THE TRIUMPH OF HATE OVER PRINCIPLE
It appears that a last minute plea by Speaker Pelosi to the Out of Iraq Caucus, made up of the most deranged of the deranged left, has carried the day - clearing the way for a war funding bill that will do for al-Qaeda what they could never do for themselves in a million years; get American combat forces out of Iraq:
Liberal opposition to a $124 billion war spending bill broke last night, when leaders of the antiwar Out of Iraq Caucus pledged to Democratic leaders that they will not block the measure, which sets timelines for bringing U.S. troops home.
The acquiescence of the liberals probably means that the House will pass a binding measure today that, for the first time, would establish tough readiness standards for the deployment of combat forces and an Aug. 31, 2008, deadline for their removal from Iraq.
A Senate committee also passed a spending bill yesterday setting a goal of bringing troops home within a year. The developments mark congressional Democrats’ first real progress in putting legislative pressure on President Bush to withdraw U.S. forces.
Even more than the conservative Democrats leery of appearing to micromanage the war, House liberals have been the main obstacle to leadership efforts to put a timeline on the withdrawal of U.S. forces. They have complained that the proposal would not bring troops home fast enough. Their opposition has riven the antiwar movement, split the Democratic base and been the main stumbling block to the legislation, which had originally been scheduled for a vote yesterday.
How on earth did Pelosi pull it off? Did she appeal to their party loyalty? Their sense of honor? Their greed?
As debate began on the bill yesterday, members of the antiwar caucus and party leaders held a backroom meeting in which House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) made a final plea to the group, asking it to deliver at least four votes when the roll is called. The members promised 10.
“I find myself in the excruciating position of being asked to choose between voting for funding for the war or establishing timelines to end it,” said Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.). “I have struggled with this decision, but I finally decided that, while I cannot betray my conscience, I cannot stand in the way of passing a measure that puts a concrete end date on this unnecessary war.”
That was the message of Democratic leaders: This is the best deal they could make, and it is better than no deal at all.
Indeed. The consequences of “no deal at all” were unthinkable:
“You really have two options here: One is that you can vote for a change of course here and say we’re going to find a way out of Iraq, or, two, you can vote against it and hand George Bush a victory,” said Jon Soltz, a veteran of the Iraq war and co-founder of VoteVets.org, a group that opposes the war. “It doesn’t make sense to me. George Bush got us into the war. They have challenged him on everything. Why would they give him this victory now?” he asked, referring to the liberals.
It is clear that the left hates George Bush more than they hate the war.
They hate him so much they are willing to sacrifice their anti-war principles in order to deal the President of the United States an embarrassing defeat. And given the absolute dead certainty that the President will veto the measure, a delay in funding the war could lead to dire consequences for our troops in the field:
In his assessment — delivered during a morning meeting with lawmakers and then repeated to reporters — Gates said that failure to pass the Defense Department funding request within the next three weeks might force the Army to slow the training of units deploying to Iraq and Afghanistan.
He also cautioned that further delay into mid-May could force the Army to extend the deployments of troops in war zones beyond their usual one-year tours, because replacement forces would not have enough money to complete their pre-combat training.
Gates declined to tell the Democrats what they should do, saying only, “I think it’s my responsibility to let everybody involved in the debate know the impact of the timing of the decisions.”
But the political brinksmanship of his remarks was clear.
It is hugely ironic that the LA Times talks of “political brinksmanship” when referencing Secretary Gates remarks - especially since it is the Democrats in Congress who are holding a gun to the head of the President by passing a bill he cannot sign if he wishes to remain Commander in Chief:
A Pelosi spokesman said President Bush would be to blame for any effect that delays in passing a bill would have on the military, saying the president had failed to adequately fund the war.
But the warning from Gates, who has largely stayed out of the political fray in his first three months at the Pentagon, threatened to upset the carefully crafted coalition of moderate and liberal Democrats that party leaders have been laboring to assemble behind the $124-billion measure.
And that’s what it’s all about. It’s not about stopping the war. It’s not about bringing our troops home. The whole purpose of this bill is to score political points against the President, to weaken him, to embarrass him - all the while handing the enemies of the United States a victory on the field of battle they’ve neither earned nor deserve.
At the expense of principle and common sense, the Democratic left has allowed their hatred of the President to trump all. And the problem for the Democrats with this entire process is that they are now committed to a course of action (and setting a disturbing precedent that may very well come back to haunt them some day) that ignores military reality in favor of political expediency.
Does anyone actually believe that these arbitrary and capricious “benchmarks” laid out by the Democrats to put pressure on the Iraqi government are designed to do anything except further embarrass and weaken the President? It is a transparent political ploy, nothing else. And anyone who votes for this measure should be ashamed of themselves for abandoning principle in order to make Bush look bad while giving themselves permission to feel good about sticking it to the President of the United States.
For once, I agree with many of the netroots on this issue; give us an up or down vote on funding the Iraq War, not this sneaking around and playing political games with the lives of our troops. If, as Democrats have been saying for months, the American people elected them to end this war, let’s end it already. What in God’s name are they scared of? If, as they claim, the people are behind them, what is there to worry about politically? George Bush is beyond lame duck status. He’s a gone goose. The President is an irrelevancy, a non-factor. Republicans are sick of defending him. The base has abandoned him. Bush could claim from here to the next election that Democrats “lost” the war if they cut off funding but no one would listen or believe him. So why the hesitation?
The fact is, the left in Congress are cowards - unprincipled, abject cowards. They talk a good game but when push comes to shove - when history calls and asks them to stand up for their principles - they run and hide under their beds like five year olds scared of the thunder.
And the hell of it is, they are going to point to passage of this bill as a “victory.” It’s a triumph of hate over principle - hardly a victory unless you consider it more important to stick a shiv into the President’s gut to satisfy your own personal animus.
It sounds like one of those times we need a President Reagan like figure to line up the networks and then give one of those good lectures about the failings of the Congress, directed to the American public and which inspires them to call their represenative. Yea…wishful thinking!
Comment by canalcat — 3/23/2007 @ 8:28 am
Surrender by a thousand cuts; blade of Alinsky.
Comment by stevesh — 3/23/2007 @ 9:23 am
“clearing the way for a war funding bill that will do for al-Qaeda what they could never do for themselves in a million years; get American combat forces out of Iraq:”
Just worth pointing out that there are both a hell of a lot of ordinary Iraqis and ordinary Americans who want US troops out. In fact, unless I am much mistaken recent polls showed that the majority of each populace supports a US pull out in a year
“They hate him so much they are willing to sacrifice their anti-war principles in order to deal the President of the United States an embarrassing defeat.”
Sacrificing impossible principles for an acceptable compromise is exactly what democratic government is all about. Nobody could get “Troops out now” legislation through, but scuppering “Troops out soon” legislation would be pointless.
Imagine, for a second, a bill to limit abortions to under 12 weeks. Now, a principles anti-abortionist would undoubtedly regard this as a crime, since abortion at any age is wrong. Imagine that without their support the bill would fail. By blocking it they would gain nothing, status quo remains, by voting for it they would gain a partial victory.
Mocking people for not cutting off their noses to spite their faces is just silly.
Comment by Drongo — 3/23/2007 @ 9:35 am
So Democrats are letting their hate of President Bush cloud their judgement? Hmmm. I suppose its possible. I guess when we spent a good part of the last decade watching the GOP foam at the mouth over President Clinton its only natural to assume the same thing is happening here. And perhaps it is. Or perhaps what we’re seeing is simply the way a Democracy works. The Democrats aren’t of one mind, nor can one say is Congress. Nor should they be.
Enough with this “Al Qaeda will now win if we pull the troops out” stuff. One could easily point out the various government reports that claim our activities in Iraq are emboldening terrorists to counter that idea. Besides if the problems in Iraq were simply limited to dealing with Bin Laden’s henchmen, life would be sweet. Most of the problem is that Iraq is in a civil war. The answers are going to be political and diplomatic in nature and not purely military. Its past time we stop casting stones and to start treating each other’s ideas with some respect and dignity.
And maybe just maybe the benchmarks are not meant to embarrass a President at historically low poll numbers, but rather to actually put some pressure on the Iraqi’s to start taking care of things themselves.
Comment by pd — 3/23/2007 @ 9:51 am
Pullout deadline moves with war bill
A Senate committee approved a $122 billion measure Thursday financing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan b
Trackback by Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator — 3/23/2007 @ 10:04 am
Web Reconnaissance for 03/23/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention.
Trackback by The Thunder Run — 3/23/2007 @ 10:23 am
War is Peace
Love is Hate
The Surreality-based universe of the ultra-left confuses its own political hallucinations with facts, and it’s sort of like that Magic Theater in Hermann Hesse’s Steppenwolf, “For Madmen Only.”
The Dems have conned the MSM into calling this bizarre concoction some sort of Pelosi-coup. Their cheering section in the electronic and dead-tree Upper Deck far from any action or influence continues its Orwellian Ministry of Truth activities.
The pliant morons on MSNBC & CNN call a pullback by the anti-war Dems an advance, and a moral defeat a “victory.”
Comment by daveinboca — 3/23/2007 @ 10:32 am
am a 2 tour Vietnam Veteran who recently retired after 36 years of working in the Defense Industrial Complex on many of the weapons systems being used by our forces as we speak.
Politicians make no difference.
We have bought into the Military Industrial Complex (MIC). If you would like to read how this happens please see:
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/03/spyagency200703
Through a combination of public apathy and threats by the MIC we have let the SYSTEM get too large. It is now a SYSTEMIC problem and the SYSTEM is out of control. Government and industry are merging and that is very dangerous.
There is no conspiracy. The SYSTEM has gotten so big that those who make it up and run it day to day in industry and government simply are perpetuating their existance.
The politicians rely on them for details and recommendations because they cannot possibly grasp the nuances of the environment and the BIG SYSTEM.
So, the system has to go bust and then be re-scaled, fixed and re-designed to run efficiently and prudently, just like any other big machine that runs poorly or becomes obsolete or dangerous.
This situation will right itself through trauma. I see a government ENRON on the horizon, with an associated house cleaning.
The next president will come and go along with his appointees and politicos. The event to watch is the collapse of the MIC.
For more details see:
http://www.rosecoveredglasses.blogspot.com
Comment by Ken Larson — 3/23/2007 @ 11:29 am
[...] Right Wing Nuthouse talks about how hate has defeated the principles of the Democrats. I thought hate WAS a principle to the Dems at this point… [...]
Pingback by The Coffeespy » Troop Funding, Now With 25% More String! — 3/23/2007 @ 12:18 pm
“If, as Democrats have been saying for months, the American people elected them to end this war, let’s end it already.”
I’ve been hearing the Dems saying this over and over like a mantra but, funny, the only Democrat I can remember running on a platform of ending the war lost to the independent pro-war candidate. How could people have elected them to end the war when they were too gutless to run on it?
Comment by Pete — 3/23/2007 @ 2:14 pm
Absolute drivel. I have read Rick’s blog for a long time to get his informed and articulate insight from the conservative side. This post I can find on any randomly chosen right wing blog. You are better than simply parroting the right wing echo chamber noises. Gone back to listening to Rush, have we?
Comment by ed — 3/23/2007 @ 3:50 pm
Cowardly House Dems Pass Micro-managing War Bill..
Rick Moran sums up today’s decision by House Democrats to emasculate American troops abroad:
…(quotes)
Meanwhile AJ Strata thinks the President can simply ignore the unconstitutional provision:
…(quotes)
While Strata is right that th…
Trackback by The Discerning Texan — 3/23/2007 @ 4:23 pm
Brilliant. As usual.
Comment by DiscerningTexan — 3/23/2007 @ 4:28 pm
Whatever their motivation, the Dems are right on this one
that’s why I won’t join those on the right who are blasting the Democrats for their moves to end the war sooner than Bush would prefer. Sure, the Democrats may be motivated more by their hatred for Bush than their love of the troops and they are defi…
Trackback by Thoughtsonline — 3/23/2007 @ 10:53 pm
I see the Anti-American-Pro-Jihadi “ed” is back again…..
Read ‘er and weep, Pally…
Comment by Dale in Atlanta — 3/24/2007 @ 5:30 am
Rick, you’re missing the point.
The real story here is the fact that the Democrats have just proven to the world that they are willing to actively ally themselves with the enemies of America in order to gain political power.
Let’s stop and digest this fact.
The Democrats are willing at this point to actively inform our enemies, our aliies, and the American people that they will sabotage America’s military efforts to win in Iraq for the sole purpose of damaging the President politically.
This is the only logical conclusion. If the goal was to leave Iraq as soon as possible, Pelosi would have voted to cut funding immediately. If the goal was to save our troops, Pelosi would have tied the immediate withdrawal to an orderly exit starting now.
But this is not the case. The Democrats are willing to fund the war and risk another year of putting troops in harm’s way. They do not care about Iraq, because they know us leaving will not solve their problems. They do not care about the troops, because they are willing to continue to fund the war and keep the troops in harm’s way just to make a politically viable deal.
So when we have the Democrats actively sabotaging the military efforts of America at war, we need to start calling it what it is.
Treason. Pelosi and the House Dems need to be rounded up. They need to be prosecuted. And they need to suffer the consequences of these high crimes against America.
It is politically more complex than simply calling it treason? Yes. Is it intellectually so? No, by your own logic Rick, it’s not. It it morally so? Not in the least.
It’s time to stop politically pussyfooting around. Everyone who voted for this bill, the two Republicans included, are guilty of treason. Period.
It’s far past time to treat it as such, and for the President to act upon it.
Comment by Lightwave — 3/24/2007 @ 11:25 am
“They do not care about the troops, because they are willing to continue to fund the war and keep the troops in harm’s way just to make a politically viable deal.”
Could you please explain to me how they are supposed to make a politcally unviable deal? If they put forward a “Troops out now” bill, it would be defeated.
“Treason. Pelosi and the House Dems need to be rounded up. They need to be prosecuted. And they need to suffer the consequences of these high crimes against America.”
Yes, that’s right. When, in a democracy, a party with a different foreign policy to yours gets in power and starts, cautiously and consentually changing the direction of the country, that is treason.
Way to show the world how democracy works there…
Comment by Drongo — 3/25/2007 @ 6:29 am
I guess that since the majority of the American people are in favor of the Iraq Study Group’s bipartisan recommendation to pull out by 2008 that America is now owned by the radical far out left wing. By your logic, sir.
Comment by Steve Bremner — 3/25/2007 @ 1:56 pm
Lightwave Said:
It’s time to stop politically pussyfooting around. Everyone who voted for this bill, the two Republicans included, are guilty of treason. Period.
Truer words have never been posted any where my friend.
http://www.mp3.com.au/artist.asp?id=16834
Comment by doriangrey — 3/26/2007 @ 9:11 pm
Had this country had “adult leadership” like Reagan in 2001, instead of Cheney-Rove, Inc. and their control freak obsession to deceive and soak the American public,
we wouldn’t be bogged down in Iraq, Afrghanistan would be well on the road to recovery, and ‘Talibanistan’ would be nonexistent.
Comment by Spin Boldak — 4/10/2007 @ 9:15 am