Irresponsible Democrats Play Politics With National Security
December 13th, 2007 at 08:58am Mark Noonan
This is the real world, Democrats; its time you started acting like grown ups rather than getting into a pissing match while there’s a war on:
WASHINGTON, Dec. 12, 2007 – A Congressional Research Service report confirms the Defense Department estimate for when the Army and Marine Corps will run out money and be forced to furlough civilians and shutter bases.
The report, released Dec. 6, says the Army will run out of operations and maintenance money by mid-February, and the Marine Corps will run out of funds a month later. Amy Belasco, Stephen Daggett and Pat Towell wrote the report, titled “How Long Can the Defense Department Finance FY2008 Operations in Advance of Supplemental Appropriations?”
The service, a part of the Library of Congress, affirmed the DoD projections. The report says that the Army and Marine Corps may be able to push that date back a bit by transferring funds and slowing down spending. “These measures would, however, reduce remaining financial flexibility and may disrupt day-to-day operations,” the report says. And even these steps will only delay the inevitable for a couple of weeks.
The president requested $189.3 billion for war on terror supplemental funds. Congress approved about $17 billion for mine-resistant, ambush-protected vehicles, but the rest of the funds are tied up in a disagreement between Congress and the president over a timetable for withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq.
In service of a political goal (withdrawal from Iraq) which was once defeatist and is now over taken by events (the rationale for withdrawal was the concept that our military presence was making things worse - something which was never true, and is now demonstrably false), Democrats are tying up funding for the United States armed forces. As the aticle goes on to note, the political gamesmanship could start lessening military readiness by curtailing training operations. It is time to stop this - time for Democrats to stop, just for a moment, thinking about politics and start thinking about the United States of America.
Entry Filed under: Congress, Democrats, War on Terror
58 Comments
1. neocon | December 13th, 2007 at 9:19 am
Sandy Berger walks into the National Archives, steals and destroys documents and nary a word from the MSM or Democratic leadership. And you think they’re looking out for the best interests of the USA?
The Soros agenda of a one world socialist government is their duty to fulfill or they will no longer be a funded member of the MoveOn.org political party.
2. Irresponsible Democrats P&hellip | December 13th, 2007 at 9:41 am
[...] post by unknown This was written by . Posted on Thursday, December 13, 2007, at 8:31 am. Filed under [...]
3. anarchist | December 13th, 2007 at 10:55 am
You know you can make donations to the DoD. All you guys that support these wars could fund them freely and voluntarily rather than demand the senate get the money from us tax slaves. Some people voted for representatives that would actually protect their hard earned money from being spent on this misadventure, I’m sure those taxpayers are happy.
4. The Political News You Ne&hellip | December 13th, 2007 at 10:57 am
[...] Read the rest of this great post here [...]
5. US Political News »&hellip | December 13th, 2007 at 11:13 am
[...] Read the rest of this great post here [...]
6. Rana Quijotesca | December 13th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
Politics is the process by which groups of people make decisions.
Sorry… it’s one of those words that I get sick of people misusing…
Anyways, given the above definition of politics, the decision to stay in or leave Iraq is definitely a political decision, no matter what kind of connotation you give it. Congress has the right, under the Constitution, to manipulate the executive’s decision by limiting his finances. If you don’t like it, then you should either move or lobby to amend the Constitution to give the executive the power of the purse (that sure won’t go over well).
Taking a more republican (not talking about the party) view of things, the Congress and its members are elected because the individual members’ districts thought that their members could best represent their views in Washington. Given this model of representative election, not allowing the Congress to influence decision-making is technically subverting the will of the people of the several states. Once again, if you don’t like it, try to change how things work.
7. SteaM | December 13th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
Yet he also vetoed SCHIP again today effectively saying that he will not fund health care for our children.
This is why people say that republicans only care about children while they are in the womb. After that they are on their own. Screw em. So there you go neocon. Why do you want children to not be healthy? Someone has to make it into their 20s to be healthy enough to go to war for your “interests” in the middle east.
8. sleepygene | December 13th, 2007 at 12:58 pm
I think you spoke too soon Mark. From the stories I have been seeing recently it looks as though the congressional democrats will cave to Bush once again. Oh what pussies these people are. Rejoice, Neocon, Kahn, Keefer, Spook, Mark, Matt etc., your party is unified and mine sucks ass.
9. SteaM | December 13th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
Short of impeachment there’s not much they can do as long as Republicans continue to block every single bill that comes from the democrats and Bush keeps threatening and/or actually vetoeing everything else.
Ok, so last time we had an election for Congress the People spoke up for change and voted in a Democratic majority. Whom has tried to pass bills that have been blocked or vetoed by republicans.
So, who is not representing the People? The dems or the republicans?
10. js | December 13th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
these are the same people who think the government should regulate baseball
what a waste of tax dollars
let the press expose the drug addicts in professional sports
make congress stop wasting tax dollars
its a pipe dream
11. js | December 13th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
>>>> also vetoed SCHIP again today <<<<
In reality, SCHIP will not solve any problems in health care. Its a bandage, a very expensive one at that.
The problem is the Health Insurance Industry. They pocket 31%+ of all premiums. In a 3 trillion dollar industry, that a lot of wasted premiums not doing anything but making the insurance industry wealthy while Americans die because they cant afford insurance.
We need a government run health insurance program that operates on zero profit. Doing that would force competition because right now, there really isnt any.
12. Dasein Libsbane | December 13th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
Sounds like the Gang that couldn’t shoot straight to me. Democrats in Congress blame Democrats in Congress; trolls at B4V blame Republicans; kind of cosmic balance sort of thing.
13. Diana Powe | December 13th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
SteaM,
Unfortunately, in this case, the Democrats are doing less than what they should. The Republicans have displayed remarkable solidarity in clinging to the invasion of Iraq despite it’s author’s historically low approval ratings and the now long-consistent polling showing the public desire for a withdrawal from Iraq. This polling has been misrepresented by war supporters as a desire for “victory” and then withdrawal. However, polling is now regularly asking questions about whether the withdrawal should be contingent on progress on Iraq’s political process or changes in the security situation and polls overwhelmingly show (even among those who identify with Republicans) that the public wants us out within a roughly one-year time frame regardless of the situation in Iraq.
The GOP’s solidarity in this case was undoubtedly a major factor in their electoral losses in 2006. Their claim now is that “the surge”, which was instituted to allow for Iraqi political progress, is the principle cause of the reduced levels of bombings, assassinations, kidnappings and murders to levels considered high in 2005. This reasoning leads them to believe that the public will decide we should stay in Iraq indefinitely, which is the President’s plan. However, national polling does not support this idea and continued solidarity may lead to yet more GOP losses in 2008, especially as March will mark a potentially symbolic five full years of fighting there.
As the Democrats have continually caved to the Republican minority in Congress, their approval ratings have suffered as well. Unfortunately, I suspect the cynical thought process that has the upper hand is that, 1) they pretend that they’re helpless in the face of “Republican obstructionism” (it is, but that’s what opposition parties do), 2) let the Republicans remain tied to the Iraq-anvil and wait for it to carry them into the electoral depths next November, and, 3) with full control of Congress and the White House, begin to withdraw our forces and reap lots of credit from the public.
This, of course, assumes that a hypothetical President Clinton, who doesn’t vary that much from the long-standard Washington group-think that our foreign policy should be heavily militarized, doesn’t just decide to decorously reduce our forces in Iraq to allow the destruction of our military readiness over the last five years to continue.
14. Mark Noonan | December 13th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
Diana,
I’d be curious to know what you would hold our military readiness to be for - we’re fighting a war, which is why we get a military ready…once the war is over - or, at least, this campaign is over - we can then re-equip our forces so they’ll be ready for the next battle…but it is a stunning bit of absurdity to say, essentially, “by fighting a battle we’re degrading our readiness and so in order to always be ready, we must never fight”.
At any rate, if the polls do, indeed, show that strong majorities want us out of Iraq regardless of circumstances, then that is precisely the legislation which would pass Congress with a veto-proof majority. We GOPers aren’t rallying ’round the President because we’re stupid, but because it is the right policy and, thus far, actual ACTS, as opposed to alleged polls, have shown that the American people will sustain the political decision to fight until victory in Iraq. As I’ve always said, see what people do rather than what they say if you really want to understand what is happening - regardless of what polls may say, the fact that Democrats can only muster bare House majorities in favor of withdrawal followed by an eventually cave-in to President Bush shows that Democrats know that securing defeat in Iraq is not politically sustainable - they know, in other words, that if they are the authors of defeat in 2007, they will be crushed at the polls in 2008. This is only more and more true as clear and unmistakable victory starts to crown our efforts in Iraq.
Fundamentally, however, is the fact that you Democrats won your majority in 2006 under fraudulent circumstances - you never ran on what you wanted to do; all you did was gin up a story about GOP corruption coupled with the non-statement of a “new direction” in Iraq. What carried the dead cat of the Democratic party over the victory line last year was not so much a swing to Democrats, but a swing away from a Congressional GOP which had betrayed core GOP principles. You”ve got a majority you didn’t really earn, and its run by Democrats who had learnt nothing and forgotten nothing since their defeat in 1994.
You’d have been better served by arguing for victory in Iraq in 2006 coupled with a genuine program of reform - and then acted on such. You’d have been part of victory in Iraq and you would have gotten your reforms through, and would be busily counting how many extra seats you’d win in 2008…now, because your party did it dishonestly, you’re in disarray and might be heading for a rather historic defeat next year.
15. DM | December 13th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
“You know you can make donations to the DoD. All you guys that support these wars could fund them freely and voluntarily rather than demand the senate get the money from us tax slaves.” – anachrist
Tell you what. What if those who support the war pay for it themselves IF you also allow those same people the option of not paying for the things they don’t want such as abortions paid for with tax money, any form of socialized health benefits, welfare benefits, public school education and a whole slew of other items. The burden of those items would be on your dime - Deal?
“Yet he also vetoed SCHIP again today effectively saying that he will not fund health care for our children.” – SteaM
Bush asked for an increase of $200 million to the SCHIP program. Tell me again how this is “failing to fund health care for our children”? He vetoed the bill because the Democrats wanted a $5 billion increase with all kinds of additional elements in the bill. For example one part of the Democrat proposed bill would force certain people into the program that already have health insurance. Typical Democrat solution – throw money at it and complain that the Republicans are against the poor guys.
16. Gringo | December 13th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
Better put your money to in the social weak families and healthcare then spending money for stupid wars! USA hase some sirious issues. I hope the democrats will win the election!
17. Diana Powe | December 13th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
Military readiness is readiness for legitimate uses of military force such as our invasion of Afghanistan to topple the Taliban and capture or kill Osama bin-Laden and as many of his followers as we could. In the existing case, our military readiness for anything, other than continuing to lose troops to death and permanent disabling injuries and the loss of equipment through destruction or unrelenting wear in an inhospitable climate, has been degraded dramatically in terms of our ground forces. It is perfectly true that they have gained combat experience. However, if the KPA decided to move into S. Korea today, we would be unable to do anything significant to reinforce our existing ground forces there because the Presidential foot on the pedal is already on the metal now.
The Bush Administration grandly assumed that the invasion of Iraq would be cheap and quick and made no provision for their cross-your-fingers plan turning into something that would consume what is now nearly a half-trillion borrowed dollars. In terms of planning, it has been one of the most spectacular examples of bureaucratic incompetence in the history of mankind due to its failure to consider other outcomes. Of course, this illustrates the heart of what might be called the Modern Republican Dilemma. The patron saint of the modern Republican Party, Ronald Reagan, stated that “government is the problem” so how do you expect people with that core belief to be effective at governing? At base, they believe what they’re doing is fundamentally harmful.
The disconnect between the polls and the political process is that the real poll on Election Day happened and then the Democratic caucus failed to deliver anything substantive on the issue that mattered most to the electorate - getting us out of Iraq. Hence, the decline in Congress’ poll numbers without a concomitant rise in either the President’s or the Republican’s numbers. I think a set of factors:
- Fear of GOP propagandizing about how Democrats “don’t support the troops”, “hate the troops”, “want the terrorists to win”, ad nauseum.
- Acceptance of DC conventional wisdom about “centrism” which translates into capitulation
- Fear of the notion you push that doing something decisive in Iraq about withdrawing would not only cause the Republicans and their media proxies to scream “Democrats surrender to terrorists” nonstop but that, despite the polls, voters would start to believe the GOP line leading to electoral losses in 2008.
has caused the current timorous approach, with the Democratic leadership doing their own finger-crossing hoping that next November will bring them decisive majorities and the White House. Of course, lost in this is their duty to follow the right course - do what the people have told them to do - and accept whatever good or bad electoral consequences come about. However, few politicians of any persuasion have ever been up to that task.
However, they can’t say the message isn’t clear (even Republicans - 30% in the following cited poll from The Pew Center)want us to begin withdrawing from Iraq:
and it continues to be cited much higher than other issues as the “most important problem facing the nation” although the economy is rising in that category.
18. Aaron | December 13th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
Curious that Bush always funds his Iraq war with a supplemental request, rather than as part of the regular defense budget.
$12 billion/month. For 5 years (and counting). And that doesn’t count the parts and equipment replacement, and care for 30,000 (and counting) wounded. 5,000 of those have serious brain injuries, and will need government care for the rest of their lives.
OMB’s latest estimate of what the total final bill will be for Iraq: $2 trillion. That’s Two Trillion with a “T” more than we have.
But don’t worry - the Chinese will loan us the money. And you know the Chinese only have our best interests at heart… {snark}
Any other worthless wars you goobers want to get us into? Iran you say? … Well, go Cheney yourselves.
19. TiredofLibBullShit | December 13th, 2007 at 4:53 pm
MeatS…..
Your understanding of SCHIP is as backwards as your name.
What was vetoed was the massive expansion of the current program and extend it to illegals and children of “well-off” families. I have health insurance and earn $80,000+ and my children would have qualified for this program. This proves that this is not for “the poor” but an attempt to bring this country closer to socialized medicine. Period.
Your party can do nothing but play politics and look foolish. Why do you think under your party’s leadership their ratings are lower than Bush’s? Could it be the dozens of “political” non-binding resolutions, renaming of federal buildings, days of recognition, more socialized bs etc. etc. that they are passing or trying to pass instead of meaningful legislation that they should be passing?
You guys are truly pathetic.
20. neocon | December 13th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
Diana, (of course I prefer Mrs. Clinton as your moniker)
Your first mistake was the assertion that the ‘06 election was a mandate to withdraw troops and leave Iraq. IT WAS NOT. The Dems campaigned on a “change the direction” platform with many conservative Democrats winning on that platform; Tester, Webb, Shuler, etc.
One big problem the Democrat leadership faces is convincing the Blue Dog dems to toe the liberal line.
And let me get this straight, your assertion is that the Dems are like deer caught in the headlights because they are afraid of not being “centrists” and are worried about Republicans labeling them as soft on National Security????
Are you serious?
I really am amused by your naivety.
21. Aaron | December 13th, 2007 at 5:16 pm
“Why do you think under your party’s leadership their ratings are lower than Bush’s?”
Because the Dem leadership keeps caving to Bush and the Repubs. People elected them to stand up to this ninny and his shameful undertakings, start getting us out of this utter waste in Iraq, and start prioritizing working Americans over corporate interests.
If we wanted corporate shills, we could just let the Republicans stay in control of congress.
But no, the Dems cave on everything, and that’s why congress has such low approval. I don’t know why you Bushbots whine a moan every time Bush gets a whiff of mild resistance to his latest Iraq War Money Flushing request, because in the end he always gets it. If the Dems stood their ground on these issues, provided some real oversight, and reasserted congressional power as a co-equal branch of government, then you’d see approval of Congress rise.
22. Diana Powe | December 13th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
It’s true that the current Congress’ ratings are lower than the President’s, but that’s not because the public is trending Republican. In fact, the opposite is true and has been true for awhile.
In fact, what might be the most reliable way for the Republicans to roar back next November would be if they turned on Bush and moved decisively to end the war which would probably bring back many leans Republican voters.
23. neocon | December 13th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
>>>>OMB’s latest estimate of what the total final bill will be for Iraq: $2 trillion. That’s Two Trillion with a “T” more than we have. - Aaron<<<<<
Aaron, do you ever tire of being used as a pawn?
Office of Management and Budget director Jim Nussle blasted a congressional report that pegged the cost of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan at $1.6 trillion through next year, saying the study by the Joint Economic Committee was “clearly partisan.”
24. neocon | December 13th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
The dumbest man in the room wins again right Aaron?
Why can’t you sophisticated, intelligent liberals ever beat Bush?
He wins EVERYTIME!!
25. neocon | December 13th, 2007 at 5:28 pm
>>>>Increased public support for the social safety net, signs of growing public concern about income inequality, and a diminished appetite for assertive national security policies have improved the political landscape for the Democrats as the 2008 presidential campaign gets underway.<<<<<<
A government for the whiny losers, of the whiny losers, and by the whiny losers.
Great.
26. Diana Powe | December 13th, 2007 at 5:38 pm
Funny you should bring that up. Cue the Republican gentleman from Iowa:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:1:./temp/~c110icVC63::
27. neocon | December 13th, 2007 at 5:53 pm
That’s an empty link Diana.
Do you know the current record of the Democratic Congress vs Bush?
0-40.
Most people get fired with that pathetic of a record. Oh no, but Diana still defends her 0-40 team.
Go team!
28. Diana Powe | December 13th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
Hmm, guy who was a Republican member of the House for six years and who nows works as a member of the White House sez someone else is “clearly partisan”. Okay, let’s get that picture in our heads real clearly.
Regardless, it would seem that something is haywire with the quote because the Congressional Budget Office report in October estimated costs of Iraq and Afghanistan at between $1.2 and $1.7 trillion dollars out to 2017. Quite a bit of difference not that it isn’t a disaster even then.
Sorry about the link. Try this.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.res.00847:
29. Ricorun | December 13th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
Diana Powe: Of course, lost in this is their duty to follow the right course - do what the people have told them to do - and accept whatever good or bad electoral consequences come about.
Let me throw out the following hypothetical and as how you are likely to respond (anyone else that feels inclined to respond, please feel welcome as well). Mind you, this might be pushing the envelope of credulity a little bit, but it’s not outside the realm of possibility. But I’m curious what your answer is. Here goes…
Say the Dems keep laying low on the subject of Iraq, yet manage to gain 10 seats in the House, 4 in the Senate, and win the White House next year. Would you forgive your leaders for being “timorous” this year? Or would you applaud them for their long-term strategic vision?
Likewise, let’s say the Dems do cut off funding for the Iraq war, prompting a precipitous withdrawal of US troops, resulting in both the Iranians and al Qaeda to increase their infiltration of Iraq, and the place spirals out of control and a blood-bath develops by Nov 2008. Again, that may push the envelope of credulity a little bit, but it’s not outside the realm of possibility. As a result let’s say the GOP manage to gain 10 seats in the House, 4 in the Senate, and win the White House next year, giving them control of all three organs of government and use that power to go back in. Would you be fine with that, too?
Now let me turn my attention to the GOPers out there…
One of the reasons for the currently improved security is that Muqtadah al Sadr has ordered his Mahdi Army militia to stand down — but only for a limited time. Likewise, there have been reports that al Qaeda is planning a spring offensive. That leaves open the possibility that poop could hit the fan in the spring. Again, that may push the envelope of credulity a little bit, but it’s not outside the realm of possibility. The problem is, everyone knows that the surge cannot continue past that time without reducing home-time and increasing dwell-time still further. What to do? Do you support the president if he calls for the troops to stay, even if it means your party will suffer a blow-back among the electorate even if it might result in near filibuster-proof Dem control? Or do you resist the president in the interests of trying to minimize the long-term political damage?
There is, of course, another scenario (actually, there are myriad others, but I’ll just mention an hopefully fairly middle-of-the road one)… Say the president does start withdrawing troops in the spring, and maybe even continues to do so, without substantially affecting the security situation one way or the other, so that by election time only 100,000 troops remain. Who gets to claim credit? Or does that just take the Iraq issue off the table?
30. Diana Powe | December 13th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
Then why not be a Goldwater Republican or an Eisenhower Republican? Oh, because they would both be repulsed by the current state of the Republican Party.
31. Ricorun | December 13th, 2007 at 6:10 pm
neocon: A government for the whiny losers, of the whiny losers, and by the whiny losers.
This would be a great topic for a web site dedicated to an examination of unintended consequences. Because I am of the opinion that if you have too many “whiny losers” and still want a democracy, that’s exactly what you’ll get. But that’s an unstable situation. Witness Venezuela, among other places.
32. Mark Noonan | December 13th, 2007 at 6:20 pm
Ricorun,
Al-Sadr didn’t voluntarily stand down; he was forced to stand down by US and Iraqi power. Right now, he’s all talk, because his militia is nearly non-existent. Additionally, for 5 years now al-Qaeda/Taliban forces in Afghanistan have promised a major spring offensive, and its never come off. There’s no need for al-Qaeda to wait until spring - indeed, by spring they’ll be in even worse condition than they are now as the Iraqi government continues to win the support of the Iraqi people who have grown tired of al-Qaeda and the violence of the terrorist campaign (this is outside of how they might feel about us - all they know is that turning on al-Qaeda gets rid of them, while fighting Americans only brings more Americans). So, your scenario for what might happen in Iraq stands on rather weak reeds…
Be that as it may:
If the Democrats had the wit that God gave little, white mice, they would have carefully positioned themselves as critics of any mis-step (real or imagined) of the Bush Administration while taking credit for anything good which happened in Iraq. Unfortunately for the Donks, they listened to the kook left and took full ownership of defeat in Iraq - if Iraq is anything other than a defeat by summer of 2008, then the Democrats will not only look like idiots, but unpatriotic idiots. There is a volatile section of any democratic electorate which merely piles on to the side perceived as winning…as the troops start to come home from a democratic Iraq, these people will switch from opposition to support for our effort in Iraq. The Democratic leadership will be left high and dry, with the kook left still demanding an immediate end to our presence in Iraq…won’t be fun to be a Democrat at that point, on that issue.
Serves them right, too…a bit of patriotism, a bit of country before party, a bit of common sense and the Democrats would be looking forward to a sure-fire sweep next year…now they are falling apart and the abyss of defeat is starting to open in front of them. Lots of things can still happen between now and November of 2008, but on that glad morn after election day, 2006, there wasn’t anyone other than myself and a few others who expected this sort of situation to emerge by December of 2007.
Fortunately, the corrupt and incompetant Democratic leadership acted in a corrupt and incompetant manner (just as we warned you it would)…the rest was easy.
33. Aaron | December 13th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
neoconned -
“Office of Management and Budget director Jim Nussle blasted a congressional report that pegged the cost of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan at $1.6 trillion through next year, saying the study by the Joint Economic Committee was “clearly partisan.”
Jim Nussle was criticizing the Congressional Joint Economic Committee’s inclusion of $1.6 trillion in hidden costs on top of the $2 trillion estimate. The JEC’s total estimate with these hidden costs included comes to $3.5 trillion.
Now, you can quibble all you want about whether it is $1.6 trillion, $2 trillion, or $3.5 trillion. Any way you do the math, the total is staggering.
Back a few months after the war started, Rummy was on This Week and was asked how much he thought the war would eventually cost. He answered, “Somewhere under $50 billion”. When Staphanopoulos said, “Outside estimates say up to $300 billion”, Rummy responded, “Baloney.”
OK, lets lets forget about estimates of total eventual costs for a moment. What is absolutely indisputable is that - including this current supplemental bill - some $850 billion have been appropriated thus far. That’s not a total cost estimate - that’s what has actually been appropriated thru the end of next year. That only covers ongoing operations - it does not include equipment replacement and repair, ongoing medical costs, etc. So, just for operations alone we have already spent nearly $1 trillion. That averages out to more than $12 billion per month over the course of the conflict. And that idiot Rummy said the total cost would be $50 billion? What an ass.
34. Diana Powe | December 13th, 2007 at 6:53 pm
Ricorun,
An excellent set of questions! One of the temptations for anyone in the realm of politics is to assume that the other side has only one view of things when their “side” takes some step. Undoubtedly, all of the scenarios you’ve put forward and more have been and are the subject of endless and hot debate within the Democratic leadership. They would desperately like to know what the future holds as would all of us.
1) Democrats lay low and win control - I’d see it that they rolled the dice and won, but would want to see a change in the leadership because that’s all they did.
2) Democrats do something about Iraq and lose control - Depending on how much real change they affected (serious troop withdrawal, repeal of Military Commissions Act, defeat of telecom immunity in FISA), I could be very unhappy about the short-term political outcome but still bank on the visible long-term trends of Americans more likely to be young, more likely to identify as liberal or progressive to improve things in the medium to long term.
3) Middle of the road scenario - With the clear trend in polling for people wanting us to withdraw from Iraq, I think that 100,000 or so troops there next November will not remove the fact that polling shows Iraq to be people’s greatest concern (although the economy is moving up sharply) and they will not return to the GOP on this issue. I would say the issue is still on the table, both sides claim credit (of course) and Republicans lose more seats and the White House.
Mark, of course, is vested in the idea of some V-J Day-style victory which even the White House doesn’t believe in, witness the President’s comments about how their won’t be any scenes like on the deck of the USS Missouri in Tokyo Bay. Short of a withdrawal (”defeat” in the officially-sanctioned Party terminology), Iraq will continue along it’s blood-stained path.
One interesting fantasy wild card to imagine played though is this. Just as the observation is made that only Nixon could go to China, a Nixon-to-China moment would be Bush-to-Iran. Understanding that such a moment would require the same kind of secret negotiations that preceded Nixon’s visit to already have been underway for some time, it would nonetheless be something that would actually change a real dynamic in the region. Iraq is already oriented towards Iran anyway so there’s a rationale for it.
It’s completely far-fetched and I’m not sure I’d even want it to happen because he might try to get all handsy in front of a bunch of world leaders as he did with German Chancellor Angela Merkel (I still cringe at the thought of that…) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUTwaSPcGno
35. Diana Powe | December 13th, 2007 at 6:55 pm
Oops, Blogs For Victory has been seriously hit by a spambot.
36. Faceplant | December 13th, 2007 at 8:51 pm
“At any rate, if the polls do, indeed, show that strong majorities want us out of Iraq regardless of circumstances, then that is precisely the legislation which would pass Congress with a veto-proof majority.”
How’s that logic work Marky?
37. plainjane | December 13th, 2007 at 9:15 pm
Show your support our troops and their families. by demanding your legislators bring our troops home from the Iraq Civil War. In addition totally fund the VA and provide this agency with competent leadership. Political croonies are not welcomed.
38. plainjane | December 13th, 2007 at 9:55 pm
If a Democratic administration spent five years, two trillion borrowed dollars and 4,000 American lives, chasing windmills in the Middle East; corporate media, wingnut radio and Fox News would be calling for impeachment.
39. Christian Wright | December 13th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
There is no war on terror. It is just a money laundering operation to pay off the people that support the Republican Party.
40. Almiranta | December 13th, 2007 at 11:03 pm
Thanks, Tired…when I saw steamy whining “Yet he also vetoed SCHIP again today” and then simply inventing his own explanation for this, that Bush was “effectively saying that he will not fund health care for our children…” I hoped someone had taken him to task.
Steam—how many “children” were denied care under the current SCHIP plan? You do know, of course, that the two pawns trotted out for the Bleeding Heart Dog and Pony Show were covered under SCHIP…don’t you?
Hasn’t it occurred to you to wonder why a program which is meeting the needs for which it was designed, and which can continue to meet THOSE needs with the additional funding allowed to it, has to suddenly lurch into new territory, suddenly expanding its scope, including middle class children and even reclassifying adults up to the age of 25 as “children”?
No, it wouldn’t occur to you to ask any questions. You get your talking points fed to you, you dutifully trot over here to regurgitate them, and who cares if they actually MEAN anything?
But back to the thread—the poor Dems are in such a bind, trying to force a failure in Iraq while posturing as being “for the troops” while trying to cut off their funding while pretending they are glad we are making progress while claiming the progress we are making doesn’t count (for all sorts of silly reasons) and so on.
The simple fact is, success in Iraq is bad news for Dems. Sad but true, but what is good for the country is bad for one of its parties—and awareness that much of America is catching on to this is what is behind the frantic Dem Two-Step. Or Three-Step or Six-Step or whatever it is becoming. They got away with openly cheering for our failure and surrender in Iraq, till the public started to be seriously offended,and then had to fall back on the sophistry of “against the war but for the troops” and now have to figure out how to be “for” the troops they refuse to support financially.
Poor babies……….
41. Diana Powe | December 14th, 2007 at 1:32 am
Except that all of this is untrue. Of course, as the propagandist here will always find the phrase “openly cheering for our failure and surrender in Iraq” sufficiently stretchy to cover every sort of sin and offense discerned as anything short of slavish adherence to Party Doctrine, it would be silly to ask Almiranta to cite genuine examples. Also, the only “public seriously offended” is the fraction of the public who are the True Believers and who think that the Fox News Channel is actually “fair and balanced”.
42. Mark Noonan | December 14th, 2007 at 1:37 am
Diana,
Thing is, Nixon’s going to China has turned out to be a geo-strategic disaster for the United States…
43. Diana Powe | December 14th, 2007 at 1:50 am
Interesting point of view which I would actually be curious if you could elaborate on. What would have been our overall approach to China if he had not, in your view? Perhaps they wouldn’t have their T-bill Weapon they could use against us right now.
44. Mark Noonan | December 14th, 2007 at 2:17 am
Diana,
Just switched one problem for another - except the Chinese problem is turning out to be more dangerous than the USSR problem ever was. I don’t fault Nixon for doing what he did in China, nor to I fault our Presidents since then - but it is clear that our assistence in helping China to rise has sown dragon’s teeth for us.
Really, it all comes down to the fundamental lessons of 9/11:
1. Never, ever make deals with evil people.
2. Strike at evil regimes as soon as is practical.
45. Kahn | December 14th, 2007 at 3:07 am
Can you say cut-n-run Democrats? Why are you so willing to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory?
46. searp | December 14th, 2007 at 8:05 am
Get some people who actually have experience in Iraq commenting, this flail by a bunch of 101st fighting keyboarders is totally uninformed claptrap
What a bunch of heros, sitting on the couch typing. Losers
47. plainjane | December 14th, 2007 at 8:12 am
Republicans will not admit it because it flies in the face of their made up reality, but our troops won the war in 2003. It is the Iraqis who have failed in the completion of the mission.
The goal posts have moved so many times the average American doesn’t even know why we are there. This past summer the goal post were set at giving the Iraqis time to settle old scores and share the wealth. Our kids died while the Iraqi government went on vacation. Will just one of you tell us were the goal posts are for Christmas? Not that I will write it down because the goal changes with the seasons. The W.H. is already working with far right radio on their spring spin. Green Berets, Army Seals, and other GIs should not be directing traffic in Iraq.
Seriously I still see cut and run Democrats in many post. Doesn’t that seem silly? We have been in Iraq for five years. This is longer than our commitment in Iraq. More importantly many of those killed in Iraq were from families that support Democratic ideals. To call them cut and runners is unconscionable given those like Romney with five healthy sons who have run from active duty.
48. plainjane | December 14th, 2007 at 8:14 am
Oops This is longer than our commitment in WWII
49. neocon | December 14th, 2007 at 8:25 am
plainjane demonstrates the lefts true compassion for their global neighbors by blaming the Iraqis for their inability to lift themselves up after decades of oppression in a timely manner, and take control of their country.
Funny, but their own representatives here in Congress have yet to take control of their country as well. Losing to Bush every single time. So at least the left knows what failure is.
I remember someone saying in 2003 that we will stand down when the Iraqis stand up. Apparently that is construed as “moving the goalposts” by the left. Hmmmm……..
Far right radio? You mean Limbaugh and Hannity, who between them have more listeners than any liberal broadcast ever has had?
We still have bases and troops in Europe, Japan, the Balkans and S Korea? Just FYI.
50. Almiranta | December 14th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
Diana, you are certainly earning your pay. You are smart and literate and well spoken, which is why, on the surface, your comment (regarding a statement I made) “Of course, as the propagandist here will always find the phrase “openly cheering for our failure and surrender in Iraq” sufficiently stretchy to cover every sort of sin and offense discerned as anything short of slavish adherence to Party Doctrine…” SOUNDS like it makes sense.
Let’s deconstruct, shall we?
First you start off with a blanket statement that anyone who agrees with what I said is a “progagandist”. Typical Lefty debate tactic–start off by demeaning and trying to discredit your opponent. You go on to use a lovely word, “stretchy”, to try to imply that my statement is broad and indeterminate and easly manipulated—your opinion but stated as fact. And you end that paragraph with the comment that those who actually did think we were right to go into Iraq were, and evidently are, guilty of “slavish adherence to Party Doctrine”.
Oh me oh my, such an intelligent SOUNDING comment, yet one which is merely attempting to cloak far-Left political dogma, complete with name-calling and assignment of motive, in high-sounding rhetoric.
And, of course, like so much of Far-Left cant, completely false.
The American invasion of Iraq was criticized, maligned, ridiculed, and attacked on every level from far before Day One. Following its success, every opportunity which could be taken or invented was utilized to do the same.
OF COURSE no Dem stood up and stated, outright, “We want the United States to lose”. Duh. But the message was clear, when victories were reclassifed as defeats, when successes were simply ignored, when bogus polls were taken and widely quoted which said that Iraqis wanted the US out of Iraq but somehow managed to omit the part where they did not want us to leave till security was estaablished, etc. etc.
The message was clear when the exact same strategies which worked so well in the 1970’s, the strategies of lying to the American public about the realities of the war, of publishing bogus claims of innocent civilian deaths and military atrocities (can you say JEHNJISS Kahn???) and of constantly quoting “foreign opinion” were all resurrected for recycling in an obvious attempt to MAKE this “another Viet Nam”.
(You remember Viet Nam—the war in which the United States never lost a battle, the war in which the enemy was starting to negotiate for surrender, the war in which certain Americans fled to the enemy to publicly offer their support, the war in which the radical Left still managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, making the noble sacrifices of our military meaningless and subjecting the entire country to a feeling of defeat and pessimissim—THAT Viet Nam. The war which showed the American public that defeat for the country was victory for the Left, the war which laid out the ground rules for Leftist efforts to seize control.)
No, Diana, many many MANY supported the invasion of Iraq without being “progagandists” for either side. Believe it or not, there are a lot of Americans who simply look at what is right and what is wrong, what is good and what is bad, without first checking to see which party will benefit.
Pretend all you want that conservatives are “slavish adherents to Party Doctrine”—-(pardon me for a moment—I’m having a flashback to “USA” by John dos Passos, former Liberal, in his accounts of the tactics and verbiage of the Socialist movement—it’s like an echo of “running dogs of capitalism” revamped for the 21st century…) The fact is that conservatives are a feisty lot, refusing to just follow along with what you love to call “Party Doctrine” but instead being stubbornly independent, challenging their leaders, challenging ideas, arguing issues and policies, and in general being the exact opposite of the Lemming Left which merely looks to see if there is a “D” at the end of the name to know what position to take.
Diana, you fascinate me. I have been asked if I represent the Republican Party, and I have very honestly answered”no”, I am just a Western rancher with an inquiring mind and the perspective of having been, for too much of my life, a hippie radical Liberal.
But you have come along with your storehouse of stereotypical Leftist cant, your ready access to all the fallback positions of the radical Left, and your obvious writing skills, and I do wonder just how you happened to find our little blog and what has prompted you to join in.
It just feels like a plant.
51. Kahn | December 14th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
plainjane - we’re still in Europe and Japan as a result of World War two. Hundreds of soldiers have died in Korea since the Armistice.
And NOW you say we won back in 2003? Oh jeezzz, OK. Whatever. We’re peace keepers then. I though you guys hated the “Mission Accomplished” thing? It’s hard to argue with a schizophrenic.
searp - Don’t get us going on who’s a veteran and who has friends and relatives in Iraq and Afghanistan.
52. Joe | December 14th, 2007 at 4:44 pm
Maybe there would be more money available if incompentant things like THIS didn’t happen over and over again…
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-12-13-Iraqcontract_N.htm
53. neocon | December 14th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
>>>>OF COURSE no Dem stood up and stated, outright, “We want the United States to lose”. Almiranta<<<<
Not so fast, oh wise one.
“This war is lost” - Harry Reid
54. neocon | December 14th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
Diana is one my more favorite naive liberals. Her worldviews are very juvenile and under-informed and she loves to opine on supposed events and outcomes as viewed through the liberal prism. Never once even considering that some of our global neighbors may not subscribe to the socialistic liberal view of the world.
How could they not?
Reminds me of the famous line:
“How could Nixon win, nobody I know voted for him?”
55. Tractatus | December 14th, 2007 at 7:53 pm
Typical Lefty debate tactic–start off by demeaning and trying to discredit your opponent.
You mean like calling your opponent a “neorad” or a “radical lefty” or a part of the “Lemming Left” as you do habitually?
You go on to use a lovely word, “stretchy”, to try to imply that my statement is broad and indeterminate and easly manipulated—your opinion but stated as fact.
You mean like how you constantly screech that “neorads” and “radical lefties” are guided entirely by emotion, thereby making their political views broad and indeterminate and easily manipulated–your opinion but stated as fact?
And you end that paragraph with the comment that those who actually did think we were right to go into Iraq were, and evidently are, guilty of “slavish adherence to Party Doctrine”.
You mean like how you accuse every opponent of “getting talking points from Kos and ‘Ranty Rhodes’” and have this paranoid fixation that opponents have “minders” who feed them pap?
Really, Almiranta, you make this entirely too easy. Every time I think Noonan has won the Who’s the Biggest Projector competition, you come along and retake the top spot.
Believe it or not, there are a lot of Americans who simply look at what is right and what is wrong, what is good and what is bad, without first checking to see which party will benefit.
There are indeed. Don’t try to pretend that you are one.
56. Diana Powe | December 14th, 2007 at 9:16 pm
neocon,
Awww, how utterly patronizing of you. You shouldn’t have!
57. searp | December 15th, 2007 at 6:21 am
Neocon is just an old coward who won’t put his body where his mouth lives. Of course, that would be unsanitary.
58. DM | December 19th, 2007 at 10:44 am
searp – Did you have anything “intelligent” to say here or do you just take delight in mindless babble?