New Dem Plan: Surrender in August
Where is Senator Johnson on all this treachery?
By Mark Kilmer Posted in War — Comments (30) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Brace yourselves for a summer surrender party.
The House Democratic leadership will brief their rank-and-file Demlings today on the new version of Murtha-Pelosi, the House Democrat plan for Iraq, which would fund the war through July, at which time they could declare failure and cut off funding.
Republicans immediately dismissed the Democratic proposal as unfairly rationing funds needed in combat and said their members would not support it.
Democrats "should not treat our men and women in uniform like they are children who are getting a monthly allowance," said Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, his party's leader.
If the House Dems go for it, it could be voted up-or-down in the House this week. In the Senate, AP says in the story linked that "[s]everal Senate Democrats said they would oppose a short-term funding bill because it leaves open the question of whether troops will get the resources they need after July." They name one, Nebraska's Ben Nelson, who complained: "There's the question of why it wasn't fully funded."
Read More...
Is this for real? Has someone convinced them that a few narrow victories last November is an expression of the will of the American people to surrender and run home? I'm sorry if this sounds impolite, but it is war time. We risk surrendering in the most important battle modern America has faced, and if this makes it to the Senate with its narrow Dem majority, we should know where Senator Tim Johnson (D-South Dakota) stands on this matter. And we're not doing the Wizard of Oz thing this time.
If this is not possible, the reigns of the Senate should be turned over to Mitch McConnell.
« We need more COIN in the Afghan realm — Comments (0) | What our Democratic leaders won't talk about — Comments (9) »
New Dem Plan: Surrender in August 30 Comments (0 topical, 30 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
...that whatever happens now will happen solely because of politics. The Democrats, I'm convinced, want us to lose -- and not only that, they want us to lose on Bush's watch. If the war is still going on come January 2009 and a Democrat's in the White House, they're in checkmate. Because that president will either have to assume the role of Nixon and lose the war on their watch or they'll have to defy the nutroots and do what it takes to secure victory.
So, even if we set this November point in time for assessing the success of the policy shift, the Democrats are still going to declare it lost...no matter what's going on there.
There's virtually nothing that could happen that would make them say "OK, we're on the right track now. Much better."
They not only have a vested political interest in pulling the troops out of Iraq, they've gotten themselves in a position where they can only do that. But, yet, they can't -- lest they be seen as causing defeat.
Of course, they'd do their best to say the war was already lost (they already are saying that), etc. But I think we all read the NYT piece over the weekend where the antiwar groups claim ownership of the Democratic Party.
Shortly put, they're stuck.
and we leave and just blame the turmoil that will happen afterwards on the Iraqi's not being able to keep it together.
"I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail fast; for I intend to go in harm's way."
John Paul Jones (letter to M. Le Ray de Chaumont,16 Nov.1778)
How appalling. Maybe it is time for Joe Lieberman to do the honorable thing and switch sides as he promised he would do should his party get out of whack on the issue of the war?
"I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail fast; for I intend to go in harm's way."
John Paul Jones (letter to M. Le Ray de Chaumont,16 Nov.1778)
but he could caucus with the Republicans, as he now is a non-Democrat caucusing with the Dems.
And the war is that important an issue. Joe Liberman knows this and might switch if the Dems try this political stunt.
who is smart enough to understand what's at stake. God knows the rest of the Left doesn't get it.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
It's mostly true -- but not entirely.
Read Christopher Hitches some time. He understands as well as anybody what's at stake there. Has from the get go. So does Tom Friedman. And these are just the widely read lefties.
There are also some good and responsible opinions to be found in TNR from the likes of Marty Peretz.
I agree that most of the left is caught somewhere between Oblivion and Candyland. But there are people on the left who are not completely gone...even if some of them have to act as much for political reasons.
Read Podhoretz's column today about Hillary Clinton and why she refuses to say her IWR vote was a mistake.
We have to keep up the war to get the facts out. I felt that the tide was starting to turn a little on that front last week.
The House worries me because I am not so sure the President has the leverage there as he does in the Senate. It is really time to pray
in part because every AP news alert, tv news program, or radio show start off with how many soldiers died today without putting it in perspective. The Dems in turn take advantage of this by calling for a withdrawal without telling people what will happen after we do. On the other hand I have a problem with the US army not reporting insurgent/terrorists deaths. They have their reasons for not, but by not doing so you get the impression we're losing 10 soldiers every day and no one on the other side is getting killed.
But, but, but! I thought it was the REPUBLICAN'S who said they'd give it until August - September! My BAD! Here, Republican means DEMOCRAT and Democrat means REPUBLICAN!! That's right! Everything is ass-backwards on freeper sites!!
Some Republicans, such as Trent Lott and John Boehner, have mentioned that their colleagues are becoming a little skittish and would like to see progress by September or October. They have not asked to have this codified, as the Democrats are doing, and they have not at all threatened to withdraw financial support from the troops.
Goodbye.
I do wonder what the end game will be with the House. Could a possible threat of Lieberman defection in the Senate scare them or would they even care
Doesn't automatically mean the operating rules change.
Senate rules would also have to be changed to change the ratio of Democrats to Republicans on committees, committee chairmen, etc.
Even then, having control of the agenda in the Senate doesn't mean a whole lot - the filibuster is still out there.
Get ready to see some embarrassment for the Democrats on the war funding. They had to scratch and claw to get antiwar members on board for a bill with timetables. I'd be shocked if they'll be able to woo them by kicking the can down the road.
Boehner's comment shows that they won't be able to count on Republican support. So I imagine this effort will fail.
So isn't it funny that the Dem leadership has had about 27 different Iraq plans in the four months since they took power and they can't really seem to agree on any of them unless they are so vaguely worded as to be useless?
Why don't the Republicans try to do even more to put the Dems on the spot? What if some really right-wing Republican introduced a bill to cut off all Iraq funding on XX/XX/2007. If it got to the floor and forced Dems to cast votes that could get interesting, so we know it will never get that far. The Dems are trying to get Bush to cave without exercising what they have the power to do themselves. IOW they want to try to intimidate Bush into committing political suicide but aren't willing to do so themselves. The more they get exposed as a bunch of cowards the better.
Hopefully, not too far OT here but if anyone hasn't read the open letter to our troops in Iraq, written by Dennis Prager, it is definitely worth the short time to do so. here's the link to his letter.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=a_letter_to_our_...
To patch up our relationship w/ the world we might consider doing one of those apology websites. We apologize to the world for our elite liberals who know not what they do. They do not represent all of America. Please forgive us, wer're working on it.
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
I am not sure what the Dems are thinking. Why don't they wait until September/November and then declare the war lost? A lot of Republicans will join them then. The public is just exhausted and after September their anger will be brutal to anyone still supporting an open-ended commitment. I can envision a wholesale revolt of the Republicans then.
So why try to cut the funding in July? Wouldn't it be better politics to let the war go on until even the Republicans leaders are exhausted?
Truth is Life
till September, it will be too late.
And by "too late" I mean that we will be clearly and unambigously winning the war. It's amazing how desperate they are to cut off funding while there is stil time to ensure defeat.
Truly despicable.
That's a good question and the best answer I can come up with is politics. If you believe the war is lost, but ending it by cutting off the funds would open you up to all sorts of potential liabilities the best choice is to stall. If you have to stall, why not make the other guy look bad while doing it though?
The second vote is key because it gets Republicans on the record supporting the war in July only to have to turn around and say they were mistaken in October. Expect commercials with people wearing flip flops on sandy beaches...
If the surge works that well, the Dems will be toast, I agree. But it would have to be an completely unambigous and clear success. I just don't see it happening that easily. People in politics usually don't make gambles that big. It just isn't worth the downside. So why would the Dems, with everything else going their way, risk so much for such a small gain. I don't understand it.
Truth is Life
if you look at public opinion polling you will see that the nu mbers swing with events. Unlike what the left tries to portray, the American public might not be satisfied with progress in Iraq but there is no evidence that they are willing to quit. Indeed, the 06 elections showed that absent a handful of high profile corruption cases which cost the Republicans safe seats, the House would not have changed hands. I believe the Dems know this as well. I further don't see evidence that the "surge" needs to be unambiguous and clear success. The Dems have a vested interest in ensuring that the "surge" cannot succeed.
Second, never dismiss human emotions. Overreach, picque, payback, dislike, all of these would explain the actions. Look no further than the government shutdown of 1995/96 for an example.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
I think that if General Petraeus doesn't say that the "surge" is successful in September, the Republicans in Congress and the Republican Presidential Candidates will dis-associate themselves from the Bush Administration. They will have to either admit that the Iraqi War was managed incompetently, or face losing most of their seats and the Presidency.
Both political parties have a mutual interest in working out "a deal" which won't involve an immediate withdrawal or staying indefinitely. The Democrats cannot risk losing the elections over the Iraqi War either. They know the public doesn't favor a "bug" out. It will be akin to the Vietnamization Program. The Iraqi Government will be given a little more time. I cannot imagine both political parties not getting together, unless there is a massive "left or right" shift in public opinion over a few months. It is true that the Left Wing is testing the waters for public support for an immediate Iraq pull-out because they could have misjudged the elections. But, they will relent if Hillary looks like their candidate.
Overall,according to the above posters, both sides seems to be acting intelligently to the political situation. And yet both sides are taking huge risks. The Dems pushing for a timetable that seems premature to most of the electorate and the Republicans standing behind the Bush Adminstration's surge in the first place. Its clear, however, that the Republican gamble is greater than the Democratic one. If the surge doesn't work by September even if the Republicans distance themselves from the Bush Adminstration they will be brutually punished in 2008.
If the surge does work, well Dems will just say that they were for it all along. The voting public will revert to thinking the Dems are weak on defense issues, but thats where they started from. In other words they are only gambling what they won on the last round of elections, not their core beliefs. In fact, they will gain credibility with the partisans on the left which they will need in 2008.
The Republicans, if the surge does not succeed by September, will have a hard time convincing the American voting public that they were not part of the incompentance of the Bush adminstration. They will be marked as the incompetent party. they lose both the defense issue and the competency issue. With the country still pretty much evenly divided, the moderate center will not hold for the Republicans.
Truth is Life
They are positioning it to play both sides:
* Anything good happens they will say is because they forced Bush to change course.
* Anything bad happens they will say is because Bush refused to change course.
The risky thing for them to do would be to vote to cut off funds and live with the consequences. But to do that would require applying principles over politics so we know that ain't gonna happen.
BK is on the money. Dems are Monday morning quarterbacks. Look at how desparate Clinton looks always trying to recast his presidency to sell his legacy in each interview.
It is VERY naive of conservatives to say, "Dems are in control now, it will be their fault." No it won't. Dems will deny deny deny and MSM will spin spin spin. Don't expect anything to change. For the campaign Dems will just say they did the best they could w/ the situation they inherited. Dems core belief is not to take responsibility for anything.
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
announced the surge he said we would know by the end of Nov. if it was going to work. He should keep reiterating what he has already said over and over. If he does the public (I believe) will rally to him and tell the dem's to back off until then.
"I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail fast; for I intend to go in harm's way."
John Paul Jones (letter to M. Le Ray de Chaumont,16 Nov.1778)