Posted on 11/18/2007 9:59:19 PM PST by neverdem
WASHINGTON, Nov. 18 — Democrats in Congress failed once again Friday to shift President Bush’s war strategy in Iraq, but insisted that they would not let up. Their explanation for their latest foiled effort seemed to boil down to a simple question: “What else are we supposed to do?”
Frustrated by the lack of political progress in Iraq, under pressure by antiwar groups and mindful of polls showing that most Americans want the war to end, the Democrats last week put forward a $50 billion war spending bill with strings attached knowing it would fail.
Like so many of the war-related measures that Democrats have proposed this year, the spending bill sought to set a timeline for redeploying American troops, and to narrow the mission to focus on counterterrorism and on the training of Iraq’s security forces.
And, like so many of the war-related measures that Democrats proposed this year, it was approved in the House only to wither and die in the Senate, where on Friday it fell 7 votes short of the 60 needed to prevent a Republican filibuster — with 45 senators voting to block the measure.
All signs indicate that Democrats will continue proposing such measures as long as Mr. Bush remains in office and troops remain in Iraq. “We are going to keep plugging away,” said Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, chairman of the Armed Services Committee.
Democratic lawmakers and strategists on Capitol Hill said their hope was that even if Republican support for Mr. Bush’s strategy held firm, voters would reward Democrats for their efforts at the polls next November, and that there was no risk to failing again and again.
Some, including Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, the Democratic conference chairman, argue that Congressional Democrats are the only ones putting real pressure on...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Uh, the war is over, democrat vermin.
You and your al Queda allies of convenience lost.
This is a good thing. It means they have entrenched themselves in an all-or-none investment in defeat. The way things are going in Iraq, that bodes ill for them next year among regular Americans (they'll always have their kook base).
They won’t be happy until Iraq goes back to a paradise of children playing with kites. Or they win the white house.
Are not the two one and the same in their eyes? (Remember the election of NYC Mayor David Denkins, the day after which the “air was cleaner”, the “grass greener”, &c?)
True.
“Profanity is the one language all programmers know best.”
Very True.
Like they are going to say,”We effed up opposing Mr.(avoiding President) Bush. If the progress holds and expands in Iraq, they will take credit for it saying they forced Rummy out, thereby changing direction, and they won despite Bush’s efforts to sabotage their plan for final victory. Take this to the bank!
We can either fight the Jihad in their backyard or ours. I prefer theirs, the Dems prefer to get elected at any price.
They have to hurry. With all the progress in Iraq, and the good grace of God, George Bush might actually win this war. And wouldn’t that be bitter gall to these Democrats? It would certainly make an ‘08 victory more difficult.
It’s hard to beleive that the Dims continue to fight against our troops and victory. They can never ever say they support our troops again. If we had a responsible press, half the Dims would be in prison for treason. At least they would be with their voters.
Tactically, perhaps, in a purely political sense. But for the nation, it is really bad to have one political party invested in America's defeat.
We need to find a way to let the Dems back down from this and pretend like they are entitled to some credit for the coming victory in Iraq. That invests them in the WOT. We will be fighting this war for 20-40 years and we cannot win with half the population opposed to victory.
There is a precedent for this. How many dems now claim they were right there with Ronnie winning the cold war? In fact, by 1972, the vast majority of the dems were actively campaigning for our defeat in the cold war. By the 80's, the dems opposition to winning the cold war reached a fever pitch.
If Jimmy Carter had been just a little less incompetent and won a second term, defeat in the Cold War would have been a very near thing. We were very lucky to win.
I wonder if there will be a correction over this title as the Democrats refuse to back down on surrender. On the war they refuse to stand up.
The democrats lost. It’s the MSM propaganda mill with Hollywood doing the dirty traitors work.
Remeber when these phony democrats said, “we support
the troops but not the mission” that’s gone.
They support nothing except defeat but ain’t
happening.
Some Republican with guts has got to call the rats on this.
The headline is a LIE.
The Copperhead Democrats are ALREADY backing down/out of the war.
The idiot-editor means that the Democrats won’t back down on fighting the Bush Administration over pulling OUT of the war.
John Kerry wasn’t going to fight the terrorists at home or abroad. He said that we would all have to get adjusted to a nusiance level of terrorism.
There is a key difference between this hot war and the Cold War: heat. Men on the ground, real casualties. The Cold War required massive expenditures in production - production of uranium, plutonium, tritium, lithium-6, precision machining of casing parts at Oak Ridge. A massive industrial complex costing billions. But no shot was fired and no one died in direct armed conflict with the Soviet Union.
What I am suggesting is a fundamental difference the pressures to stop the two respective conflicts unilaterally: The Cold War pressures primarily rooted in fear and finance, whereas demand to end the present conflict found in actual death tolls. Fortunately, very fortunately indeed, this latter reason seems to have subsided rapidly in 2007 courtesy tactical and deployment changes brought about by the Surge. That leaves those invested in defeat stuck with "political progress" - indeed, building a politial structure can take years of not decades as witnessed by the Korean example cited. It is a much weaker rung on which to hang than that of bloodshed.
Getting the democrat cat out of the tree... yes I too lived through 1989 and was a newly-minted political junkie at the time; I remember the stark events of GHWB's inaugural days with clarity, and have noted the phenomenon of which you speak about traditional opponents coming down to celebrate the victory for freedom. The questions that arise: what threshold of success must we achieve in this present struggle - one of admittedly reduced violence with clear military success - to bring them over? Do you see it happening now to any significant degree? And - another cynical political question - faced with a press dedicated to the systematic exclusion of Iraq success how long will it take for a sizeable shift of public opinion back in favor of our work in the ME?
They won’t be happy until they control the United States.
[To Wit] Everyone in the United States is under thir dominance and they, through the Government, own all property in the U.S.
With the mentality of most voters believing that the Government should rob the other guy and give theoot to them, that day can’t be far off. November ‘08 at the most.
“What else are we supposed to do?”
Try some loyalty to the United States Military.
Which poll? And who wouldn't want the war to end. Sheeze...
From Rasmussen Report:
November 8, 2007: Withdraw (26%), Home within year (35%), Stay (33%).
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/the_war_in_iraq/iraq_troop_withdrawal
I don't see that as "let's get the hell out now!"
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.