Posted on 12/22/2007 11:08:18 AM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Congress' approval of $70 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan last week as part of a $555 billion federal budget bill effectively marks the quiet end of the Democratic majority's effort to bring an end to the war in Iraq. The great promise of a year ago following the 2006 elections in which the Democrats tossed the Republicans out of the congressional leadership gradually drained away, in part because of procedural realities but also because of a disappointing lack of fire among Democrats in Washington.
Congress will revisit the issue in spring, but major policy changes are unlikely to take place that close to another election. Representative James McGovern, one of the eight Massachusetts congressmen, including John Olver of the First District, who voted against the bill, noted sadly that it "represents an endorsement of George Bush's policy of endless war."
When the Democrats took over in Congress in January they tried without success to cut funding for the war or tie funding to a firm withdrawal date. Lacking the 60 Senate votes needed to force bills to the floor, they were regularly stymied in that body, and they were not close to the two-thirds vote needed to override a presidential veto. Democrats, however, never took Iraq War policy to the American people who put them in office in large part because voters wanted an end to the war. Intimidated by General Petraeus' appearance before them and the bogus claims by Republicans that they don't "support the troops," timid Democrats remain paralyzed by the scare tactics that American voters grew wise to long ago.
Democratic presidential candidate Bill Richardson, appalled by the vote approving the war funds, says he will devote his campaign solely to the Iraq War. Mr. Richardson is a long shot for the nomination, but if he can focus his party's candidates on the war he will be doing the nation a service. Hillary Clinton, most notably, continues to triangulate a position that comes down on all sides of the Iraq War.
The relative calm in Iraq makes it easy for candidates to dodge the issue, but the calm in Iraq is the quiet of the grave. While the persistent effort of American troops has contributed to a decline in violence, the death toll has dropped primarily because there are fewer Iraqis left to kill. Neighborhoods have been ethnically cleansed of minority Shiites or Sunnis, depending on the section of the city in question. The U.S. has for the most part looked the other way while this has gone on in the unspoken knowledge that violence will not stop until the country is essentially partitioned.
Iraq is evolving into Afghanistan, the site of the Bush administration's other failed war. The so-called democratic leaders of both nations rule only their capital cities, or more accurately, portions of those cities. Warlords, tribal chieftains and militia groups have divided the majority of both countries into personal fiefdoms. Billions of our tax dollars continue to flow into both countries, much of it squandered or stolen.
The dream of democracy is dead in Iraq, along with nearly 4,000 American soldiers. The money, however, is still being dumped into the desert, with no end in sight.
Yup. John Kerry remix.
LOL... this is probably the lamest argument I've ever heard...
While the persistent effort of American troops has contributed to a decline in violence, the death toll has dropped primarily because there are fewer Iraqis left to kill.
Usually, the stupid stuff is edited.
5.56mm
They placed their priorities elsewhere in an aggressive attempt in maintaining an ~13% approval rating.
It's taken up a lot of their time. /snicker
Hitlery...A true modern day Democrat politician!
And hippies smell. That's all I could think about while reading the article.
It must have been that "Betray Us" ad that got to them.
They reject our reality and substitute their own!
It is pretty lame. It ranks right up there with the reports of less work for ambulance drivers and those who take care of the dead.
Well, the Iraqis are not so deluded. They is why they are quickly returning to the country.
Got a kid to donate? Whos’? Got a nation to donate? Which?
I am starting to see many articles from the left using this new mantra in order to not give credit to Bush and our Armed Forces for the successful surge. Even Obama used it. This must have gone out in a DNC memo.
Absolutely disgusting the hate these people have for their own country and patriotic countrymen!
...
...smells like Victory.
What happens if you win the war before you surrender. Does the surrender count?
And what happens to this notion if violence picks up again? The lefties will abandon it in a second because it's nothing more than a disposable argument du jour.
Surprisingly upbeat for a newspaper from Massachusetts.
I guess we could save a lot of money by leaving them all there, discharge all of them, and wish them well. Better yet, lets disband the military and convert all the budget to social programs.
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.