Democrats meltdown during Indian Summer

Well, temperatures are back up in the 90s here in our nation’s Capitol thanks to an early Indian Summer – the unexpected turn about in weather has caused some Democrats to wilt in the face of Republicans steadfast rejection of a firm withdrawal date. According to Washington Post’s Dana Milbanks, wrinkled old relic of the segregation era, Robert Byrd was the looniest;

Democrats’ anger has built for weeks over their failure to end the war in Iraq. When Defense Secretary Bob Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Peter Pace arrived on Capitol Hill yesterday, the lid came off.

Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), chairman of the Appropriations Committee, didn’t just harangue the two men. He did so in triplicate.

The displeased Sen. Byrd: “All of this for a war — a war! a war!” (By Melina Mara — The Washington Post)

“Funding for the war in Iraq will exceed 600 billion — billion! billion! — dollars!” the 89-year-old lawmaker bellowed, pointing his finger wildly while Gates picked at his cuticles.

“All of this for a war — a war! a war! — that General Petraeus, two weeks ago, could not say had made Americans safer!”

“A long-term presence could cost well in excess of 2 trillion — 2 trillion! Yes, you heard me — 2 trillion!”

Byrd’s angry theatrics made for a performance reminiscent of Al Pacino in “Scent of a Woman.” And Byrd did Pacino one better: He invited the audience in the room to join him in heckling the witnesses, creating a responsive Greek chorus.

Byrd: “Are we really seeking progress toward a stable, secure Iraq?”

Read the whole thing, Byrd is actually becoming a caracature of himself. I guess Byrd is upset because that money we’re spending in Iraq could probably build a new skating rink named after him in Clarksburg or something.

Even the main characters in the Democrat presidential campaign are caving in to the reality of Republicans’ stalwart stance (Washington Examiner);

The leading Democratic White House hopefuls conceded Wednesday night they cannot guarantee to pull all U.S. combat troops from Iraq by the end of the next presidential term in 2013.

“I think it’s hard to project four years from now,” said Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois in the opening moments of a campaign debate in the nation’s first primary state.

“It is very difficult to know what we’re going to be inheriting,” added Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.

“I cannot make that commitment,” said former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina.

Well, except for Chris Dodd – Mr. Waitress Sandwich himself – and Bill Richardson;

“I’ll get the job done,” said Dodd, while Richardson said he would make sure the troops were home by the end of his first year in office.

And then Edwards made a distinction about who is a bigger pussy, Edwards or Clinton - Edwards, of course, won (Washington Times);

But that position came under immediate fire from former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, who said that although he “cannot make that commitment,” he “would immediately begin to draw down 40,000 to 50,000 troops and begin to withdraw all troops out of Iraq.”

The only exception would be to retain noncombat forces for humanitarian purposes, he said, estimating that this would require “about a brigade” of 3,500 to 5,000 troops.

“Good people have differences about this issue. Senator Clinton said we would continue to have combat missions in Iraq. I would not have any combat mission in Iraq,” he said.

Mrs. Clinton quickly denied Mr. Edwards’ assertion, saying that she intended only to retain counterterrorism forces there “aimed at al Qaeda in Iraq, but the vast majority of our troops will be out.” 

But, at least the Senate has decided to involve themselves in the politics of Iraq instead of involving themselves in the politics over Iraq (Wall Street Journal);

The Senate signaled strong bipartisan support for the U.S. taking a more regional, federal approach to power sharing in Iraq rather than continuing to promote a strong central government in Baghdad.

The language, adopted 75-23, is nonbinding and leaves any final decisions to the Iraqis. But the vote reflects growing pressure on the Bush administration to encourage new approaches toward political reconciliation even if it means dividing power among different Iraqi factions.

Recent votes have shown no consensus in Congress on the U.S. military strategy, but lawmakers from both parties cite a need for a “political surge” to match increased troop levels. The Iraqi constitution provides a potential framework for more local power sharing, and the Kurdistan regional government already is given broad administrative authority in three Iraqi provinces.

At least the rancor is down, although the uselessness of Congress continues unabated.

Category: Politics