Posted on 09/06/2007 11:13:17 AM PDT by yoe
There are several stories in the news this morning that share a common theme. (The New York Times) headlines that the Democrats are "Newly Willing to Compromise on Iraq":
"[S]enior Democrats now say they are willing to rethink their push to establish a withdrawal deadline of next spring if doing so will attract the 60 Senate votes needed to prevail."
The Times attributes the Democrats' flexibility--grudgingly--to a stiffening of Republican resolve:
"Democrats had been counting on more Republicans to make a clean break from the president after the summer recess, but the White House has managed, at least temporarily, to hold on to much of its support."
In the Senate, proposed compromises include John Warner's plan, which would attempt to mandate a date for beginning the withdrawal from Iraq, but without purporting to mandate any completion date. What most of the various proposals have in common is that they would have little if any impact on events in Iraq, but would allow the Democrats to say that their policy is different from the President's.
(Politico's coverage) is a bit blunter:
"Said another aide involved in the process: “Despite the months of debate, and all the votes, and all the ads and everything, we have not been able to break the Republicans. They are still with Bush, and that’s the reality here.”
Politico also makes the Dems' political calculation more explicit:
"Democrats are also worried that they may be losing their political edge on the war, especially as a few congressional Democrats have publicly noted the signs of progress after returning from trips to Iraq."
(The Hill), meanwhile, focuses on Democrats in the House, where their leadership apparently hasn't figured out what to do. One "bipartisan" proposal, sponsored by Reps. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii) and John Tanner (D-Tenn.), takes the rather ludicrous approach of requiring that the administration draw up plans for a withdrawal, while not requiring that the plans be implemented. This doesn't satisfy the liberals, who are pushing, among other things, a bill that would prohibit--perversely, one would think--our troops from training Iraqis.
The reality is that the Democrats, as much as President Bush, are at the mercy of events in Iraq. As long as a substantial segment of the public still has hope for a successful outcome, they don't dare do anything that would be perceived as bringing about an unnecessary defeat. If we eventually fail in Iraq, the Democrats will benefit politically in any event. So, unless and until events dictate a different course, the Democrats will tread water, with some of them hoping for a good outcome in Iraq, and others not.
Schumer and Reid are traitors to their country during a war! Nothing is more obvious, but not a chance of doing anything. Remember 2/3 of all Americans are ignorant of facts and are unable to think. We are caught in a cess pool of rotten garbage and little way out.
The bottom line here is that the Democrats never did have any ideas about what to do about Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran or anywhere else in the world. There's never been anything "new" about their strategy or approach. It has always been the same - declare defeat and leave.
The problem for the Dems is that time is running out for them to be able to accomplish a pullout with the resulting blood bath on Bush’s watch...I’m sure they dread the thought of a Democrat administration having to deal with Iraq because then the blood bath would be blamed on the Democrats.
I would like to put them through a "Drown Proofing" course at Paris Island!
I wonder if an impartial poll was conducted, who would win the title as the dumbest Representative and the dumbest Senator??
This is so sad, just yesterday a lot of liberal bloggers were all excited that the “reports of the demise of the anti-war movement were premature”, all due to an e-mail sent from John Kerry.
And now they get their hopes all dashed again.
Sad. Very Sad.
It never occurred to them that (a) the President might actually change strategy and we might actually end up winning the war; and (b) that Republicans would not break ranks. They went "all-in" for defeat and they have lost.
Their strategy is now in ruins. They are scrambling with a fallback of trying to spin the surge and smear General Petraeus, but as Chuck Schumer found out, you can't do that without also labeling our troops as failures and the American people will not tolerate that.
Reid and Pelosi are traitors. If the voters had any idea what was going on in Congress regarding Iraq they’d see it too. Discrediting a report before it’s even written is a blatant example. It’s a political move designed to keep the Dems’ hope for surrender alive. It’s their last ditch effort.
“The Times attributes the Democrats’ flexibility—grudgingly—to a stiffening of Republican resolve:.. “
We freepers can be rightfully proud having shoved a broom up the.. eh spine .. of the Republicans to give them that resolve.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.