The debate in Congress this past week over the War in Iraq has fleshed out for all to see how hypocritical and cynical the Democratic party has proven to be about America’s national security.
After spending much of the preceding two years lambasting the Administration over how we got into the war, harping about the immorality of the conflict, deriding the nature of the enemy, and demanding a quick termination to the war, when push came to shove – when it came time to put their votes where their mouths have been – the Democrats showed themselves to have spines of jello.
Only six Democratic Senators and 149 House members had the intestinal fortitude to stand by their principles and vote against Republican efforts to continue the war. This despite their using the most apocalyptic rhetoric over the last few years to describe the futility, the horror, and the illegality of the conflict. This despite the overwhelming majority of their party putting up a drumbeat of unending, defeatist criticism that has served to give heart to the insurgency and demoralize our own troops.
It was a nauseating display of crass cynicism and electoral hypocrisy. Moaning about how Republicans use the war for political purposes (something they have done quite effectively to bring the President’s popularity to historic lows), when it came time to stand up and be counted, history has found them wanting.
How can Americans trust our national security to such a bunch of cold, politically calculating Jacobins? Such fecklessness. Such craven opportunism.
The debate, or more accurately, the speechifying and posturing by both sides, revealed the Democrats to be a party driven by their hard left ideologues and a leadership whose campaign to use the war issue and ride it to electoral victory in November once again fell victim to the Republican’s ace in the hole; the GOP’s ability to hold their opponents feet to the fire and force them to vote to run away from Iraq.
Curiously, the Democrats cry foul when Republicans use this strategy, as if requiring an elected representative to declare his position on a question of war and peace was somehow unfair. But the resolution is not “nuanced” enough, says the party of surrender. We need to amend it, to water it down so that the American people will still be in the dark on where we truly stand.
No such grace was vouchsafed Congressional Democrats. The non-binding resolution was as clear as any political document of its kind could be. Support the troops. Reject any timetable for withdrawal. And (this must have really stuck in the craws of most Democrats) congratulate the new Iraqi government – a government made possible by American force of arms.
Fully 20% of the Democrats in the House failed to vote with their party and reject the Republican effort to force them to declare their true intent to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory . Another 10 didn’t even bother to vote (with three Democrats voting “present”), including two of the more outspoken critics of the war John Dingell of Michigan and Henry Waxman of California.
The Senate vote was a slightly different story. Senator John Kerry proposed a resolution that would set a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. While Kerry worked to rally his caucus to support the resolution, Republicans pulled a fast one and presented the resolution almost verbatim, substituting Kerry’s name with that of Republican Whip Mitch McConnell and offering it for debate.
Furious that Kerry wasn’t given the time to water down his amendment with qualifiers and “nuancy,” all but six Democrats voted to shelve the resolution. Minority Leader Harry Reid announced that “[t]here are two things that don’t exist in Iraq: cutting and running, and weapons of mass destruction.” While the latter may be true, the former is certainly in the offing as Democrats promised to revisit the issue next week complete with their cut and run “exit strategy” that will probably include a timetable to withdraw the troops.
Try as they might, Democrats cannot escape the consequences of their two year long agitation against the war. And when the time came to go on record against what they pretend to hate so much, they proved that their bellyaching and gutter sniping was nothing more than cynical political expediency.
There is much to honestly criticize about this war. And there can certainly be doubts about whether going to war was the correct decision. The patriotism of war opponents is not the issue. It is a question of making clear to the American people where the Democratic party stands. And by failing to stand together, the party proved to one and all that they cannot be trusted to protect the country when the chips are down. The American people don’t want political weasels running the country. For that, Republicans – who have their own transgressions to worry about – should be grateful. In the end, it may save their majorities in November.
UPDATE
John Hinderaker has the text of the House resolution as well as a brilliant, point-by-point rebuttal of Democrat Intel Committee Vice Chair Jane Harmon’s speech in the well of the House opposing the measure.
As John points out, the speech was basically a listing of Democratic talking points on the war from the last two years. The ease and power with which Hinderaker brushed aside the critique begs the question:
WHY THE HELL CAN’T THE WHITE HOUSE DO THE SAME THING?
7:28 am
What has always explained the Democrats stand to me is this:
If, as they say, they are for the troops and against the war, they would be rallying around the efforts to be victorious so that the trooops could return home safely earlier. Yet what they do only encourages and emboldens the enemy, it prolongs the war, as it did in Vietnem.
In the end, how many more troops may have died because the enemy saw the lack of determination for victory by the left will never be known. But it is quite possible that instead of the current number of 2500 the number might have been 2000. For that I will never forgive them their desire to put political power over the security of this country.
8:10 am
“Snatch defeat from the jaws of victory”..lol. You cannot be serious! We will win in Iraq when we raise an army large enough and send enough troops to fight this regional war. GWB has failed to do that. We will not win until we do that. The rest is just smoke and mirrors. Your straw man atack is a joke. What victory? What exactly, are we going to win with this current policy and direction in Iraq? “A free and stable Iraq”....lol…give me a break. You think the policy of Amnesty and radical Shiite control of a nation is a “win”. Laughable.
8:15 am
PC:
Are you a person? Or a robot?
You are a fricking broken record with your “not enough troops” tripe.
Don’t believe me? Here’s a link to all the comments you’ve left on this site.
http://www.rightwingnuthouse.com/wp-stats.php?author=PC
It begs the question: What kind of an idiot keeps repeating the same thing over and over? Don’t you have an original thought in your entire head?
You bore me. Change your shtick or get out.
8:18 am
Ex-Republican wins Democratic nomination
James Webb, a former Reagan administration Navy secretary who left the Republican Party over the Ira
10:30 am
“Contingent Upon”
Over the last two days the House and Senate have debated the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. The position of the President has always been … wait, I’ll let him tell you:It’s bad policy, Bush said in a Rose Garden
10:47 am
The lilly livered dems want to cut and run—PERIOD.
!
They want to let the enemy know date certain so they can sit back chillin and then after we’ve left GOOD GOD.
What fools these people are.
10:53 am
Sorry to bore you with reality. All the straw men the Republicans are propping up to make arguments that label over half the nation as traitors are bogus. I will stop posting here if reality bothers you. None of the people you are attempting to label as traitors would have a large voice, or even be expressing such dissention, if this administration had done a good job politically and militarily executing our mission in the middle east. That is, the reality. The Repubs have created a FUBAR situation, and do not have any answers, all you have left is attacks, and attack dogs. It is pitifull, it truly is.
One last time before you ban me. This war will be won when we raise an army large enough to win it. All the rest is just gibberish. You obviously have no desire to talk about a strategy for winning.
Adios and god speed.
1:10 pm
Great post, Rick. I wholeheartedly agree with your thoughts. The Dems and anti-war zealots have whined over and over again about not getting a debate on Iraq. They got it and couldn’t handle the truth.
3:05 pm
Rick please explain to me the vote of the three Repubs I’m clueless.
3:50 pm
Rick, Maybe you shouldn’t have linked to text of the actual resolution. You failed to mention only 2 of the 7 items were about setting a withdrawl date. The other four are things no politican would vote against. Had Democrats voted enmass against this resolution, you could have condemned them for voting against American soldiers, their families, the Iraqi people, and for expressing an the opinion America could not pervail again terrorism.
This resolution was a political torpedo of no useful purpose. You’d have damned Democrats no matter how they voted. Why are you burning your integrity posting this kind of nonsense?