Congress capitulates to the will of the people
Last night, Congress finally got off it’s high horse and passed funding for the war against terror in Iraq. The Washington Post reports that the anti-American wing of the left was apoplectic;
Antiwar groups demanded that Democrats continue pressing for withdrawal dates and bombarded congressional offices with angry phone calls and e-mails in the hours before yesterday’s votes. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), both war opponents, called the benchmarks woefully weak.
But Democrats were reluctant to hold up troop funding. Nor could they override a second presidential veto. In an anguished floor speech, Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), a longtime war opponent, said he would reluctantly support the spending bill. “We do not have it within our power to make the will of America the law of the land,” Durbin said.
Got news for ya, Durbin, you don’t have it within your power to inflict the will of a tiny minority of Americans on the rest of us.
The Washington Post reports that al Sadr finally came out of hiding this morning - I don’t suppose that losing a timetable forced him to return to Iraq;
Moqtada al-Sadr, the influential Shiite cleric and militia leader who went into hiding before the launch of a U.S.-Iraqi security offensive in February, made his first public appearance in months today, delivering a sermon before thousands of worshipers at a mosque in the southern city of Kufa.
After months out of public view that U.S. officials say he spent mostly in neighboring Iran, Sadr arrived at the mosque in a motorcade and rekindled his anti-American rhetoric at a time when he is trying to broaden his standing as a national leader.
“No, no for the devil. No, no for America. No, no for the occupation. No, no for Israel,” the firebrand cleric chanted to a crowd estimated at around 6,000, the Associated Press reported.
It’s my opinion that al-Sadr resurfaced because he’d hoped the Democrats would prevail, but when they didn’t, he needed something to rally his troops before they becaome too disillusioned – as if dying in droves isn’t doing that anyway.Â
The Washington Times’s S.A. Miller reports the actual numbers for the votes in Congress calling it a “painful defeat” for Democratic leadership;
 The Democratic leadership’s painful defeat in challenging President Bush on war policy was evident in the 280-142 House vote, with 194 Republicans and 86 Democrats supporting the war funding. More than half the Democratic caucus, 140 members, voted against it, as did Republican Reps. John J. “Jimmy” Duncan Jr. of Tennessee and Ron Paul of Texas.
Washington Post columnist EJ Dionne takes a long view of their “struggle” to end the war in Iraq:
Democrats, in short, have enough power to complicate the president’s life, but not enough to impose their will. Moreover, there is genuine disagreement even among Bush’s Democratic critics over what the pace of withdrawal should be and how to minimize the damage of this war to the country’s long-term interests. That is neither shocking nor appalling, but, yes, it complicates things. So does the fact that the minority wields enormous power in the Senate.
What was true in January thus remains true today: The president will be forced to change his policy only when enough Republicans tell him he has to. Facing this is no fun; it’s just necessary.
Rep. Dave Obey (D-Wis.), chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, said recently that no one remembers how long it took to reverse the direction of American policy in Vietnam. Obey is hunkered down for a lengthy struggle.
It’s really too bad that Democrats can’t summon the testicular fortitude to “hunker down” for the long struggle against terrorism the way they’ve “hunkered down” against their political rivals.
Over in the Senate, two Presidential candidates decided winning the primary is more important than winning the election, according to the AP;
Courting the anti-war constituency, Democratic presidential rivals Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama both voted against legislation that pays for the Iraq war but lacks a timeline for troop withdrawal.
“I fully support our troops” but the measure “fails to compel the president to give our troops a new strategy in Iraq,” said Clinton, a New York senator.
“Enough is enough,” Obama, an Illinois senator, declared, adding that President Bush should not get “a blank check to continue down this same, disastrous path.”
How do you support the troops yet vote to shut off money for them to complete their mission? How does that make a lick of sense? And, Obama, your job is to write blank checks for the Executive Branch. If you want troops out of Iraq, pass a law – that’s your job, too.
The Wall Street Journal brings the bad news about the bill;
Included in the measure is a $2.10-an-hour increase in the federal minimum wage as well as billions in new domestic spending for Democratic priorities. But President Bush will retain a free hand over managing the war after vetoing earlier efforts by lawmakers to force him to begin to withdraw U.S. troops Oct.1.
* * * * *
In the case of the minimum wage, the $2.10 increase to $7.25 an hour would be spread over the next two years in three 70-cent increments, the first of which would take effect 60 days after the president signs the bill, which is expected this weekend. It promises small business employers new tax breaks to help absorb the added payroll costs, including more generous expensing rules worth $3.5 billion over the next five years.
But, that was political manuevering by the Democrats – when the economy slows because of increased wages which will result in layoffs and slowing job growth, they can blame the Administration just in time for the 2008 elections. Of course, they’ll blame the tax cuts which influenced job growth (and increased tax revenues) in the first place.
David Sirota of SirotaBLOG is pretty angry at his party for pulling off a political stunt instead of letting the train just run over them.
This is what we’re dealing with folks. A party that runs to the press to brag about the brilliance of using their majority not to end the war, but to create a situation that makes it seem as if they oppose the war, while actually helping Republicans continue it.
I’m constantly amazed that the activist Left just doesn’t understand that “not enough votes” means that there aren’t enough votes. They don’t understand the veto process, and they just think that everyone should give them their way all of the time, without questions. What a terrible existence. Intentionally irretrievably ignorant.
Now, according to the Washington Post and AP;
“I think the president’s policy is going to begin to unravel now,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who described the just-passed measure as a disappointment because it did not force an end to U.S. participation in the conflict.
This from the same woman who predicted that the President didn’t have the guts to veto the first spending bill. You just keep hoping you’re right, Nance – someday you’ll get that pony.
