July, then give Congress the option of cutting off money after that if conditions do not improve. Bush requested more than $90 billion to fund the war through September.
"There are restrictions on funding and there are also some of the spending items that were mentioned in the first veto message that are still in the bill," White House press secretary Tony Snow said on Air Force One traveling with Bush.
Asked directly if Bush would veto the House bill in its current form, Snow said, "Yes."
Read on.
I was pleasantly surprised with President Bush vetoed the Defense supplemental bill. It needed to be vetoed but as much as I admire President Bush, sticking to his guns in face of a democrat onslaught is not one of his stronger traits. The clucking of bipartisanship emanating from the White House left me queasy at the prospects.
We all knew, and least I think we did, that the previous bill was just the initial marker in what would be an extended period of negotiations. The democrats needed something to show the anti-American left that they were trying to end the war. The White House needed to do something to give the impression that they were not going to fold like a cheap suit. It was theater.
Now comes the deadly serious follow-on negotiations. According to the Washington Post:
A House Democratic proposal introduced yesterday that would give President Bush half of the money he has requested for the war effort, with a vote in July on whether to approve the rest, hinges on progress in meeting political benchmarks that Iraq has thus far found difficult to achieve.
The House measure, which could come to a vote as early as tomorrow, would substantially raise the pressure on Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government to meet lagging commitments -- including new laws on oil revenue and de-Baathification, constitutional revisions, provincial elections and the demobilization of militias -- that Bush has said are crucial to the success of the U.S. military strategy.
The plan would make about $43 billion of the administration's requested $95.5 billion immediately available to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, train troops from both nations and pay for other military needs. Congress's approval of the rest, intended to last through September, would await Iraqi passage of restructuring laws, or Bush's ability to prove that significant progress had been made. The July vote would mark the first time a mandatory funding cutoff would come before Congress.
This is a bad deal on a lot of levels and the White House should summarily dismiss this proposal as providing a basis for negotiations.
The bill only funds two and a half months of operations. This means that as soon as the president signs the bill there will be another round of negotiations beginning. It does nothing to remove the financial strain on the military, particularly the Army, which increases day by day and it does nothing to move us forward in Iraq.
Codifying a series of domestic political acts by the Iraqi government into US law is simply mindboggling. Iraq is a sovereign nation and should be allowed to negotiate significant changes to its constitution without micromanaging by an institution that can’t even pass a US budget on time. Worse than that it places al-Maliki in the impossible position of a US stooge effectively making the negotiations impossible.
If a bill was ever calculated to strengthen the hand of Moqtada al-Sadr and al Qaeda, it would be hard to imagine. All al-Sadr’s political bloc has to do is stonewall for two months and guarantee the removal of US forces. Al Qaeda can conduct its own surge of spectacular attacks on the Shi’a community and derail the negotiations.
A more duplicitous piece of legislation has not passed through the Congress since Jim Wright attempted to deliver Central America into the hands of Fidel Castro and his acolytes. The president needs to shut down even discussion of this dumbassery and insist that Congress either pass a supplemental that funds the war or pass a bill that mandates withdrawal.
« McClellan Originally Wanted to Attack Media, Defend Bush — Comments (5) | The Reagan Diaries — Comments (3) »
Democrats Try to Throw the War, Part Two 14 Comments (0 topical, 14 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
but the point is that unless the Administration demonstrates it will go to the mattresses on this issue it will be refighting the appropriations fight every other month for the next year and a half.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
"Veto"
During the last round, they made clear from the get-go that the bill would be vetoed if it contained any timetable language.
They've criticized this idea, but they haven't called it a non-starter. And I don't find that coincidental. If this bill makes its way through -- I don't think it will, BTW -- I imagine the president would sign it.
I don't think the major problem for the Dems this time is going to be the president. I think it's going to be their own caucus. Remember what they had to go through to get enough votes to pass the timetable bill. Pork, arm-twisting, threats, magic wands, etc.
And, even then, they had to come in just under the wire.
Assuming they don't get any significant Republican support for a short-fund bill, how in the world are they going to be able to convince the nose-holders from the timetable bill to now vote for a bill without a timetable?
I think the Democrats need to realize that unless they're willing to go all the way -- ie, not send the president a funding bill -- they're going to lose this fight.
It would not surprise me in the least to see them have to resort to the embarrassing option of soliciting Republican support for a passable, signable bill.
Good for them.
Call the Dems' bluff here. Now it will be interesting to see what actually moves forward in the House.
I'm still predicting a bill supported by Republicans, Blue Dog Democrats, and as many non-nutjob Democrats the leadership can bring into the fold as what will carry the day.
The Dems will just have to tell the nutroots that they tried the best they could. That should be fun to watch.
Using Bush as the brush. They want him to fight for every dollar and want the Republicans to have to support him on every appropriation. They are convinced that the war cannot be won by September and want the Republicans on record again and again supporting the war and the surge.
Truth is Life
goes on record - again and again - supporting al Qaeda and the folks who are murdering Iraqi civilians.
The Democratic leadership, and those who support them, are enabling butchers who are more dangerous and more committed to mass murder that Pol Pot ever was.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
the latitude to fight this war for the rest of his Presidency.
This Congressional kabuki dance threatens to kill our chances for a successful endstate in Iraq through thousands of legislative and PR paper cuts.
If you're a jihadhi, watching all this unfold on al Jazeera, Al Hurrah or CNN International, do you get the sense that America is determined to press this fight AT LEAST to the end of Bush's presidency? Or, do you sense an America looking for the first chance to jump ship? Tell me, which image inspires you (and depresses US allies in Iraq) more.
More than anything, the President of the United States is charged with creating the images and the message around which a nation (and its fighting sons and daughters) can rally.
streiff is right to criticize the Bush White House here. OK, so their PR efforts so far have largely fizzled. That doesn't mean it's ok to stop trying to inspire the nation! Especially with troops in the field.
With all due respect, Mr. President, get out there! USE that bully pulpit. Go before the American people, point out what the Dems are doing, and announce that you expect the Congress to stop micromanaging. Give speech after speech after speech if you have to. Expand your corps of Dan Bartletts, so your Administration is constantly on the cable talk shows, defending your positions and spreading your message. If necessary, CREATE some confrontations with the Dem Congress. If you don't put them on the defensive, they'll certainly put you on it. (Matter of fact, it seems that they already have). CALL OUT the David Gregorys and the Helen Thomases. SEIZE control of the public spotlight.
What do you have to lose? You leave office in 18 months, and become a de facto lame duck once the primaries kick off in... less than a year! And, as to your legacy...what, do you think Team Pelosi/Reid is really going to give you immigration reform or any legislative accomplishment you can honestly hang your hat on? Sir, they'll deny you simply for spite. Plus, their kooky kooky base demands some of your blood, and they haven't gotten enough yet.
Your best chance for a "legacy" is a successful endstate in Iraq. And here, you hold the key cards. You are our elected CINC, our troops are decisively engaged in the field already, and (arguably) a majority of the American people aren't ready to accept defeat. Plus, Europe shows signs of awakening to the existence of a global jihadhi threat, and recognizing that socialism is full of holes. With respect, you should play the strong cards you have decisively.
If you don't, may history judge you harshly. I suspect that many of those soldiers now in IZ/AF, who wonder in frustration why their homeland is not rallied and motivated in support of their fight, will.
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
Yes, smagar - you're comments are dead on! Thank you.
It becomes more and more obvious each and every day that there is a Liberal/Leftist jihad against conservative, libertarian and democratic values in this Country:
1. A full out attack by the Left to purposely lose the Iraq War
2. A concerted effort by the Left to remove any reference to or action against The Global War on Terror
3. A systematic dismantling of every protection put into place against further terrorism upon American soil
4. And now, a coup to further manipulate and pilfer the World's economic relief and funding efforts at the World Bank by George Soros and his hand puppet Mark Malloch Brown
Dark, dark days are ahead.
What if Al Qaeda announced a pullout date or timeline to withdraw. Would we declare victory or at least would it give us a significant boost in our effort? Of course.
Then why does the left say it doesn't matter to Al Qaeda if we have some timeline? My only answer I can think of is the left doesn't care.
If you always find yourself arguing the exceptions rather than the rule you just might be rapidly sliding down your own slippery slope to irrelevance. -CommonCents
or in other words, flee Iraq in an orderly fashion. This bill is just as veto-worthy as the last.
The reason Bush doesn't push his agenda harder with the American people is that he knows that is won't work. His credibility is shot. If he goes out there and pushes it he will be seen as pleading to give him another chance. It will make him look weaker not stronger. With his approval rating so low and his credibility so weak he will be negoitating with the American people from a postiion of weakness.
Another problem with a full throated attack against the Democrats is that the Republican politicans will probably sit on the fence. They won't risk any more of their political capital for Bush's legacy. Many moderate Republicans are already running away from the President. He cannot count on them.
The brutal truth is that the voting public has turned away from the war. The Democrats are just playing that string out. You have to wonder if they are overplaying it, but it shouldn't come as a surprise.
Truth is Life
His credibility is shot.
So says you. And Helen Thomas, Dan Froomkin, David Gregory and Kos. I say there's plenty of signs that, if he sets out to rally the American people to finish what we've started, he can get enough popular support to press this to the finish. Plenty of polls indicate the American people aren't ready to quit---they want to win. Does Team Pelosi/Reid offer an alterate path to victory? (Rhetorical question).
May I remind you that, the last time President Bush ran personally on his credibility as a war leader, he became the first US President in recent memory to win election with a real majority of the popular vote.
If he goes out there and pushes it he will be seen as pleading to give him another chance. It will make him look weaker not stronger. With his approval rating so low and his credibility so weak he will be negoitating with the American people from a postiion of weakness.
Again I think you're throwing in the towel way too early. (Did Kos send you? Joshua Michael Marshall?) Since the surge started, Sadr has gone into hiding, the Iraqi Parliament defianatly stood its ground after a suicide attack, Anbar Province has improved remarkably and Army reenlistment rates are quite good. Does that sound like a position of "weakness" to you. I'll concede, it's not a position of "strength." But it is progress.
Another problem with a full throated attack against the Democrats is that the Republican politicans will probably sit on the fence. They won't risk any more of their political capital for Bush's legacy. Many moderate Republicans are already running away from the President. He cannot count on them.
You're probably right that Congressional Republicans will hesitate to go eagerly out on a limb for this President. But, I doubt they'll back away from him if he presses them to publicly commit to the war effort. If they do...well, it's on them, then. You seem to be presuming they've already quit---I don't presume that at all.
The brutal truth is that the voting public has turned away from the war.
Turned for good? How can you be so sure?
Truth is Life
To quote the specialist AE met in Iraq: As for me, I'll choose the side of inspiration.
If you'd like to quit, Klaatuburada, feel free.
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
The Democrat Party ran a candidate for President in 2004, who by his own admission, met with an enemy in Paris while that same enemy was killing American Soldiers in Vietnam. Not only met with the enemy, but adopted and promoted the enemy positions in America. That American has NO credibility when he said he would defend America doing his campaign in 2004.
Thanks to the efforts of the Swift Boat Vets, and some of the rest of the Americans who told the truth about John Kerry, every American who voted for John Kerry in 2004, had to have known that John Kerry sold out his country in Paris. Those who voted for him, knowing those facts, have no credibility.
Than we have the leftists in America and the Democrat Party leaders, who from the first days of the current Iraq War have assured the terrorists that--if the terrorists can only hold on for a while, the Democrat leaders will gain control in America and the terrorists will get what they want. Those Americans, who have supported the terrorists in Iraq, have no
credibility.
Therefore, I submit President Bush, and those who support America winning this struggle have all the credibility that is left in America.
particularly from Ben Nelson of Nebraska.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”