I am known as something of a stick-in-the-mud when it comes to humor. For instance, I love Monty Python but hate Benny Hill. Eddie Murphy does nothing for me while Bernie Mac puts me in stitches. George Carlin sends me into hysterics but Rosie O’Donnell makes me want to puke.
This must be the reason I didn’t get the joke the Democrats were playing on the American people with the Iraq War Supplemental appropriations bill. Knowing full well that the President was going to veto the measure because of the artificial timetable for withdrawal that they were able to bribe, threaten, and coerce enough of their caucus to support, the Democrats nevertheless delayed vital funding for our military just so they could turn around after Bush’s veto and yell “Gotchya!” at the voters:
President Bush and congressional leaders began negotiating a second war funding bill yesterday, with Democrats offering the first major concession: an agreement to drop their demand for a timeline to bring troops home from Iraq.Democrats backed off after the House failed, on a vote of 222 to 203, to override the president’s veto of a $124 billion measure that would have required U.S. forces to begin withdrawing as early as July. But party leaders made it clear that the next bill will have to include language that influences war policy. Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) outlined a second measure that would step up Iraqi accountability, “transition” the U.S. military role and show “a reasonable way to end this war.”
“We made our position clear. He made his position clear. Now it is time for us to try to work together,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) said after a White House meeting. “But make no mistake: Democrats are committed to ending this war.”
The only “mistake” anyone has made is believing the Democrats are serious about anything – much less the war. The funding of our troops (or defunding them for that matter) has turned into a gigantic political game where the Democratic leadership has shown they don’t have the balls to end the war by voting to cut off funds and put their political capital where their mouth is nor do they exhibit one iota of responsible governance by finding the quickest way to send the necessary monies to our troops who are currently engaged in the hardest combat since at least the battle for Fallujah.
The entire exercise regarding the debate, passage, veto, and now capitulation by the Dems is a travesty. And it would be nice to think that the White House and Congress could actually “work together” on anything with regards to the war except that too, is a game – this time played by both sides as each seeks to saddle the other with the “blame” for the delay in funding. Sensibly, the President thinks it a bad idea to let al-Qaeda and the sectarian thugs know exactly when they can ratchet up the slaughter of innocents by announcing to the world the day the last American combat troops will leave Iraq. Frustrated Democrats want some way to change the President’s course also toward something more sensible; perhaps a realization that our troops might be better used elsewhere in Iraq killing al-Qaeda terrorists and protecting the Sunnis from rapacious and murderous Shia radicals in league with the government there.
Of course, the Dems want no such thing but if Bush was smart, he’d realize where the Democrats end game is headed – a total defeat for the Administration – and try to at least maintain some semblance of a mission in Iraq. It doesn’t have to be as I’ve outlined above. But it’s got to be less than what he’s doing now and more than the Democrats would be willing to support six months from now when almost certainly they will have the upper hand.
But this would be too much to ask; especially when there are elections to be won. So Bush stubbornly soldiers on while the Democrats stubbornly refuse to act on principle and conscience by defunding the War and forcing the troops to come home. In the meantime, our boys are dying, Iraqis are dying, Iran is licking its chops, ready to move in and pick up the pieces while the rest of the Middle East looks on in horror at the whole mess.
We’re on a collision course with disaster and our national leadership are acting like spoiled brats. I’d like to say to hell with both sides but there are 150,000 Americans whose lives are being expended in what is shaping up to be a futile effort to give the government of Iraq the breathing room to create some kind of viable nation out of the mess of sectarian and political factions who are currently (and for the foreseeable future) at each other’s throats. I say futile because if anyone believes that Prime Minister Maliki and his Shia brethren in the government have any interest whatsoever in doing the things necessary to heal their bloody, war torn nation, I’ve got a bridge over the Euphrates river I’d be glad to let you have for a song.
7:46 am
As I have seen reports in the past 24 hours go from the Iraqis killing Al-Masri to Al-Baghdadi to now apparently actually killing Muharib Abdul Latif…it’s been a reminder of “things aren’t always what they appear.”
With that being said, I’m going to offer up something that, believe me, I have no proof of but I think it is worth considering.
It’s my unsubstantiated belief that when Maliki was elected and took over in Iraq, very early on, the Iranians contacted Maliki and assured him that Iran would watch his back – that they would not let happen to him what happened with the Shia uprising against Saddam when the Shias paid a huge price. It is my guess that the Iranians said the U.S. would pull out and that they, Iran, would be the protector from Sunni retaliation.
It’s also my view that not long after that, the Iranians decided to play their game covering all bases and they doubled down by talking secretly with Al-Sadr.
Maliki found out about the “double dealings” and saw proof of Iran’s supply of weaponry to Al Sadr’s militia about the same time that Bush gave Maliki his word that the U.S. was staying for the duration.
Maliki’s next step was to basically take the teflon off of Al-Sadr and sure enough, Sadr disapppears from Iraq.
With all that being said. I think two other things have happened. 1) Maliki has come to understand that Bush means what he says and thus Maliki has decided this whole thing might just work
2) Maliki decided to give some “unifying” strategy a chance and has seen the Sunni tribes in Anbar come on board with the central government, to some extent.
I’m leaning towards a situation in Iraq in six months that will leave many, many people scratching their heads and saying, “Wow.” I’m not saying that in six months all will be calm and collected but I believe that in six months, the U.S. and Iraqi militaries will have dealt HUGE blows to al Qaeda – they will have them scattered, leaderless and wandering…and at the same time, I think two or three other Sunni groups will be in negotiations with the central government. I hope I’m right.
7:59 am
Democrats surrender – drop demand for Iraq timeline…
The President stood firm on the issue of a timeline, and the Democrats who made it the centerpiece of the war supplemental they tried to “” have backed off the demand:
President Bush and congressional leaders began negotiating a second war …
8:14 am
The Democrats had to offer something to their base- which wants us out of Iraq now. They can now pass a bill more palatable to Bush.
I don’t know why you think it unusual for Congress to pass a bill that won’t survive a veto- they do it all the time.
8:24 am
Congressional Leaders Visit White House for Talks…
The House of Representatives failed to override President Bush’s veto of the war funding bill that i…
8:24 am
One cautionary note, the Anbar Salvation Council was the group that handed AQ their heads. This is a paramilitary group that works with US and Iraqi forces. They have been hugely successful in rooting out AQ and destroying them [with US help] in Anbar. This type of organization has proven itself so well that it is going to be duplicated elsewhere. The problem is that while we are arming Sunni groups we are also dismantling the Mahdi army, moves that could be interpreted by some as the US playing power broker. These groups can take on a life of their own and once created are very difficult to disarm, esp. when Sunni groups are under attack from Shiite militia. Destroying AQ might lead to recognized independent militias for the Sunnis, and further complicate the overall political situation. I still favor a Federation where the locals are governed by their own police/security forces as a way of reducing tensions, and groups like ASC would fit that idea, but the administrations goal is a unified Iraq, and ASC does not fit in for the long term.
9:02 am
I don’t think its a stretch to conclude if there are any honest historians left in the declining western world, they will note the craveness of the Democrats and the cowardice of the Republicans in how they worked together to try and snatch sure defeat from the jaws of promising victory. And President Bush’s minimalist “light footprint” approach will not escape scrutiny either given how much of the reins he gave to Abizaid, Casey and Bremer for the three years.
The War on Terror is very real, America troops are fighting one front of the war in Iraq, and this is a nobel and necessary cause in the fight against jihadism. It’s the prosecution of this war which sucks and the constant contrarian divisiveness of the Donks which continue to embolden America’s enemies at every turn. I have to admit to one mistake on my part post-9/11, I underestimated how many latent dhimmies there were in America who see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil unless its equating Bush with Hitler and America with Nazi Germany.
9:03 am
[...] A few questions remain. Are the Dems really serious about anything? And can’t Bush find money elsewhere? How much more evident must it be that the real implacable foe to progress is Bush’s ego? [...]
9:52 am
Liking Monty Python and not Benny Hill is not a case of being being a stick-in-the-mud; that is a case of being discerning. My first exposure to Benny Hill was on ITN in the UK. Most of the Brits I knew were unanimous: “Benny Hill is rude.”
10:05 am
Interesting, more people voted to override then for the original bill.
Republicans should support a withdrawal, if not because it is the right thing to do, but for their own enlightened self interest. A majority of the American people want a withdrawal based on recent polls and the vote giving Democrats a majority of the House & Senate.
Every single person who voted No on the spending bill, is going to see ads running in their district, “Congressman X voted to keep American’s dying in Iraq when Democrats wanted to bring them home.”
If American’s are still dying in Iraq the next time voters go the polls, afterwards House & Senate Republicans will be able to caucus in a coffee shop. A very small coffee shop.
In the end, there will be a withdrawal, and Democrats will have the White House and a big congressional majority.
10:09 am
If this was a sop to appease their supporters, gregdn, it didn’t work—they’re hopping mad. Honestly, if this doesn’t convince people that the Democratic Congressional leadership is not acting out of conviction but is simply posturing, I don’t know what will. That was the case with the AUMF and that’s the case now. Leopard, spots, etc.
Rick, I can’t help but disagree with you. The Democratic leadership is deadly serious about regaining control of all the branches of government. That’s what their actions have always been about.
Unfortunately for that point of view, there continues to be a world out there and real events continue to happen with real people killing and being killed. I wish the question that people were asking themselves was “How do we salvage something out of the debacle in Iraq” rather than “How can we get into the White House in 2009” but there you have it.
10:27 am
[...] Yes, the Democrats wasted time posturing for their supporters, but that’s the nature of party politics. It’s part of the messiness that is our democracy. Pelosi and Reid are the symptoms. Much of the blame rests with the netroots and anti-war activists who reject America’s national security interests in Iraq. To bad for the nation the Democrats have leaders that are as short-sighted. [...]
11:39 am
In short, Democrats are cowards because they don’t want to cut and run.
11:59 am
Is the liberal media becoming more reich-wing or is it starting to deal with the real world? CNN reports the mayhem that would ensue if America unilaterally withdraws American troops from Iraq. It would destablize the region, war analysts claim.
Just FYI for the cut-and-run crowd.
12:00 pm
Web Reconnaissance for 05/03/2007…
A short recon of whatÂ’s out there that might draw your attention….
12:08 pm
Trackbacked by The Thunder Run – Web Reconnaissance for 05/03/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention.
1:04 pm
Re: mandated troop withdrawals
Congress should send the Iraq funding bill back to Bush again and again (minus pork). If Bush wants to abruptly end our involvement, let him end it that way by his veto pen. This will be on him. If things get worse it will be Bush’s fault. If things get better it rests on the Dems.
Banned but not out.
1:11 pm
Is The War Lost?...
Rick Moran at Right Wing Nuthouse thinks it is, pretty much. His main point: even if, in theory, we could win this war militarily, the country no longer has the resolve to do so. In practical reality, basically, either the…...
2:11 pm
Both Reid and Pelosi are denying the story. But what’s really silly is that there weren’t binding withdrawal time tables in the bill to begin with.
Most likely the compromise will be the dems eventually removing what soft timetable requirements the bill had, while Bush agrees to enact a milestone timefram for the Iraqi government.
2:28 pm
““How do we salvage something out of the debacle in Iraq†rather than “How can we get into the White House in 2009†but there you have it.”
Without expressing any great respect for the Democrat stand (I think they should stand with principle and damn the consequences. I think the time is right for such action) I have point out that a not unresonable view is that the only way to “salvage something out of the debacle in Iraq†is to “get into the White House in 2009”
3:34 pm
“but if Bush was smart” – and therein lies the problem. If Bush was smart, he would have listened to his generals before getting us into this mess. He would have spent more time learning about the culture of that part of the world. He would had sat down with his father (and listened to him) and had some serious discussions about Iraq. He would have gotten rid of Rumsfeld much sooner – there are so many things he could have done – if only he was smarter. Now he is the “decision maker” – thats frightening.
“And it would be nice to think that the White House and Congress could actually “work together†on anything with regards to the war except that too, is a game – this time played by both sides as each seeks to saddle the other with the “blame†for the delay in funding.”
I agree – it is time for both sides to be adults and work together. There are people dying and being maimed every day in Iraq and Afghanstan. It is time to stop playing these silly, childish games. It would have been nice if the Republican leadership would have been grown-ups while they were in charge for six years – to include the minority party to participate in the decision making. That didn’t happen. And that does not excuse the Democratic leadership for taking the same approach to the now minority Republicans in working together. It is also time to stop calling each other names. We are so divided as a nation – we so badly need a competent leader that will unit us once again. I don’t care if it is Republican or Democratic or Indedendent – please – just a mature, intelligent, adult person as president who can work with others. Not some frat boy who has never grown up!
3:39 pm
Privacy Proponent stated: “In the end, there will be a withdrawal, and Democrats will have the White House and a big congressional majority.”
You know, if you made that into a movie, it would rival the box office sales of “The Exorcist” and “The Omen” series combined! : )
But seriously, if you are correct in this prediction Privacy, it would be a four year stint that more than likely would finally put the nails into the coffin of the Democratic Party. This country, and you have to realize how horrifying this is for me to say, might just need a new lesson in a country run by Liberals. An excruciating lesson. You made your prediction. I’ll make mine based on yours.
If the Dems win the White House and a big majority in both the House and Senate in 2008….by the end of that four year White House term, you will see a viable 3 party system in America. The GOP, A new center/left party and the Democrats – and the Democrats will not be in the White House come 2012, they will have less than 100 seats in the House and will have maybe 15 seats in the Senate.
Of course, my prediction does all hinge on whether or not the Country can survive until 2012.
3:45 pm
For you history buffs out there: What war has America lost when it remained steadfast and didn’t quit/cut-and-run/redeploy? Why would Iraq be the exception?
The only thing the “insurgency” (i.e. the Viet Cong) in South Vietnam had going for it was the support of the regular North Vietnamese army. Other than a few thousand (ten thousand, whatever) al Qaeda terrorist, whose presence in Iraq is seriously being degraded as we write, what regular army is working in support of the “insurgency” in Iraq? Little question the Iraqi Shias were receiving technical support from Iran and the Sunnis were getting the same from Syria, but there is no Iranian or Syrian army fighting in country.
Donald Stoker makes some very valid points in his Insurgencies Rarely Win. Apparently far too many people have drawn too many wrong lessons from Vietnam, and in my view Iraq has never been a Vietnam despite the rather simplistic temptation to claim such was the case.
The closest Iraq will come to Vietnam is if America simply quits, then the Vietnam metaphor will most certainly play out. And given the 7th Century sectarian tensions in Iraq and the reputation America has garnered for being a paper tiger that betrays fledgling governments it initially supports, it would be surprising if torrents of blood aren’t spilled if we “redeploy” out of the region without American troops losing one battle in Iraq!
Hopefully systematically quelling sectarian violence both militarily and politically hasn’t come too late. In the final analysis, give America’s might and industrial bias, like any previous war we’ve fought its a question of whether the American people have the will and resolve to see its way through to the light at the end of the tunnel. But given the political divisiveness of the radical left in this country and the political cowardice of fair-weather Republicans and some conservatives, America may no longer have the corporate will to continue this battle on the frontiers of freedom in Iraq. And when the history books are written our posterity has every right to curse the cowardice of the Baby Boomer generation particularly if jihadist violence erupts on our streets and in our schools and malls because we’ve emboldened what appears to be a very ruthless and motivated enemy that has publicly expressed its clear hatred for America the last two decades.
4:05 pm
Sunny, your 20/20 utopianism is counter-productive. To say, “If Bush was smart, he would have listened to his generals before getting us into this mess” is disengenuous at best. This war as it is presently constituted is still winnable … at least you better hope its winnable for the sake of your children and their children’s children.
What you ignore is the original mission of Operation Iraqi Freedom to depose Saddam’s regime was a stunning success, unless you want to argue that elements of Saddam’s old regime is still fighting the war like the eighty year old Japanese warrior still “fighting American dogs” on some backwater Pacific island. In fact the left was utterly stunned (admit it), when Saddam and what was left of his regime skeddadled out of Baghdad and went into hiding.
What hasn’t been done well is transitioning into a counter-insurgency with an eye to Iraq and Afghanistan being not only fronts on the general war on Islamic terror but also bridgeheads into both Iraq and Syria. In fact, the wrong generals President Bush has been listening to the last three years, e.g. Abizaid and Casey, are the ones who were the least pro-active by adopting a “small footprint” strategy which has proven inadequate in dealing with foreign and indigenous jihadists (i.e. “insurgents”). I can only construe your apparent glee in earlier reverses in Iraq as an indication that you don’t appreciate the seriousness of abandoning Iraq to militant Islamic fundamentalists who are actively pursuing the resubjugation of the Iraqi people. Clearly you’ve become yet another victim of the left-wing media narrative since you apparently don’t appreciate the historic gravity of what the Democratic Party is doing in undermining the war effort in Iraq with its political agenda.
6:26 pm
Yes, indeed.
Funny, the military is in shambles, the next menace over the horizon can only be confronted by calling men up in a draft, we’re more dependent on middle east oil than ever, and it’s the Democrats who “want” to leave us at the mercy of Al Queda.
We are flat going to kick Republican a** next November, then Democrats will get to work rebuilding our military and getting us seriously in the fight against Islamic extremism.
7:10 pm
Democrats Cave on Timetable…
In the end, they’re too cowardly to fight for anything….
7:47 pm
This is a paramilitary group that works with US and Iraqi forces. They have been hugely successful in rooting out AQ and destroying them [with US help] in Anbar. This type of organization has proven itself so well that it is going to be duplicated elsewhere. The problem is that while we are arming Sunni groups we are also dismantling the Mahdi army
Grognard,
You are letting the Mainstream Media confuse you with their twisting of the term “militia”. Sadr’s army is not a militia, they are the private army of a warlord who is bent on destruction of all who don’t kowtow to him. The Anbar Salvation Council’s “paramilitary” force is a true militia. The United States has a long history of citizens banding together in times of trouble to fight off dangers to the community. We used to call these citizen soldiers militia, now we call them national guard.
The aim of the Anbar Salvation Council’s militia is the defence of their local communities from invaders. The aim of the Sadr army is to sow death and destruction anywhere possible in order to overthrow the elected government.
The Mahdi army would not be dismantled if they were a true militia defending their communities from the foreign fighters. They are not the same thing and have not behaved in the same manner.
9:31 pm
ibeecurious, do you mean the Main Stream Media organizations like the Pentagon, and the State Department? Do you mean those Main Stream Media talking heads General Franks, General Casey, and Vice President Cheney? Are those the organizations or people you are referring to that have “twisted†the term militia by using it to describe the Mahdi army?
10:15 pm
The military is in shambles
Another media myth. Even “in shambles” our military is still orders of magnitude more conventionally potent than any of the next top three militaries in the world. There is absolutely no evidence this is true with regard to America’s ability to protect itself from conventional attacks other than the sour grapes of retired generals who were passed over for promotion might spew to get some face time or what the Pentagon might say in order to pad its budget for a larger military than necessary.
And when did liberals really care about the military anyway? With each passing day their “I Support the Troops” CYA mantra wears ever thinner. How do you “support the troops” when you voted for liberals who cut and slash the military budget every chance they get, like they did seven of eight years under Bill Clinton? Where’s the “support” in that?
The capabilities of the military was severely degraded under the Clinton Administration with a string of defense budget cuts, shortages of spare parts were commonplace, military hardware upgrades were either cancelled or delayed, the uptempo deployment under Clinton was way out of proportion to the threats posed to American interests from abroad, military pay was stagnant with many soldiers’ families on food stamps, and the military was cut by 500,000 soldiers to reflect the fiscal realities the Clinton Administration imposed upon the U.S. Armed Forces.
Yes, America military assets have been strained in fighting a multi-front global war on terror. Fortunately, though leaner, the U.S. military is meaner and has the advantage of force multipliers by way of better C3 and weapons systems. I wish it wasn’t the case that some soldiers are on their second or third deployments, but clearly this is both a political and systemic problem which began in the 1990s and no amount of spin will whitewash liberals own complicity in underfunding and undersupporting the American military establishment those eight years under Bill Clinton. One can only imagine the utter outrage from liberals if the military budget was greatly increased and another 500,000 soldiers were added to the payroll: “Why are we spending all this money on warmongering when it could be spent on saving the minnow, creating another entitlement for illegal aliens or keeping polar bears from drowning!”
11:40 am
One can only imagine the utter outrage from liberals if the military budget was greatly increased and another 500,000 soldiers were added to the payroll…
And yet here I am, one of those liberals advocating just that. Of course the fact that I was a soldier might influence my views.
The military is in terrible shape and it’s not just shortage of weapons.
Troops are seeing that the men in charge have no clue still and should they be unfortunate enough to be wounded the penny pinchers are more interested in reducing the cost of their care than improving it.
In standup fight no military on earth can stand up to us. But, we won’t be getting in to too many stand up foghts in the future. It will be hit and run fighters dispersed among women and children whose dead bodies will flash the evening news everytime we drop a 500 pound bomb into their midst.
It’s dirty insurgent battle that money on next generation $1 billion dollar stealth planes will do nothing to stop.
It’s already clear the Humvee needs to go the way of the carrier pidgeon and that MP’s are more important than Osprey crash-bait aircraft. But that’s not where our defense dollars are tilted, are they?