I predicted this last May:
And unless significant progress has been made in Iraq by next summer, I have no doubt that the Democrats would seek to pull a Viet Nam and try to cut off funding for our operations there. At the very least, they will seek to gain control of the conflict in some way by using the power of the purse strings.
Charlie Rangel, who would take over the powerful Ways and Means Committee if the Democrats were to win the House in November, said this recently and reported by The Hill today:
Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) will chair the powerful Ways and Means Committee if Democrats win control of the House next year, but his main goal in 2007 does not fall within his panel’s jurisdiction.“I can’t stop this war,†a frustrated Rangel said in a recent interview, reiterating his vow to retire from Congress if Democrats fall short of a majority in the House.
But when pressed on how he could stop the war even if Democrats control the House during the last years of President Bush’s second term, Rangel paused before saying, “You’ve got to be able to pay for the war, don’t you?â€
Rangel’s views on funding the war are shared by many of his colleagues – especially within the 73-member Out of Iraq Caucus.
Some Democratic legislators want to halt funding for the war immediately, while others say they would allocate money for activities such as reconstruction, setting up international security forces, and the ultimate withdrawal of U.S. troops.
“Personally, I wouldn’t spend another dime [on the war,]†said Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.).
This is why the Democratic Party is the biggest bunch of snivelling cowards on the planet.
Knowing full well that they would lose votes if this position was made part of their campaign strategy (and probably energize the GOP base to boot), they are seeking to cover up their true intentions if they manage to win through in November:
Having lost the last two elections in part because of national security issues, Democratic leaders have been reluctant to spell out their exact Iraq war funding strategy.“I don’t think the Democratic leadership should put that out at the moment,†Woolsey said.
But Democratic leaders will be under tremendous pressure from campaign donors and activists to take bold steps on Iraq should they be setting the legislative agenda in the 110th Congress.
“If we have the majority, it’ll be because of Iraq,†said Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii).
If what Abercrombie says is true, why hide the fact that Democrats want to cut off funding for our troops in the field? Why not spell out to the American people exactly how Democrats are going to end the war? After all, if the polls are to be believed, this is what the American people want – to leave Iraq. Why the subterfuge?
The reason is that the Democrats know full well that even though support for the way the Administration is waging the war is at just about rock bottom, only 17% of Americans believe we should leave immediately while another 31% want the troops home in 12 months time according to the latest Gallup poll (Must watch ad for access to premium content). What’s more, 51% of Americans believe we should stay as long as it takes or even send more troops to get the job done.
This is why the Democrats must cower in the shadows without revealing their true Iraq policy.
And let’s not forget the pressure on the Democrat’s new majority from “party activists” who will almost certainly take credit (deserved or not) for the victory. They will not only want an immediate Iraq exit but also an immediate impeachment inquiry in the Judiciary Committee. For that, I’m sure putative Committee chairman John Conyers will be more than happy to oblige.
Why can’t the Democrats be proud of what they’re about to do and announce it to the world? Why sneak around behind the voter’s backs?
The reason is that they are so confused about what the best political strategy would be that they are torn between satisfying their shrieking base who are screaming for us to get out of Iraq and acting like responsible adults who realize there is a war on:
Abercrombie stressed that Democrats are not going to sever funding for the troops. Cutting off funding is “easy to say and another thing to do,†according to Abercrombie.What’s more like likely, he said, is to fund the conflict in a way that will end the war by reallocating money to new initiatives.
“We’re going to continue to give the troops everything they need,†said Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).
A House Democratic leadership aide said, “The bottom line is that should Democrats regain the House, Democrats will leave no soldier left behind in Iraq. As long as there’s soldiers in the battlefield, funding will continue.â€
Well, which is it? “reallocate” money or give the troops everything they need to continue the fighting? Not even the leadership can tell you.
Could the Republicans use Democratic confusion on what to do about Iraq? Not if they’re smart. The word “Iraq” is not being uttered much by Republicans who prefer “The War on Terror” as a catch all for our efforts against global jihadism. In this respect, Republicans are playing their own little political games with Iraq policy although with few exceptions, Republicans have made it crystal clear that they prefer staying until the Iraqis can protect themselves.
Iraq withdrawal and impeachment are both explosive issues to be sure. But considering the impact on the country, don’t you think that the Democrats should make it absolutely clear about their intentions before the American people vote for them?
2:43 pm
How disappointing. Just when I think you are so good at providing commentary, you have to hit the “feed the extreme right blog base” button. “The biggest bunch of sniveling cowards on the planet” line is simply pathetic.
Have you such limited knowledge of history? Who declared war on the Axis powers in the 1940’s, when real armies theatened to invade America? Why that sniveling coward Franklin D. Roosevelt, a Democrat. Who made the gut-wrenching decision to drop an atomic bomb to save endless numbers of American and Japanese lives at the end of World War II? Why that cowardly Democrat, Harry Truman. Who stepped up to the plate in 1917, despite personal doubts, to engage the United States in World War I, to end that long-term war? Why, the cowardly Woodrow Wilson, Democrat. Who took the United States to the brink of nuclear war in 1962 to prevent Soviet warheads from being placed in Cuba, 90 miles off our shores. Why, that terrible coward of PT 109, John F. Kennedy, Democrat. Who chose to stay the course in Vietnam, to fight the evils of Communism, even though it cost him his Presidency? That cowardly act belonged to Lyndon Johnson, Democratic President.
When push comes to shove, Democratic presidents have frequently shown great moral courage and handled international crises and wars with effectiveness and tenacity.
I do not see where floundering endlessly in Iraq with too few troops, getting American troops killed for the false hope of imposing democracy (an oxymoron, if there ever was one), and declaring war against an idea (the War of Terror), much like the War of Drugs and the War on Poverty (drugs and poverty won, by the way) is a plan for any free thinking non-ideologue to support. I hope you are both feeling and thinking better tomorrow.
4:03 pm
WONDERFUL PIECE RICK, but you know the dems would never tell the American people the truth about this cuz they know they wouldn’t get voted in, they know the average American knows who makes em safer. They are too dishonest, they are too power hungry.
I agree, we are headed for another Nam deal here, they’ll cut the funds, they don’t care ….. PERIOD.
4:44 pm
The US military will listen to Rangel and not the Pentagon?
7:26 am
“This is why the Democratic Party is the biggest bunch of snivelling cowards on the planet.”
Yesterday;
“Of course, they don’t. In fact, they are cheering Mr. Olberman on to ever higher flights of rhetorical excess and juvenile name calling. Reporter Wallace is a “monkey.†Bush is a “coward.†This is what passes for reasonable dialogue on lefty blogs and Olbermann doesn’t let his audience down.”
8:33 am
“ed” and “drongo”!
rick must’ve really got to you with this post. all you two could come up with were those ridiculous strawmen? i can imagine both of you engaging in some primal scream therapy while writing those comments. hee hee.
11:53 am
doug deeper
Which part of the facts I presented would you call strawmen? Does using the term “strawmen” w/o any supporting facts constitute your idea of a counterargument? I work with facts to extend discussion and to exchange ideas. Your profoundly juvenile use of “hee-hee” and unsupported strawmen claims show you to be unthinking and incapable of constructing any kind of argument worthy of the term. Buy another Club Gitmo shirt and let the grownups talk now.
6:37 pm
Food for thought. IF this story was sat on by the left for political gain, in my opinion they managed to shoot themselves in the foot yet again. After all, this story has buried Iraq hype for the most part.
8:29 am
ed:
I agree about JFK completely, but You forgot JFK’s betrayal of the 2506 Brigade at the Bay of Pigs. And you failed to mention that JFK agreed to make Cuba exempt from military intervention and agreed to pull our missiles out of Turkey. You probably missed that detail because in typical Kennedy fashion, he had the records sealed.
Also, remember that Kennedy was awarded the Navy Cross for PT109. I’ve tried to imagine the citation. It must have read, “due a shortage of torpedos and ammunition, Lt (JG) Kennedy maneuvered his vessel into the path of the enemy ship, inflicting severe paint scratches on the bow as the enemy destroyer, making 40 knots, cut his PT109 in half.”
Didn’t Kennedy tell the south vietnamese military that it was okay to assassinate Presiden Diem? That’s hardly staying the course.
Wasn’t the war on poverty part of the Great Society? That program destroyed the fabric of urban black families and made liberals feel good.
In case you have forgotton, like most of your liberal friends, the US was attacked by terrorists. You do recall the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks. Oh, or you a “truther”.