Sunday, February 18, 2007

On Nonbinding Votes

The Democrats in the Senate believe that they're doing what's best for the nation - by pushing non-binding resolutions.

Shouldn't that tell you all you need to know about what Democrats do?

They like to hear themselves talk, but can't take decisive action. That goes for all the Democrats who want to be President as well as those GOPers who crossed the aisle to vote for this pablum.

If these Democrats so strongly believe in getting out of Iraq then they should put defunding up to a vote.

They wont because they know how bad that would look and I don't think that most of the rank and file would go that route. For them, it's a procedural thing to vote with their party and not with their conscience.

The Democrats are craven in their quest to undermine the Presidency and this nation's national security. If they were that interested in winning the war in Iraq and improving US national security, they'd stop with this nonsense post-haste and commit to actually improving national security.

It would mean adding to the defense budgets to buy the newest weapons in larger numbers and actually supporting our troops instead of paying lip service.

But the leftists among the Democrats would have none of this and are pushing their agenda to the extreme.

Senator Chuck Schumer is pushing the Democrats' extremist agenda alright - and will try to reenact Vietnam with dire consequences for all. This is the leftist face of the Democrat party.
Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said Democrats would be “relentless.”

“There will be resolution after resolution, amendment after amendment . . . just like in the days of Vietnam,” Schumer said. “The pressure will mount, the president will find he has no strategy, he will have to change his strategy and the vast majority of our troops will be taken out of harm’s way and come home.”
There is nothing moderate about this. There is nothing about winning in Iraq. There is nothing about supporting the troops. This is about the Democrats and their quest for power.

If you poll Americans and ask them if they want to win in Iraq, you'd probably get an overwhelming response of Yes. How would that relate to any of the measures being proffered by the Democrats? Would any of the proposals to withdraw, redeploy, cut and run, or reduce the ability of the President to send or redeploy troops to Iraq and undercut the authority of the President as Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces actually improve the possibility for victory?

The short answer is no. The longer answer is still no. There is nothing in the Democrats talking points that speak of victory and winning in Iraq. There is only withdrawal, redeployment, and absolutely no understanding of what those moves would do to US strategic interests both in the Middle East and around the world.

There is no understanding that al Qaeda has repeatedly used every opportunity where the US has shrunk from a fight to its advantages - from the weak horse analogy to the short attention span theater that is US politics.

Thus, those GOP senators who stick their fingers in the wind and have voted with the Democrats on these nonbinding resolutions are no better. They have no understanding of the situation either, and what the ultimate conclusion of these resolutions and measures would have. They think only of their own personal power and benefit of sitting in Congress, not the US strategic and national interests in being successful in Iraq.

Sen. Hillary Clinton is calling on the US to start withdrawing troops from Iraq within 90 days. That's right. She's getting ahead of the rest of the Democrats who have either declared or are going to be declaring their candidacies for President in 2008 and is pushing an agenda that will be a sure hit with the leftist base. This has nothing to do with national security and everything to do with currying favor with the Democrat base:
U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, the early front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, has called for a 90-day deadline to start pulling American troops from Iraq.

Clinton, the wife of former President Bill Clinton, has been criticized by some Democrats for supporting authorization of the war in 2002 and for not renouncing her vote as she seeks the U.S. presidency in next year's election.

"Now it's time to say the redeployment should start in 90 days or the Congress will revoke authorization for this war," the New York senator said in a video on her campaign Web site, repeating a point included in a bill she introduced on Friday.
Again, is there anyone out there asking how this move will improve the US security posture in the region, long term national security, or long term strategic interests in the Middle East and around the world, especially when al Qaeda is still active in Iraq?

Hillary's move is calculated to go after the votes that might be headed Sen. Obama's way. This has nothing to do with Iraq per se and everything to do with the 2008 elections. Expect to see more of this from the Democrats as they fight to see who can jump to the extreme left quicker than the next candidate.

Ed Morrissey notes that while this is entirely within the rights of Congress - it would be perfectly constitutional - her timing is questionable except when looking to beat all other potential Democrat challengers to the punch. This is a move calculated on domestic politics - not US national security.

Why wait 90 days? Why not 45? Why not cut the war in 30 days? After all, if you're against the war and believe that it is doomed to failure, the quicker we get out, the better? That's the perverse logic working here, despite history showing that such moves are doomed to failure and misery - witness the millions dead in the aftermath of the US withdrawal from Vietnam and the cutoff of funds for the South Vietnamese government.

The only reason that you're not going to see a shorter timeframe is that even these leftists know that if the surge actually works and the security situation improves in Iraq, they need an out. The 90 days actually gives the surge a chance to succeed and those soldiers involved in the surge may be rotated out of the theater within that time such that Hillary could claim that her demands were being met by the Bush Administration.

Scroll down and look at the cartoon picked up by Flap's Blog. It cuts right to the heart of what Congress is doing right now.

Others blogging: Hot Air (who has the video of Hillary's latest, Outside the Beltway, Dan Riehl, Wake Up America, Blue Crab Boulevard, and Decision 08.

Meanwhile, Murtha's position in the House is taking hits because of Murtha's utter ignorance of the situation inside Iraq. Others commenting on Murtha's nonsensical ravings: The Political Pit Bull, and Kim Priestap at Wizbang.

Jay Tea, meanwhile, looks at the domestic political angle that I've alluded to above. Domestic political needs are all over the current spate of nonbinding resolutions winding their way through the Halls of Congress. As Jay noted, if the leftists were really that interested in stopping the war, they could push to revoke the AUMF or cut funding but realize that such a move would have dire repercussions at the present time.

Still others blogging Hillary's statements, Murtha's madness, and the leftists push to thwart the US efforts in Iraq: Jammie Wearing Fool, Bullwinkle Blog, Instapundit, Michelle Malkin (who has a poll showing that most Americans want victory in Iraq, but Democrats seem not to support victory nearly as much as those calling themselves GOPers - a most curious situation), Bill's Bites, and Discarded Lies.

No comments: