Democrats To Kick The Can
The Chicago Tribune reports that Democrats will produce a supplemental bill for the Iraq war that will not have fixed timelines for withdrawal, in order to ensure that George Bush will sign it. Dick Durbin will reach out to Republicans to fashion a compromise that will allow the surge to work through September -- and some Republicans may bail if the situation doesn't show improvement (via TMV):
President Bush appears poised to win months more of funding for troops in Iraq. But if conditions don't improve there by fall, he could lose support from a battalion of congressional Republicans.Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill, while still debating details, say they are likely to pass a bill that would tie war spending to a set of benchmarks for Iraq's progress but no deadlines for troop withdrawal, which caused Bush to veto a funding bill this week. They would then address the war in other debates this summer and let political pressure mount on the GOP. ...
Despite protests from such anti-war groups as MoveOn.org, which is pushing for a "concrete" deadline for ending the war in the next funding bill, Democratic leaders including Emanuel and Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) say they don't have the votes to override a Bush veto and they don't want to risk cutting off funding for troops in the field.
Faced with the prospect of losing anti-war Democrats in the Senate, who will not support a bill without a withdrawal timeline, Durbin said the only choice is to work with Republicans on a compromise.
Analysts say that could help Democrats in purely political terms. A compromise allows Democrats to keep criticizing the war without taking "ownership" of it from Bush, and without opening themselves to Vietnam-style accusations of undermining a war before it had a chance to succeed, said Michael O'Hanlon, a senior fellow in foreign policy studies at the Brookings Institution who supports the deployment of the extra troops.
This is the smart move -- and the one Democrats should have adopted in January, when the Senate confirmed General Petraeus and his new counterinsurgency strategies. Republicans have misgivings about the war as well, but they also understand the consequences of failure. They want the surge to succeed, but with the elections coming up, they don't want to stick with the plan if it doesn't produce success.
By splitting from the anti-war faction, Durbin and the Democrats allow for a short period of time to test the success of the new strategy without seeming extremist or hysterical. Applying the timetables to non-military aid to the Maliki government puts the kind of pressure on them to reform that doesn't undermine our own strategic interests in Iraq and communicates the seriousness of our patience deficit. I predicted last week that the eventual compromise would form around that concept, and for good reason -- it gives everyone what they want for now.
However, the Democrats had better prepare themselves for the storm once this bill gets passed. The anti-war Left will eviscerate Durbin and Reid, and for good reason. Both Reid and Pelosi have used the extremist wing to pressure the White House and the Republicans in Congress, but have belatedly discovered that the GOP has some testicular fortitude after all. Given the demand for withdrawal and defeat rather than better pressure on the Iraqi government, the Republicans chose to stand up to Reid and Pelosi -- and the Democrats learned that narrow majorities do not a shadow presidency make.
Instead of moving from compromise to obstinacy, Reid and Pelosi went the other way, and will pay a political price for their miscalculations.
This will push the debate off until September, when Petraeus will return for a progress report. If the news is good and violence has abated, then Congress will likely push off debate until the primaries are over next year. If the news is not good, Republicans will start looking at withdrawal dates as well, and the anti-war wing will gain traction. In the meantime, I suspect that everyone but the MoveOn crowd will be happy to move on and start working on other priorities.
Comments (11)
Posted by Lightwave | May 5, 2007 10:34 AM
But that's just it Ed.
Putting off the debate until September will put the Democrats in the exact same position as they are in now: a position of complete weakness.
They will still have to send the President a no-strings appropriation bill that fully funds the troops.
They will still take heavy political damage from both the moonbat base and the independents who recognize they are playing politics with the lives of our soldiers.
The Democrats *cannot win* on the Iraq issue for the simple reason that they do not have a better plan to win in Iraq.
Nancy and Harry continue to poll under Bush's numbers. What does that tell you about how America really feels about victory in Iraq? What should that say to the GOP legislators on the fence, or trying to run away from the Bush position on Iraq?
In the end, the war in Iraq will continue until it is won. This may take a long time, but we have no other viable choice left. Leaving will directly lead to millions of dead Iraqis, oil prices that will cripple our country and lead to another Great Depression, and terrorist attacks on our soil that will kill Americans.
What the Democrats fail to understand is that this is a generational conflict. Bush understands this. History will indeed absolve him.
Posted by PersonFromPorlock | May 5, 2007 12:05 PM
...but have belatedly discovered that the GOP has some testicular fortitude after all.
I'm sure there's a more likely explanation for recent 'pubby behavior.
Posted by smagar | May 5, 2007 12:12 PM
FROM: Al Qaeda Central Command
TO: All Forward Units
SUBJ: Warning Order: August Bombing Offensive
1) Recent political developments in America indicate that the American Democrats, some Republicans and their "MSM" (Main Stream Media) are now setting up this coming September as a mental "drop-dead" date for GEN Petraeus to show success in Iraq. I.e., if Iraq is now showing tangible signs of peace by September, the Democrats will feel free to call for American troops to withdraw.
2) All units will begin making plans NOW for a series of sensational events in mid-August. Plan such events to draw maximum media coverage. Begin recruiting and training suicide bombers now.
3) All units are advised to stand down until mid-August. Restrict major combat operations until then. Benefits of this strategy: (a) keeps our casualties to a minimum; (b) lulls US MSM into a false sense that Petraeus has indeed pacified Iraq. This will maximize the "Tet" impact of our mid-August strikes.
4) Allah be praised to the US Congressional Democrats, for giving us a target date around which to plan.
Posted by Adjoran | May 5, 2007 12:43 PM
smagar has it about right: Funding until September isn't much difference than a timetable. It gives aid and comfort to the enemy, who can rest assured that the traitor caucus will be trying to effect a full-scale turn-tail-and-run again in three months or so.
Pathetic.
Posted by Del Dolemonte | May 5, 2007 2:28 PM
Lightwave says:
"What the Democrats fail to understand is that this is a generational conflict. Bush understands this. History will indeed absolve him."
Depends on who is writing the "history books". Last time I checked, most such books were written by liberal college professors.
As for the length of the war, that's irrelevant. Whenever I hear a southpaw claiming that we've already spent longer fighting this war than we did fighting World War 2, I simply remind them that if we were fighting by World War 2 "rules" now, we'd have already won. I refer to such tactics as carpet-bombing of civilian populations, etc.
But the leftists would never allow us to fight such a war now, which is why it's taking longer.
Posted by Lightwave | May 5, 2007 6:17 PM
Both Del and Smagar have excellent points.
One one hand we have today's latest AQ propaganda tape claiming the Dems' pullout attempt is proof the terrorists are winning, and taunting us for wanting to leave.
On the other hand we have the President's weekly address stating that the war funding is needed immediately and more flexibility is needed in funds, not timelines and benchmarks.
In other words, AQ is now holding up the efforts of the Dems to force a withdrawal as prima facie evidence that they are winning right now.
Do we need any more evidence that the Dems are giving aid and comfort to AQ in Iraq? When will the charges be filed?
Attention Democrats, moonbats, and anti-war activists: Treason is not healthy dissent. When your words and actions are specifically quoted by the enemy as proof they are winning, what you are doing is not healthy dissent or debate. It is treason. It must be treated as such.
Posted by Mwalimu Daudi | May 5, 2007 9:47 PM
This will push the debate off until September, when Petraeus will return for a progress report. If the news is good and violence has abated, then Congress will likely push off debate until the primaries are over next year.
I could not possibly disagree more. Come September, the MSM and their Democrat pets will simply claim that Petraeus sees no progress (regardless of what he actually says). In other words - lie. And Bush and the GOP will go out with not a bang but a whimper.
The MSM and Democrats have lied plenty of times before. Large numbers of WMDs were found in Iraq, yet the MSM and Democrats (under the influence of the Kool-Aid they guzzle 24/7) make a wide variety of conflicting claims to keep the faith that Iraq was WMD-free. A partial listing of the alibis and excuses used: the WMDs are too old, they are completly depleted, they are mostly depleted, some of them are depleted, they are not shiny and new-looking so they must be depleted; Saddam did not hide them, he "lost" them; they are not the weapons we went to war over (inconvenient WMDs?); they are the wrong color, the wrong shape, the wrong smell, the wrong odor; they are really Saddam's depleted bug bombs, they are paper weights, they are door stops, they are boat anchors, let's-talk-about-Mark-Foley-or-Anna-Nicole-Smith-instead.
Likewise, Saddam was found to have ties to al Qaeda, despite repeated lying by the MSM and Democrats that it was all a Bush plot.
See a pattern developing? The MSM and their Democrat pets use the Big Lie technique to twist debate in this country. And so far it has worked - no one in the GOP has had the courage to stand up to them, least of all Bush.
Delaying until September does three things:
1. It keeps the rivers of hate cash from the Nutroots flowing into Democrat campaigns.
2. It give Democrats several additional months of free media to spin the story their way.
3. It gives the terrorists hope and keeps the "insurgency" alive. The MSM and Democrats have made a Faustian bargain with al Qaeda, but the bill won't come due for some time. It will probably be after the 2008 election before they begin to pay a political price for their actions. Too bad for anyone who gets caught in the next terrorist attack, but Democrats - must - win!
Bush and the GOP could pummel the MSM and the Democrats by keeping up the pressure on them, but if the spaghetti-spined way in which they have handled the “slow bleed” strategy up until now is any indication, it will be Republicans who will get slammed. Over the past few weeks I have watched them fumble opportunity after opportunity, and I doubt that they will learn their lesson anytime soon.
Posted by docjim505 | May 6, 2007 6:48 AM
smagar,
BINGO! Unless the terrorists are total fools, I think you've outlined their exact plan. Sad thing is, it'll work. The dems and the Republicans in the Congress (shall we start calling them "demmies" for their lickspittle attitude toward the majority?) are just aching for an excuse to cut 'n' run. The terrorists, with the help of the MSM, can certainly provide it on cue.
Posted by Jabba the Tutt | May 6, 2007 8:32 AM
Republicans who sign up with the Defeatocrats will pay at the polls. The Republican Base is fed up with the defeatists. Condi Rice just screwed herself by meeting with the Syrian Foreign Minister. She lucked out that the Iranian Foreign Minister ran away at the sight of a red dress.
Posted by Dan | May 6, 2007 5:03 PM
Will Petraeus be able to report that the "surge" has served to train and equip Iraqi troops to the point where U.S. forces aren't needed? If not, "victory" is no nearer, and the surge isn't working.
Posted by docjim505 | May 6, 2007 6:11 PM
Paraphrase Dan (May 6, 2007 05:03):
July 6, 1944: Will Eisenhower be able to report that Operation Overlord has served to drive the nazi armies out of France to the point where U.S. forces aren't needed? If not, "victory" is no nearer, and Overlord isn't working.