Kristol: Pathetic (The me-too Republicans wimp out on Iraq)

The Weekly Standard ^ | November 15, 2005 | William Kristol

[RWR8189]

Pathetic.

One expected no better of the Senate Democrats, who want to get out of Iraq as soon as possible, or sooner than possible--most of them don't really care--and who want to embarrass president Bush. But couldn't the Senate Republicans have stood and fought against passing an irresponsible resolution suggesting that Americans want to get out of Iraq more than we want to win?

The Republican leadership may have figured they didn't have the votes to defeat the Democratic proposal without giving their members a weaker alternative to vote for. But better to lose such a vote by a small margin than to go on record voting for a resolution that sends a signal of irresolution and weakness at precisely the time when a message of strength is most needed. After all, in precisely a month, the Iraqis will vote for their first government under the new constitution, and one thing they must weigh in their calculations is whether they can count on U.S. staying power in the fight against the terrorists. With today's vote in the Senate, the Republican leadership, apparently working hand in glove with White House staff, showed itself today to be tactically myopic and politically timid.

One hopes Republicans in the House will show more spine. One trusts that President Bush will not bend in any way to these winds of worry. One hopes that a year from now this vote is simply remembered as a minor hiccup on the way to success and victory in Iraq. But one doesn't win a war by showing weakness. And one doesn't win a political fight by half capitulating to one's opponents, and, in effect, accepting the premises of their critique.

All honor to the 13 Republican senators who stood up against the me-too, we-want-to-get-out-as-well-but-not-quite-as-quickly, Republican leadership: Bunning, Burr, Chambliss, Coburn, DeMint, Graham, Inhofe, Isakson, Kyl, McCain, Sessions, Thune, and Vitter. Let's hope their colleagues reconsider and join their ranks in the near future.

--William Kristol

[Bush 100 Percent]

Sorry. GWB has not lost his "strongest supporter". Strong supporters fight not run.

Believe it or not, the GOP is made up of more than one person.

For some reason, you want to expect nothing from the Senators or even the people. The President has a job to do beyond a 24/7 political campaign. He has to be President, World Leader, fight the WOT, chose SC nominees and a few other things.

You can back Allen if you want to. However, he had my attention and has, now, lost any chance at my vote for Pres. This has to do with HIM and his handling of himself and the WOT votes. PERIOD. The President won't be around to take the blame in the future for whatever Allen decides to do .....

[Bush 100 Percent]

He lost mine with the "torture" vote. Anyone who has so little faith in our Military and who doesn't think twice about interfering with the men and women who are risking (and giving) their lives for our Country, doesn't deserve to be CIC.

[FreeReign]

Sorry, buddy, I don't have the time or energy to explain what is very obvious to only a few RINO defenders.

No.

You don't have the wherewithal to think for yourself.

Kristol tells you what to think;

Kristol: ...resolution suggesting that Americans want to get out of Iraq more than we want to win.

and you follow.

[Ann Archy]

Kyl is the GREATEST!

[Buckhead]

How's this:

RE: The resolutionwhich passed 11/15/05 to require the President to explain to the Senate how and when we will withdraw from Iraq:

This was an absolutely unconcsionable and shockingly treacherous betrayal of the President, our military, our men and women serving in Iraq, the dead and wounded in that conflict, and of the millions of Iraqis who have risked their lives, fortunes and honor to help bring freedom to Iraq.

Gutless, craven and spineless are far too mild to properly characterize what was done today.

The only way we can lose this war is if we just give up and quit. On the ground we are routing them, and will undoubtedly win if we just stay the course. The enemy's strategy is to hang on until a bunch of limp wristed, hair sprayed, poll watching cowards in the US Congress decide to preemptively surrender. You and the others who supported that resolution today materially advanced the enemy's objectives. They will take great encouragement from what you and your colleagues did today. It is shocking, shameful, and outrageous but, I am sad to say, not out of character.

Young men and women in Iraq every day go out on patrols knowing that they could be maimed or killed by an IED at any moment. But they do it anyway because it is their duty.

Their courage in the face of death should inspire you to stand behind them and guard their back. Yet a large majority of Republican Senators has looked at nothing more frightening than a blip in the polls, and has turned into quivering, quaking and sniveling Nancy boys who have run crying to their mothers while sucking their thumbs. Our President and our troops are left twisting in the wind while a bunch of pompadoured blow-hard jive-talking yellow bellies decide to preemptively surrender because some jack leg pollster said "Boo."

[Soul Seeker]

http://www.radioblogger.com/

Yet a large majority of Republican Senators has looked at nothing more frightening than a blip in the polls, and has turned into quivering, quaking and sniveling Nancy boys who have run crying to their mothers while sucking their thumbs. Our President and our troops are left twisting in the wind while a bunch of pompadoured blow-hard jive-talking yellow bellies decide to preemptively surrender because some jack leg pollster said "Boo."

I have nothing to add to that.

Except the link above. Jed Babbin basically said they are too gutless even to come out and suggest retreat immediately. This is a Slowed down Vietnam. How in the hell did we, the strongest widest most passionate articulate gutsy ideological movement in this country, end up with these sissies that buckle down to a drunk, mental midget in Cali and dullwit Reid that relies on the FORMER Majority/Minority leader even for the recent idea to shut down the Senate? It's an embarssment, horrifying and maddening as hell that our troops and innocent people (Uraqi's) are in danger of massacre and endless years of disgrace because they can't handle a few polls that don't tickle their ears.

Also interviewed in Hugh's show were Burr, DeMint and Coburn that essentially admit this was a move done from fear. Dems moved with their proposal, and Frist wanted to mitigate damange by introducing a watered down proposal! This is what they consider fighting back? telegraphing the white flag?

[Soul Seeker]

Shows I shouldn't type when furious.

Spelling correction= Iraqi's.

[AlienCrossfirePlayer]

FReepers should ask their US House member to have S.Amdt. 2518 to S. 1012 be removed in conference.

[MississippiMan]

I'm totally against creating arbitrary dates for withdrawal. That's begging disaster.

I also wholly supported the removal of Saddam.

I also believe, however, that it's high time for Bush and the military to define--behind the scenes to protect our forces--an exit strategy for Iraq.

MM

[Buckhead]

Have the President's speeches on that very subject escaped your notice?

[Miss Marple]

I was just getting ready to post the same thing! No wonder the President has such trouble...the memory span of a whole lot of people is apparently about 5 minutes!

[George W. Bush]

I'm trying to point out that the President is in deep trouble. He's losing his strongest supporters...ie: George Allen. And, until and unless the President stands up and defends himself, I will find it difficult to convict those who chose not to stand up and defend him.

I think you're going a bit far here. It's just not that dramatic.

The Dims were going to make some stink over Iraq during the remaining time in this session for their anti-military kooks. So the GOP, almost certainly following a Rovian strategy, came up with this meaningless resolution.

This is all political window-dressing, signifiying nothing. It pushes the whole issue into next year's election season when a more substantive debate will occur. By that time, we'll have more police working in Iraq and a successful election behind us and the Supremes will have weighed in on the legal limbo around Gitmo detainees.

It's called political management. You know, strategery? The neocon mouthpieces like Weekly Standard will have to strut around scolding everyone mightily over how the amateurs in the Senate are messing up their war. Personally, I find it droll to see the Kristol-haters turn to Kristol-lovers based on a single issue which panders to their skewed views.

Whether Allen deserves some bashing on other issues, I dunno. Personally, I think you should congratulate him as I am doing via email to my own senators. But this vote means nothing except to a few isolated kooks at the fringes of both parties. Unless we have an exceptionally dull political week, it won't even make more than 1-2 minutes on Sunday's talking head shows.

[Jim Noble]

Makes me think we only need one term Senators and Congress critters. They wouldn't be so apt to stick their fingers up in the air to see which way the wind is blowing if they were only there for one term.

You are both right, and wrong.

Congress was designed to be heavily but not decisively influenced by which way the wind was blowing.

The clever designers knew very well what the office-seeking class was all about, and the two-year House term was meant to create a body with their fingers constantly in the air. This is actually a good thing, and it's why, BTW, the House is stronger on war issues than the Senate right now.

The Senate, OTOH, was destroyed by the Seventeenth Amendment and has become a body of "super-congressmen" rather than the ambassadors from the States they were intended to be.

Running as an at-large Congressman from a whole state for a six-year term REQUIRES such a huge investment that all, or nearly all, of them are wealthy. And like all wealthy people, they all have a healthy regard for protecting their investments.

Your real problem is with the Senate, and I think that a term-limited Senate would be better than what we have now, but not as good as a return to an appointed Senate would be.

[RVN Airplane Driver]

The point you miss with your assessment of the political game is how the enemy assesses this action. That is what is important...to hell with what those jackasses in congress are doing...

[George W. Bush]

The point you miss with your assessment of the political game is how the enemy assesses this action. That is what is important...to hell with what those jackasses in congress are doing...

I don't think so.

This resolution is a do-nothing when you boil it down. It calls on a move toward an Iraqi control of the country (policing primarily). While the Iraqis have only one entire major unit in action currently, they're doing quite well in action and we have many police units well on their way in training and can expect at least ten to be in action by next summer. And a successful upcoming Iraq election, following the recent ratification, are another success ahead of us.

As far as the idea that Bush will be "compelled" by the Senate to define when and how we will bring the troops home, it's a no-brainer. The answer is, as it has always been, that we will withdraw most of our troops, not all, as Iraqis take over the job of defending the country from terrorists and are capable of squelching internal violent political struggles (Kurd vs. Shi'ite vs. Sunni) within the law, whatever law they define for themselves. And the answer of 'when' is also the answer to 'how' which is the other element in this resolution.

Really, this just isn't that significant. And I don't think the White House was caught by surprise here. I think Rove planned it in the context of next year's elections.

[Right_in_Virginia]

The President has a job to do beyond a 24/7 political campaign. He has to be President, World Leader, fight the WOT, chose SC nominees and a few other things.

Of course he does. He also has a responsibility to maintain his effectiveness. Right now he's wallowing in low poll numbers, eroding faith in his honesty and a splintering party.

I hope he can find some time to address these issues.

[Jim Noble]

perhaps a new political party in America is in order.

That is very, very rare - but so is both major parties running out of gas at the same time.

The last time that happened was 1856, and we got 600 000 dead and 1/3 of the country destroyed.

Be careful what you wish for.

[Jim Noble]

I believe that Allen has lost his chance at the Presidency over his votes on the WOT.

He lost me when he said W should meet (a second time) with the deranged Cindy Sheehan.

It's a minor point, really about nothing - except that, like a flash of lightning, it illuminated the hole where Allen's character would be, if he had any.

When I complained here about that, the Allen-bots were all over me.

Now, this vote is much more consequential that giving a puff to a lunatic, but it reveals the same character defect again. Not to say that most politicians don't have it, but for somebody to backstab the President so readily and for nothing - George Allen will never be President.

[rodguy911]

The sad thing is if you are looking for purity in politics....you will be looking for a long, long time.
Ronald Reagan is gone and those filling his shoes are second best , at best.

[Laverne]

This gives the President an opportunity to address a joint session of congress, every 90 days, get national attention to his assessment of the WOT. Although I think the pubbies were spineless in their adopting this resolution...it can have a positive affect. Just think of the President addressing the nation every three months on this issue -- a one way dump of the President's message to the world.