Levin finally admits Democrats are clueless on Iraq
So I figure the folks over at HuffPo, et al. have smoke coming out of their ears after Carl Levin admitted that Congress won’t cut off funding for the Iraq war. From Bloomberg;
“We’re not going to cut off funding for the troops,” the 72-year-old Michigan Democrat said on ABC’s “This Week” program. “But what we should do, and we’re going to do, is continue to press this president to put some pressure on the Iraqi leaders to reach a political settlement.”
So why didn’t they just say that in the first place? If that’s what Levin admits that they “should” do, why all of the dust clouds about troop withdrawals and time schedules? Why’d ya’all spend so much time buying each other off with pork? Because the half-wits from Code Pink and the KosKids won’t stand for it, that’s why. And they still believe all that talk about a “mandate” for Democrats to end the war.
If Democrats had a “mandate” they’d have a majority in Congress to match. As it is, when Lieberman votes with Republicans, Democrats are screwed in the Senate. In the House, in November 435 seats were up for a vote and only 286 (53%) went for Democrats. That’s a majority, but it ain’t no mandate, folks.
Of course there are people in Congress that you can’t tell which side they’re on – like Arlen Specter, who the Boston Globe quotes;
Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, said “there have not been sufficient efforts at discussions” between lawmakers and the White House.
“We cannot leave the troops unfunded in the field,” Specter said on CNN’s “Late Edition.” “That just can’t be done. And Congress is not in a position to micromanage the war. But we do not have any good alternative. Right now, you can’t see the end of the tunnel, let alone a light at the end of the tunnel.”
Specter said he was not prepared “to withdraw funding at this time. But my patience, like many others, is growing very thin.”
My patience is growing thin, too, Arlen. Quit pandering to the extreme elements of THE OTHER PARTY and grow a fricken backbone. It’s guys like you that muddy the debate. Either mount that horse or go sit in the barn.
And little Chuckie Schumer is still living in an alternate universe, according to the Washington Post;
Although Democrats expect to have to negotiate with the White House, Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) made clear on “Fox News Sunday” that they would portray a veto as Bush denying funds to the military.
Schumer added that the president must change his Iraq strategy, because “70 percent of the American people feel it’s misguided. If a change in strategy means not supporting the troops, then 70 percent of the American people don’t support the troops.”
Which strategy is Schumer talking about? The one in November or the most recent one? Or is he just yammering to keep people confused?
In Washington Post’s The Talk, they quoted Schumer differently – in the context of a threat;
Democrats also suggested their strategy would be to portray Bush as the one who is denying funds to the troops.
“Should he veto this bill, which means he will be vetoing the money for the troops, we will try to come up with a way, … trying to compromise with the White House, that both supports the troops and yet changes the strategy in Iraq, which we feel is misguided,” Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said on “Fox News Sunday.”
So they’re trying the old strategy that worked for them in 1995 budget battle – blame their opponents with the help of their willing accomplices in the media. But, I think it’ll backfire this time – just because the nutroots have already shown us that their party, that MoveOn claims to have bought and paid for, is the party that can’t support the troops.
Category: Politics, Terror War
