Custom Search

Monday, January 08, 2007

Do Democrats Agree with........ Democrats?

The Democrats are united in their stance against our actions in Iraq, but they are far from united on what should be done.

Grandma Nancy and Harry Reid sent a letter to the president which I addressed in a previous post, while other members of the Democratic party gave interviews stating the realities and limitations that face the Democratic party.

It seems they are not on the same page and one has to wonder if they are missing a step in the communication process.

The Democrats plan to open extensive hearings on the Iraq war in coming weeks.

Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, the House majority leader, said on “Fox News Sunday” that while Democrats probably would not try to block any new plan to increase troop levels, “I think it’s too early to say that” with certainty.

The comments by Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Hoyer appeared to mark some sharpening of the Democrats’ language.

While Ms. Pelosi and the Senate majority leader, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, said in a letter to President Bush last week that a troop increase would endanger more Americans for little strategic gain, Democrats also said they would not seek to stop such an increase, for fear of seeming unsupportive of the troops.

Congressional Democrats, nonetheless, were hardly unified on their political tactics.

Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said that a troop surge would be a “tragic mistake.” But Mr. Biden also said on “Meet the Press” on NBC that Congressional Democrats would probably be violating the constitutional separation of powers if they tried to block the president’s decision, since Congress authorized the use of force in Iraq.

"It’s unconstitutional to say, ‘You can go, but we’re going to micromanage,’ ” Mr. Biden said. "As a practical matter, there is no way to say this is going to be stopped."

Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the new Senate minority leader, said he expected to support the president and he, too, doubted that the new plan would be blocked.

“I don’t think the Congress will have the ability to simply micromanage tactics in the war, nor should it,” he said on Fox. “At the end of the day, I don’t think Congress will cut off the money for the troops.”

Democratic lawmakers took pains to say that they would not pull support from American troops already in Iraq.

“I think the Congress will provide everything that the troops need,” said Representative David R. Obey of Wisconsin, the new chairman of the Appropriations Committee.

This is what is called being between a rock and a hard place, but it is one of their own making, by refusing to consider the one option that is BEST for our country.

Winning. Victory. Success.

All words that make the Democratic party cringe and one has to wonder why?

To win the war on terror is to make our country safer, so one has to ask themselves, are politics and this insane desire to see Bush lose worth it to the Democrats to make sure our "country" loses to be able to achieve what they desire.....which is a Democratic president in 2008?

Are the Democrats so power driven that they would hand Iraq over to terrorist organizations before trying to "help" by creating new ideas, new strategies for "success" and instead, continuously crying out for defeat.

In the meantime a Wapo article suggests that the Democrats are once again trying to keep themselves in the news by changing their agenda due to President Bush's speech that will given on Wed. with his plan for a new way forward in Iraq.

Democrats had hoped that the headlines and evening news would be dominated by votes in Congress to bolster homeland security, raise the minimum wage, fund stem cell research and grant the federal government authority to negotiate lower drug prices for Medicare. Each of those measures will be taken up on sequential days this week, a bill-a-day approach designed to capture headlines and show the nation that Democrats can get things done.

But with Bush's long-awaited policy address tentatively set for midweek, those much-touted bills are not likely to lead the news, and the Democratic leaders have been forced to change their tactics.

"The challenge for them is this: Iraq is the central issue. It's an enormous problem for the president and the Republicans, but it has the suffocating effect of taking attention away from the Democrats' domestic legislative priorities, and I think they understand that," said Joe Lockhart, a White House press secretary in the Clinton administration.

By all means, make sure that everyone understands that your MAIN goal is to dominate the evening news. Yes, thats the ticket. Show the world exactly what you are about. It can only help the Republicans in 2008 for the world to see that you would rather stay in the forefront of the news than protect our country from future attacks by refusing to allow terrorists a stronghold and the country of Iraq to base themselves.

A novel idea for the Democrats of this world.... trying working WITH the administration, putting politics aside, to come up with a few fresh ideas for winning in Iraq because your other option should be be the party which handed Iraq over to terrorists and insurgents, to be the party responsible for losing, as you did with Vietnam.

That will be your legacy if you continue down the path you have chosen and it will be all for naught since the president already has the money legally to do as he pleases anyway, for at least, a good portion of this coming year.

What happened when Democrats in Congress cut off funding for the Vietnam War?

Historians have directly attributed the fall of Saigon in 1975 to the cessation of American aid. Without the necessary funds, South Vietnam found it logistically and financially impossible to defeat the North Vietnamese army. Moreover, the withdrawal of aid encouraged North Vietnam to begin an effective military offensive against South Vietnam. Given the monetary and military investment in Vietnam, former Assistant Secretary of State Richard Armitage compared the American withdrawal to “a pregnant lady, abandoned by her lover to face her fate.” Historian Lewis Fanning went so far as to say that “it was not the Hanoi communists who won the war, but rather the American Congress that lost it.”

Is this, once again, the legacy that the Democrats are aiming for? It seems to be.

[UPDATE] Don Surber is also pointing out what the cost was the last time Congress brought about American Vietnam.