March 27, 2007: UPDATE: Three words on the Senate Iraq Timeline vote

Pathetic. Predictable. Pusillanimous.

The Democrats were in a bind. They had to ... or thought they had to.... push this vote to appease their base at very moment the situation may be improving in Iraq. In fact, the bind was so tight most of these supposedly progressive politicians probably didn't want to examine the situation with any care or specificity because it would only confuse them and cause ambivalence, second thoughts, all those uncomfortable feelings.

Now, since it is clear (and always has been) Bush will veto this legislation, the Democrats are more than ever in the position of having to root for an American defeat and the defeat of democracy in Iraq. They have bet their political lives on our failure.

Comments

Comments require registration through TypeKey. Abusive remarks may be deleted. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Roger Simon.

It is pathetic. And stupid. They have stuff in that bill that defies the imagination. Such some people get to stay to fight AlQaida, alQaida only. As if these people wore uniforms. I can see the soldiers with the JAG lawyers on their heels deciding when and if they can shoot back.

Do they leave in one bunch or a few at a time?

Can you imagine the rear guard action they would be fighting and the truth is it could cost more money and lives to do this than it would to finish the job.

And what is more, even if Bush did leave...that part of the world is not going to settle down just to convenience the Democrats. No, we might be back in there in another few years fighting yet another war. And who will the American people blame for that?

The most pathetic thing about this bill is that after all the posturing and preening about cleaning up Congress and doing away with pork etc, the leadership had to buy votes with all kinds of extraneous pork attached to that bill. Shameful. If they want to cut the funds by a certain date they should just do that and be done with it. At least that would be honest. But they don't have the guts.

Posted by: Terrye at March 28, 2007 3:14 AM

The larding on of the pork, in contradiction of their own campaigns, is amazingly cynical. It just underscores who they really work for. But can Bush veto? The war needs funding. Spring break is coming up. The Congress could delay and drag things out long enough to make him wish he hadn't been so quick with a veto.

Posted by: Dick Stanley at March 28, 2007 5:31 AM

I support the troops but but.....THEY'VE GOT TO LOSE!!

Posted by: ricpic at March 28, 2007 5:38 AM

More than pathetic, it is loathsome -- especially those in Congress who sold their vote for "pork".

Posted by: fred at March 28, 2007 6:03 AM

Roger,

They have bet their political lives on our failure...

This is an apt and concise characterization of their position. But I have come to believe that our enemy (the enemy at home, which includes most of the mainstream press) is so skilled at manipulating public opinion, that they will never be called to account, no matter what happens.

BTW Terrye, you remain a beacon of sanity in a mad world!

;-)

Jamie Irons

Posted by: Jamie Irons at March 28, 2007 7:41 AM

You missed a word, Roger: Deplorable.

But yes, the two you chose certainly applies to them.

Posted by: ElMondo at March 28, 2007 7:41 AM

It's past time to run "{congress critter} voted for the war appropriations bill because {pork project list} was included. Did you get that money or are you paying for it like the rest of the country?" adverts in the relevant districts.

Most pork projects benefit only a small fraction of the folks in a given district. When the other folks in that district figure that out, those projects lose much of their relection value.

Posted by: Andy Freeman at March 28, 2007 7:42 AM

I was looking for "P" words, ElMondo. How about this one?

Pusillanimous.

Posted by: Roger at March 28, 2007 8:14 AM

You know, i think that they're a lot smarter than you give them credit for.

They know that this will get a veto. However, that paints Bush as the bad guy and they'll have 18 months to continue to push up idiotic legislation, get it vetoed and make Bush look even more the bad guy.

Then come election season, we'll still be in a war which Dems will argue they could have ended 'if only we had a decent President'. Based on the last election cycle, and assuming that they find a candidate that isn't utterly horrific, then they'll probably keep control of Congress and gain the White House. Once they're in the White House, they can stall on the extraction as long as they like and continue the war using excuses that Bush's actions forced us to stay.

All in all, underestimating a political party's intelligence (and duplicity) seems bad idea.

Posted by: dclydew at March 28, 2007 9:24 AM

When you read that the vote's passage is tied to the perceived weakness of the president following the Libby conviction, Gonzales firings, national security letters mishaps and Walter Reed; its clear democrats have dropped all pretences that politics stops at the waters edge.

If Iran's nuclear program is to be ended in measure by the leadership of the U.S. we are in big dudu.

Posted by: Lem at March 28, 2007 9:35 AM

Lem,

I agree.

Posted by: dclydew at March 28, 2007 9:39 AM

I guess Hagel has made up his mind about 08

Posted by: joe at March 28, 2007 11:26 AM

I'll say one thing for democrat "I did not give the gun to Phillip Thompson" Jim Webb of Virginia. At least he is consistent.

Webb votes to leave Iraq as he did his friend - literally holding the bag.

Posted by: Lem at March 28, 2007 12:07 PM

There is a major article on Commentary that explains exactly the strategy we are now using in Iraq. If you haven't read it, do so. Yes, it looks like it's working now, but this is a strategy that won't work overnight.

Posted by: Duke at March 28, 2007 3:07 PM

It does not begin with a P but unprincipled comes to mind. This may be the worst Congress ever. I don't care how much the MSM carries their water, the perfidy of the Democrats has to be obvious to most Americans.

Posted by: Peter Boston at March 28, 2007 3:48 PM

Pathetic, predictable, pusillanimous, loathsome, deplorable, perfidy -- all, and worse, apply to those in this Congress voting for our defeat in Iraq.

Posted by: fred at March 28, 2007 4:23 PM

Mission Accomplished, eh?!!!

Posted by: Wolverine at March 28, 2007 8:47 PM

Email This Post