It gets really irritating listening to some of these DC lawmakers claiming how terrible the war is, how not 1 more soldier should die in this illconceived, incompotently run debacle, and yet...............
Poker DonkeysThe evidence mounts that congressional Democrats are merely bluffing when they threaten to use their appropriations power to force an American surrender in Iraq. Last week it was Barack Obama observing that no lawmaker
"wants to play chicken with our troops," and yesterday two senior Senate Dems said so too, as the Washington Times reports:
"We're not going to vote to cut funding, period," said Sen. Carl Levin, Michigan Democrat and Armed Services Committee chairman.
Mr. Levin said he and other Democrats would continue to pressure President Bush on enforcing benchmarks for progress in Iraq, but ultimately most of his colleagues will support funding because they do not have the votes to override Mr. Bush's veto.
"What we're going to try to do, a majority, I believe, of Democrats and most of the Republicans, is to vote for a bill that funds the troops, period," he said during an appearance on ABC's "This Week." "We're going to fund the troops. We always have." . . .
Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat, echoed Mr. Levin's comments on troop funding, telling "Fox News Sunday" that "We are not going to leave the troops high and dry, plain and simple. Senator Reid has said that. I've said that. Every leader of the Democratic Party has said that."
Sen. Harry Reid, the majority leader, has joined pro-defeat Sens. Russ Feingold and John Kerry* in supporting legislation to cut off the troops a year hence. But Levin says "even Harry Reid acknowledged that that's not going to happen." It's all politics, aimed at appeasing the party's anti-American base. Good luck with that, Sen. Reid.
Yesterday's "Meet the Press" included this exchange between host Tim Russert and Chuck Todd, NBC's political director:
Russert: Chuck Todd, where do we go? The president will say, "All right, you sent me your legislation, and I just vetoed it. Now what are you going to do? Are you going to give me money for the troops, or are you going to tell the American people you're not going to support this war anymore?"
Todd: Well, it's interesting. What I don't understand what the White House is doing is that every time Democrats propose something that allows them to potentially take co-ownership of the war, Bush actually stops them, and politically it actually puts the Democrats in an advantageous position because they can sit there and say, "Well, you know what, we've, we've tried to take some responsibility for this war. The president won't do it. He's vetoing this legislation. This is still Bush's war. This is still a Republican war."
And that's sort of the frustration that I'm sensing from some Republicans, not, not inside the White House, but on Capitol Hill and on the campaign trail a little bit, to sit there and say, "Guys, let the Democrats share some ownership of this thing or this war's going to--it's going to make 2006 seem like a party." In 2008 it's going to be a real death knell for the Republican Party.
Russert: So if you're a real cynic, you can say all right, let the Democrats have their way, let them set the deadline of March or August of '08.
Todd: And let them own this war. That's right.
Russert: Start bringing the troops home then--back home then. Chaos breaks out, you say that's the Democratic solution.
Todd: That's right. "We tried it--we tried it--we tried it your way," and then suddenly it's a referendum on, well, do you want the Republicans to run this war or the Democrats to run this war? And you've gotten a taste of what it would look like if the Democrats ran this war.
We're highly skeptical of Todd's political acumen; this is, after all, the man who predicted a Kerry landslide in 2004. But just for fun, let's assume he's right about the current politics of Iraq. What could possibly be motivating the White House not to go along with the Democrats, cut and run from Iraq, and allow "chaos" to break out, which they could then blame on the Dems?
Well, here is one factor the White House may be considering:
Such an outcome would not be in the interests of the United States.
* At least he served a few weeks in Vietnam, which is a few weeks more than Russ Feingold, Carl Levin, Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer combined!
Article
