Friday, May 04, 2007

Democrats Back Down On Iraq Timetable

And they also demonstrate that they consider our national security and our soldiers to be nothing more than politcal footballs. 

Even the Washington Post couldn't whitewash their political posturing:

Democrats Back Down On Iraq Timetable -

Democrats backed off after the House failed, on a vote of 222 to 203, to override the president's veto of a $124 billion measure that would have required U.S. forces to begin withdrawing as early as July. But party leaders made it clear that the next bill will have to include language that influences war policy. Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) outlined a second measure that would step up Iraqi accountability, "transition" the U.S. military role and show "a reasonable way to end this war."

Notice the disconnect from reality on display here. Quick, think, how do wars end? One side loses the other side wins. Reid's "reasonable way" is code for cutting and running a la Vietnam. The Dems know that it will be disatrous for us to pull out of Iraq.

But they have to appease the left-wing kooks who run the Kos and DU websites. And they practically trip over themselves to do it:

"We made our position clear. He made his position clear. Now it is time for us to try to work together," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) said after a White House meeting. "But make no mistake: Democrats are committed to ending this war."

She is speaking directly to the Kossacs here "I still hate war and Bush is still a nazi. Please don't turn the internet against me, they say such mean things".

So Bush vetoed the bill, as they knew he would. They failed to override his veto, as they knew they would. They got to do tons of political posturing and grandstanding, which was the whole point of this anyway. So what's next?

Actually there is a compromise in the works in the form of political benchmarks for the Iraqi government:

House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (Md.) indicated that the next bill will include benchmarks for Iraq -- such as passing a law to share oil revenue, quelling religious violence and disarming sectarian militias -- to keep its government on course. Failure to meet benchmarks could cost Baghdad billions of dollars in nonmilitary aid, and the administration would be required to report to Congress every 30 days on the military and political situation in Iraq.

Now on the surface this doesn't sound bad. But I have a question. Why aren't they demanding benchmarks for all the aid we sent to Palestine? What do you think their reaction would be if we demanded that Palestine purge all jihadi's and people who have called for "death to America" from positions of leadership. We send them billions of dollars. How about the UN. What if we demand punishment of all Blue Helmet abuses, fireing of anyone who had anything to do with Oil For Food, and the removal of all socialist countries from the Human Rights Commission?

Those things would never happen, sadly, I am simply pointing out that the Dems do not have our national interest in mind at all. They simply want to score political points.

On the issue of benchmarks I tend to agree with the Whitehouse:

White House officials are also looking to benchmarks as an area of compromise, but they want them to be tied to rewards for achievement, not penalties for failure.

You get more flies with honey and all that.

So who really won this fight? Well the Dems got what they knew they would get, lots of face time claiming to be against the war. But they are painting themselves in to a corner, they have now officially invested in the defeat of this nation in Iraq. And the American people, though they do not like war, hate losing. And with this outcome the Dems cannot help but look wishy washy and disconnected from reality.

The President is not running for office again, and we know his policy: Whatever it takes until the job is done.