For a party that has made a lot of noise over the last three years about what a mistake we’ve made in Iraq, how immoral it is being there, how Bush lied and misled the country into war, and what a tragedy all our young men dying in a lost cause is, the Democratic party in the Senate rolled over and whimpered today like the whipped curs they truly are.
In an 86-13 vote, the Senate turned back a proposal from some Democrats that would require the administration to withdraw all combat troops from Iraq by July 1, 2007, with redeployments beginning this year.Minutes later, the Senate rejected by 60-39 the proposal more popular with Democrats, a nonbinding resolution that would call for the administration to begin withdrawing troops, but with no timetable for the war’s end.
As I pointed out here, their position is immoral. Not having the political guts to declare that the war is a total failure, a massive defeat for the US and that we should leave immediately before another American soldier loses his life, they opt instead for the kind tortuous withdrawal that hides their belief that the war is lost while at the same time giving aid and comfort to the enemy and demoralizing our troops.
In short, they are giving us the worst of both worlds; defeatism and cowardice.
If the war is lost, what is the point in staying one minute longer? Iraqi stability? Baloney! If you’re going to set an arbitrary timetable for withdrawal regardless of what the security situation is in Iraq, what in God’s name is the difference between withdrawing immediately and withdrawing one year from now? I’ll tell you the difference. The difference is more dead American soldiers one year from now while you’re slapping yourselves on the back, congratulating yourselves for having put one over on the electorate.
Both resolutions presented by the Democrats were exercises in wishful thinking. Kerry’s resolution calling for withdrawal a year from now is a chimera, a fantasy that seeks only to embarrass Bush and is not grounded in either reality or military strategy. The Levin alternative was even worse. It was such a milquetoast resolution, it was in danger of disintegrating while the clerk was reading it.
Both resolutions failed to note the most important consequence of enacting them; Democratic Senators going on record believing that the war is lost. Funny how that got lost in the shuffle. There is nothing wrong or even unpatriotic in believing the war is lost. It is dishonest not to come out and say so – especially when your rhetoric over the last 3 years has made it absolutely crystal clear that you believe the war has been lost already.
If you believe that the war is not lost and are still supporting this resolution, then one can come to no other conclusion that you wish the US to be defeated. We used to call that treason but today, it guarantees you an appearance on Meet The Press.
War is about victory or defeat. Those are the choices. When history came calling today, the Democrats tried to split the difference between the two and hope at the same time that by November, either the voters will have forgotten or that things will have gotten worse in Iraq as the insurgents, emboldened by the thought of a Democratic takeover, ratchet up the violence there in hopes of swinging the election to their patroni in the Senate.
It would have been politically unpalatable to do so, but if the Democrats had insisted en masse on an immediate pullout of American troops, they at least would have been standing on firm moral ground. But their weasel resolutions only served to make them look like spineless jellyfish, unwilling to stand up for their true beliefs.
The lot of them – those that are running – should be soundly defeated in November.
UPDATE
Allah has the Senate roll call and points out that Kerry’s resolution gained 6 votes compared to last week for pushing back the deadline for withdrawal six months.
Now that’s what I call a “nuanced” vote.
Also, surprised to see “Dugout” Mark Dayton voting against his own caucus and siding with the Republicans. The other Dem defectors are all predictable including poor Joe Lieberman who is in the primary fight for his life with the Kos Kreature Ned Lamont. Joe has been bleeding lib support (despite a very high ADA rating) thanks to the netnuts who are stinking up the Nutmeg State like they were cartons of rancid egg nog left over from last Christmas, flooding the airwaves and phone lines with anti-Lieberman ads. It seems to be having its intended effect as Lamont – a nobody that Kos has apparently anointed in his “Anybody but Lieberman” campaign – creeps into the high 30’s and low 40’s.
I expect Lieberman to win whether he runs as a Democrat or independent. As a member of the truly loyal opposition, he is an indispensable man. I know that if I lived in Connecticut, I’d vote for him myself.
2:54 pm
Does this mean that every Senator who voted against this proposal is no longer allowed to use the words quagmire, hopeless, mistake, etc., when referring to the war in Iraq?
If the self-appointed guardians of democracy in the press were doing their jobs, the answer to that questions would be yes. But since we know that these spineless opportunists in the Senate will continue receiving a pass as try to play both sides of the street, I guess it’s up to you to keep fighting the good fight.
3:00 pm
Damn straight!
Someone has got to hold their feet to the fire. Strange that the netnuts have been mostly quiet today on this issue. I guess they don’t want to embarrass their heroes any more than they already did themselves today.
3:39 pm
Rick,
Man! I gotta tell you right now…the above was probably the most brilliant assessment on this situation I have seen to date! You are EXACTLY right…and I thank you.
WOW
Just W-O-W!
Carol Johnson
3:56 pm
Constitutionaly speaking, any resolution by Congress to withdraw troops, at any time, is non-binding. Only the Executive has the Constutional power to deploy, re-deploy or un-deploy (if that’s even a word) US troops.
I haven’t read the resolutions, so maybe they are actually resolutions to de-fund the Iraq war, which Congress does have the Constitutional power to do.
4:05 pm
Kerry’s Flip Gets Flopped In The Senate
In a vote that can be described as anything but close, the Senate overwhelmingly defeated a John Kerry inspired bill that called for an immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq. The Washington Post reports:Senators . . . voted 86-13 to defeat
5:33 pm
People of conviction they ain’t. pun
7:23 pm
[...] Right Wing Nut House [...]
10:02 pm
Murtha’s Proposals Go Down
Mr. Murtha’s recommendation to get American troops out of Iraq, seconded by John Kerry, was voted on twice today in the Senate in two different forms. Going down to defeat by 86-13 was a hard timetable to pull all troops
10:32 pm
Rick, though I don’t consider myself a conservative and am not a registered Republican( in political beliefs I’m more along the lines of a ‘Schwarzenneger Republican’, liberal on social issues, conservative on fiscal), I’m not in disagreement with you about the Dems on the Iraq War.
My only point of contention with the White House and the Republican Congress, and I guess with you and other conservative bloggers, is the lack of specificity of a stated specific goal for victory in Iraq.
I’m not being facetious. Honestly, could you state for me what America’s goal is in Iraq?
And I don’t mean: “As Iraqis stand up, we’ll stand down”, “Victory Over the Terrorists”, “Freedom and Democracy in Iraq”.
While they sound nice, it’s just rhetoric and they don’t essentially MEAN anything.
Think of WWII, where the goal was “the unconditional surrender of the Axis powers”. It was an actual target, a goal, a bulls-eye to hit.
For example, is the goal in Iraq for the unconditional surrender of Al-Qaeda in Iraq? The unconditional surrender of all militias?
The surrender of all ex-Baathists, Iraqi mafia gangsters, etc?
What then?
1:50 am
My only point of contention with the White House and the Republican Congress, and I guess with you and other conservative bloggers, is the lack of specificity of a stated specific goal for victory in Iraq.
I will speak for myself and say that when the government of Iraq is able to assume the security situation in all provinces and informs us that the last of our troops are no longer needed, the victory has been won.
That process started today when Iraq assumed 100% control of Muthanna province and we announced that ALL multinational forces were being redeployed out of the province. Province by province, Iraq will take control of the situation and we will no longer be needed.
2:46 am
Poor Joe Lieberman.
All he needed to do was hire Jerome Armstrong before Kos found Ned Lamont, and everything would have been wine and roses.
And it would have even spared Kos from that Mentos commercial.
9:50 pm
My only point of contention with the White House and the Republican Congress, and I guess with you and other conservative bloggers, is the lack of specificity of a stated specific goal for victory in Iraq.
Barry Allen Said:
10:32 pm
Well Barry I don’t know how the REPUBS and President Bush can get anymore specific as Bush and everyone else in the ADMIN and Military has stated the goal is a “stable, free Democratic Iraq able to handle its own security”. What else can they say do you expect them to hand over the entire detailed plan to the NY slimes?
11:30 am
It made my day to see horse-face kerry get shot down in flames.
Our objective is to get a sane democracy in a land that is between Iraq and those other nut job countries, if they see the Iraq freedoms, maybe they will want some for themselves and tell the terrorists and Imans (sp) they won’t be held hostage by extremism anymore.
6:31 pm
[...] Does he expect us to believe that he really wants to implement a “winning strategy” in order to “win” the war when he has offered a timetable for withdrawal not based on anything except the passage of time? The Senator’s withdrawal resolution was rejected by the Senate 86-13 and would have required all American troops to pull out of Iraq by July 1, 2007, one year from the date of passage. [...]