Posted on 11/15/2007 8:03:59 AM PST by jdm
Over the spring and summer, the Democrats tried putting timetables for withdrawal onto funding bills for the war in Iraq. At that time, they claimed that the war had been lost, with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid explicitly declaring defeat on the floor of the Senate during the debate. In the end, they lost the battle for defeat and retreat as the Bush administration backed them into a corner, even while losses spiked in the early days of the surge.
Now, of course, the strategy and tactics of General David Petraeus have proven successful. Violence across all markers has dropped precipitously, and even the slow motion of the Maliki government has begun to take up reconciliation proposals, including a general amnesty demanded by the Sunnis. Al-Qaeda terrorists have all but abandoned western Iraq, and their senior leadership continues to lose membership. One might think that the Democrats would reconsider their plan to declare defeat.
The Democratic-led House of Representatives defied a White House veto threat Wednesday and inserted timelines for an immediate troop withdrawal in a 50 billion dollar Iraq war funding bill.
The House voted 218 to 203 to pass the emergency war budget, calling for a pullback of most combat troops to start within 30 days, with a goal of completion by December 15, 2008.
President George W. Bush, who has thwarted every previous Democratic attempt to change his war policy, has repeatedly warned he will never accept mandated troop withdrawal timelines.
The vote, the latest drama in a prolonged showdown between Bush and Democrats over the war, was largely symbolic, however, as the bill is considered dead on arrival in the Senate.
It's dead on arrival in the House, too. Even if by some miracle the Senate could pass the same bill, the White House would veto it -- and Congress couldn't possibly override it. The Democrats would be in the same place they were in the spring, where they faced a hard deadline for funding operations or leaving troops without the necessary resources, and they would have to provide the funding again in a form acceptable to the White House.
The political ground has shifted. The Democrats made huge mistakes in the summer, opting to take a hard line on Iraq to please their netroot base while alienating Congressional Republicans, some of whom favored pressuring the Bush administration for a policy change. In the months of May and June, when casualty rates went up, Reid and Pelosi had an opportunity to split the GOP caucus and push through moderate limitations on the Iraq deployment.
Those days have passed. After enraging Senate Republicans with their all-nighter stunt and pulling the defense appropriation off the floor as punishment, the Democrats followed that with an attempted character assassination of Petraeus. Hillary Clinton led that charge on the Hill, claiming that she needed a "willful suspension of disbelief" to trust anything the general that the Senate had just overwhelmingly confirmed into command had to say on Iraq. Unfortunately for Hillary and the rest of the Democratic caucus, events proved Petraeus correct and themselves dead wrong.
As a result, they will garner little Republican sympathy for their latest machinations. They have played themselves into a checkmate on the Iraq war, and they know it. They can pass all of the 218-203 votes they wish, but they have no chance of altering war policy at this point in time short of completely defunding the war effort -- an option they didn't have the courage to use when they had some Republican support. They have lost, and it won't even take a veto to prove it on this issue.
Bump
The dems have become even more insane in their desperation. And Harry Reid’s pronouncements of defeat just make him look stupid and/or unaware of the actual situation in Iraq. They rant about Pres. Bush’s unwillingness to “change course” and they can’t change course from their cut-and-run strategy despite all evidence that we and the Iraqis are winning against the terrorists.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Here’s a thought. How did we get the last 2 Democratic presidents?
The first one,(Carter) because of repercussions of Watergate.
The last one (Clinton) because Perot was able to split the Republican party (was it a Democrat plan?).
Let’s not let it happen again.
Carter turned out to be the worst President of the 20th Century. Perot had a long standing feud with George H.W. Bush and siphoned off enough votes to elect Clinton. Clinton was elected with less than a majority in 92 and 96 when Perot ran again and took votes from Dole.
As we are winning, and Bush slowly starts bringing troops home over the next year, Dems will claim the credit for the drawdown. The MSM will let the Dems get away with their lies and many of the uninformed electorate will believe it. Sad, but that’s the probable scenario.
Sunni and Shi’a senior religious leaders signing the unprecedented “fatwa against violence” gives clear evidence the troop surge, applying counterinsurgency warfare principles, provides the security General Petraeus envisioned. He said, “The object is to improve security for the people of Iraq in order to give Iraqi leaders the time and space they need to come to grips with tough political issues.” Sheikh Ahmed al Kubaisi and Ayatollah Sayyid Ammar Abu Ragheef will sign a fatwa becoming statutory authority for all Iraqi Shi’a and Sunni believers. These senior religious leaders for Iraq also have tens of million followers throughout the region.
Yet they are too astute to far outstrip their followers’ dispositions, because neither has armies or police forces to compel behavior. In their estimation, Iraqis are sufficiently ready to use government institutions to solve tough political issues, that they can in turn risk their positions of moral authority in a manner never attempted in all history. They risk Muslim community stature when most Iraqi legislators, moderate local political and spiritual leaders, and sheiks are just now relaxing from thoughts dominated by assassins stalking them and their families. These leaders rely upon our security reinforcing emerging moderate constituencies, which can facilitate and/or force consensus on formidable issues of de-Ba’athification, energy sharing, provincial laws/elections, and amnesty.
Disengagement must be coordinated with realization of Iraqi institutional successes. The extraordinary courage displayed by these two men should not be subject to displays of “Ugly Americanism” in resolutions setting arbitrary, Westernized timetables for troop withdrawals.
The Democrats have lost ping!
You do NOT give the enemy a timetable. The enemy is pretty much defeated now, but give 'em a timetable and they'll re-energize.
Which is exactly what the Democrats want. They do NOT want success in Iraq.
Damn them all to Hell.
They’re overplaying their hand, and they’ll be seen for what they are soon.
Why limit it to the 20th century? IMO Carter was the worst American president ever.
Later she decided she didn't.
I am betting he stays mum, as usual! He is very frustrating!!!
“democrats try timetable again.”
will the democrats every try a timetable for the war on poverty?
Bump
“they can’t change course from their cut-and-run strategy despite all evidence”
They can, but they won’t, since :
1) They must appease the insane moonbat base for the DEMOCRAT death of impeachment.
2) They needed something to cover for Hillary’s collapse.
Those with a bit of brain function will catch on in the next year if not sooner. The others. They will voted for these scum bags no matter what.
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.