Dems go to opposite extreme on war funding
posted at 9:15 am on May 7, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
Guess who doesn’t want an election-season debate on the war? Nancy Pelosi has decided to push through a supplemental war-funding bill that will keep operations in Iraq going until 2009, without withdrawal timetables. That takes the war off the table in Congress for the September-October time frame:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is about to lead her party into a major showdown over Iraq funding by violating two Democratic campaign pledges in one fell swoop.
To the critics, whether anti-war activists or House Republicans, Pelosi has made her feelings clear: Get over it.
This week’s maneuvering over a $200 billion war spending bill has revealed Pelosi self-confidently playing what she believes — with increasing evidence — is a strong hand.
Strong enough that she is expected to break one promise — her 2006 pledge for a more open and inclusive committee process — by circumventing the powerful House Appropriations Committee on the Iraq bill.
And when the final Iraq bill reaches the president’s desk, any troop withdrawal conditions are likely to be gone from the legislation. That is another 2006 pledge that has fallen by the wayside.
The Politico piece my Martin Kady misses the one crucial point in its focus on process: the Democrats do not want a repeat of 2007’s debate on Iraq. At its height, it produced a declaration of defeat from Democratic leadership on the floor of the Senate, and it also produced the spectacle of Democrats and their allies calling a uniformed commander a traitor and a liar during his testimony to Congress. After events proved General David Petraeus correct, the Democrats have tried hard to avoid getting exposed as defeatists and hysterics again.
At that time, they proposed giving only 60-day funding at a time in order to keep the Iraq issue at the forefront of the political process. Now Pelosi & Co want to bury it. What does that tell us about the upcoming Congressional elections? The Democrats won their majority by getting moderates to run in conservative districts, where voters don’t like surrender and retreat. Their 2007 performance put those seats at risk, and the incumbents who know their vulnerability do not want to defend the defeatism of Democratic leadership, especially now that Iraq has made so much progress in the last few months.
The anti-war groups are putting their best face on this about-face. MoveOn says that Democrats have no choice but to capitulate on the war, despite having a majority, but they never explain why. The truth is that a precipitous withdrawal has never been a popular position, and it has grown even less so over the last year. Pelosi and Harry Reid want to quietly bury Iraq war funding now so that they can avoid exposure as defeatists in the final weeks before the fall elections.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
The good news is we are winning!
Unfortunately the MSM won’t point out that the defeatocrats have been wrong on the war all along.
Ordinary1 on May 7, 2008 at 9:22 AM
Smart move…I don’t like it, but it is a smart (and swarmy) move by the dems.
They know if they win, they can pull the plug immediately. Lose the battle to win the war.
right2bright on May 7, 2008 at 9:23 AM
The democrats believe that their strategy of sabotage and obstruction over the last eight years has worked to their advantage, and they believe that in November they will win it all.
I believe that they are correct.
Any ‘October surprise’ will not benefit republican candidates.
rockhauler on May 7, 2008 at 9:24 AM
Maybe Pelosi needs to confer with her master, Darth Soros, on what the next move should be. The woman dares not even so much as sneeze without his approval.
pilamaye on May 7, 2008 at 9:25 AM
right2bright: It’s lose the battle to lose the war. The Dems are nothing if not consistent.
Byron on May 7, 2008 at 9:27 AM
Well played, well played indeed. Rovian in its simplicity. Saw an anti-McCain ad from the DNC on CNN this morning. No mention of Iraq, it was 100% on the economy. Focus on Issue #1 by making Issue #2 a moot point.
BohicaTwentyTwo on May 7, 2008 at 9:28 AM
They watch the polls and they know the truth. Having the war as a campaign cenerpiece loses everything for them. It has absolutely no effect in the 6th congressional race in Louisiana at all.
Kermit on May 7, 2008 at 9:29 AM
Here’s Joel Rosenberg on the future of Iraq!
Ordinary1 on May 7, 2008 at 9:30 AM
Add to the above reasoning the fact that Democrats have begun to get their share of war funding money by giving contracts to family members and such games. Like the half billion that went to Diane Feinstein’s husband’s corporation.
Does anyone know of any good books about the surge?
snaggletoothie on May 7, 2008 at 9:32 AM
Back in 1992, the Democrats were smart enough both to back of any major non-economic confrontations with George H.W. Bush in the run-up to the White House, and to lock their more vocal and far left supporters in the attic until the general election was over. Pelosi’s action (assuming Reid does the same in the Senate) shows Congressional Democrats aren’t going to dive head-first over a cliff on foreign policy, when they have the current downturn in the economy and high gas prices to work with. But while MoveOn also seems to be acting strategerially in this, it will be interesting to see if the party can muzzle their other activists after eight long years of Bush Derangement Syndrome and a belief it’s their turn by the power of Gaia to return to the White House.
jon1979 on May 7, 2008 at 9:41 AM
The nutroots are going to go bonkers.
Well, more bonkers.
N. O'Brain on May 7, 2008 at 9:41 AM
Heh, interesting when reality has to creep into the liberals’ fantasy.
Grafted on May 7, 2008 at 9:42 AM
What better sign that the US is winning the war against Jihadi terror. President Bush, after years of being personally maligned by the Left is now handed a stunning victory to keep this nation free by Queen Pelosi, her minister of spin and side-kick, Reid, and the court jester, Murtha.
Now that the enemy at home has retreated, let’s roll.
Hening on May 7, 2008 at 9:43 AM
Guess who doesn’t want an election-season debate on
thewarborder issues? Nancy Pelosi has decided to push through a supplementalwarfence-funding bill that will keep building operationsin Iraqgoing until 2009, withoutwithdrawal timetablespromoting a new version of amnesty or the DREAM act.If only.
Speakup on May 7, 2008 at 9:50 AM
Can McCain now cast Obama as out of step with his own party?
Theworldisnotenough on May 7, 2008 at 9:58 AM
Yowsa.
This is also clearly meant to provide Obama cover for breaking his campaign promises.
drjohn on May 7, 2008 at 10:00 AM
techno_barbarian on May 7, 2008 at 10:00 AM
You jest, but you’re right. Pelosi and the Dim leadership in Congress killed Heath Shuler’s enforcement bill before it could come to a vote, because they were afraid that it would pass. The Dims know that the majority of Americans want our laws enforced, but they’re not about to do it.
This is your leadership in action, Democrats. Do you really want to keep voting for people who clearly don’t give a damn about what matters to you?
AZCoyote on May 7, 2008 at 10:12 AM
Rush is so vindicated.
RushBaby on May 7, 2008 at 10:13 AM
Say what you want about Pelosi, but she is a damn fine looking woman. Between her and Hillary, the Dems have the market cornered in hot withches who make my innards shrivel.
Syd B. on May 7, 2008 at 10:27 AM
snaggletoothie,
“Does anyone know of any good books about the surge?”
http://www.blackfive.com has had several lists of recommended books over the past few months.
exhelodrvr on May 7, 2008 at 10:33 AM
In the Congressional elections coming up… the Repubs need to use the Dems lack of keeping their promises and ineffectivness against them…
USE the low level of Congressional approval…
But to do that they need to run NEW people… not establishment types… which I don’t think they’ll do.
Romeo13 on May 7, 2008 at 11:01 AM
So they are packing this bill with so much pork it is going to be double what is requested and then they can blame the President and Republicans for the out of control cost in Iraq. Seems many are missing that little point with the why she is really doing this and cutting off discussions on the bill.
JeffinSac on May 7, 2008 at 11:08 AM
GREAT!!
Now let’s have a few well-publicized rolling blackouts on the East coast and also in Pelosi’s neighborhood to pressure them into opening up our nation for drilling right now so the oil prices will come down!!
landlines on May 7, 2008 at 11:47 AM
Didn’t Bush say he would Veto it because of ALL the Prok they are stuffing in it.
I wish they would go to individual bills and not hide things in bills.
As bad as everyone thought Bush was, he isn’t as nearly as bad as Congress or the Senate trying to skate and fatten their State/Friends wallets.
upinak on May 7, 2008 at 11:59 AM
Or make some Nuclear Plants… or geothermals plants and easier permits to receive, or windmills, or ANYTHING!
upinak on May 7, 2008 at 12:01 PM
If they did that, they’d never getting anything through Congress, much less get the president to actually sign it. A lot of these bills only get through Congress because there’s a little pork here for one vote, a little pork there for another vote, here some pork, there some pork, everywhere pork, pork. There would be no federal budget without some pork. Unfortunately.
PeterPotamus on May 7, 2008 at 12:23 PM
More likely, Obama will still vote against the bill, keeping his leftist credentals pure. This is more than a tactical withdrawal. Pelosi is performing a rear-guard action, sacrificing herself and her baggage for Obama. Strike her down and she will become more powerful than you could imagine.
BohicaTwentyTwo on May 7, 2008 at 12:25 PM
John McCain is a legitmate War Hero (contrasted with poseur Kerry) and he will be playing that card for all it’s worth. Pelosi, in a heated contest with Cindy Sheehan, needs to differentiate and align herself with the Country’s current political mood. Further complicating her position is her Super-delegate status. Which white-flag waver will she support?
Start the call now for Superdelegates to conduct their meetings in the open sunshine.
SeniorD on May 7, 2008 at 12:40 PM
The Khaleej Times via AFP are reporting, US House to vote on proposal to leave Iraq:
which is certainly more like Pelosi, Murtha, Hussein & Hill. WaPo just didn’t happen to miss a portion of the Bill, did they?
Earlg on May 7, 2008 at 1:17 PM
But I thought a huge majority of Americans are against the war.
That’s the last time I get my news from Jon Stewart.
Really though, I hear it all the time (from lefties in the media)—that a majority of Americans (up to 80%) want us out of Iraq now. This shows that even they don’t really believe their own drivel.
mattshu on May 7, 2008 at 1:18 PM
This is going to drive the nutroots crazy. But this is actually a smart political move by Pelosi.
SoulGlo on May 7, 2008 at 7:17 PM