Stark Warning
The Washington Post has a rather stark warning to the Democrats: They are rapidly running out of media cover for their anti-war agenda. With both the LA Times and the Post sending clear signals that the Pelosi-Murtha plotting is a bad idea, someone in the Democratic party might really want to start paying attention.
In short, the Democratic proposal to be taken up this week is an attempt to impose detailed management on a war without regard for the war itself. Will Iraq collapse into unrestrained civil conflict with "massive civilian casualties," as the U.S. intelligence community predicts in the event of a rapid withdrawal? Will al-Qaeda establish a powerful new base for launching attacks on the United States and its allies? Will there be a regional war that sucks in Iraqi neighbors such as Saudi Arabia or Turkey? The House legislation is indifferent: Whether or not any of those events happened, U.S. forces would be gone.
The House bill lists benchmarks for Iraqi political progress and requires that President Bush certify by July 1 that progress is being made toward them. By October, Bush would have to certify that the benchmarks all had been reached. This is something of a trick, akin to the inflexible troop readiness requirements that Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) wanted to impose to "stop the surge." Everyone knows that the long list of requirements — including constitutional changes, local elections and the completion of complex legislation — couldn't be finished in six months. In that case a troop withdrawal would have to begin immediately. If there was no "progress" by July, it would have to begin then and be completed by the end of the year.
The editors point out that Pelosi's action do not lead to a solution, only to a constitutional struggle. I'd also point out that they are setting a precedent that will lead to the exact same treatment happening to one of their own somewhere down the line. The Congressional Democrats who are running for President might want to really think hard about this. Do they honestly want to try to hamstring the office of the President/ Will they be happy with winning the office after they cooperate in placing it as subservient and secondary to the likes of Pelosi and Murtha?
By Former Republican, Tuesday, 13 March , 2007 @ 10:33 am
Gaius, I am surprised you take seriously anything the Washington Post writes. Remember its liberal bias? It looks like it’s criticizing the Democrats, but of course that’s not really possible, is it? You must be misreading whay they say.
Or possibly, just possibly, you are wrong about their liberal bias.
By cfaller96, Tuesday, 13 March , 2007 @ 2:43 pm
Speaking of the Murtha plan, didn’t we just hear yesterday that the Administration will be throwing our war wounded, some of whom can’t hold a rifle or wear body armor, back into combat?
The Murtha plan would have prevented our walking wounded from going back into battle without proper rest, equipment, and training. But Gaius, I’m sure you’re glad that the Murtha plan failed, and now these wounded can go back to Iraq and fight your war.
When things go poorly or look bad, a deafening silence falls over the land of Wingnuttia.
By crosspatch, Tuesday, 13 March , 2007 @ 8:23 pm
Wounded have been returned to battle in every single war we have ever fought.
The Democrats know that none of this legislation stands a chance of every clearing the Senate and even if it did, the President would never sign it and Congress could never muster the numbers needed to override a veto. It is just posturing … theatre to fill pages of newspapers. The Democrats are such morons. Or they think we are.
By cfaller96, Wednesday, 14 March , 2007 @ 9:12 am
crosspatch said:
Wounded have been returned to battle in every single war we have ever fought.
Oh, for God’s sake. First of all, does that mean the wounded should return to battle? Even if they can’t hold a rifle or wear body armor? Should any of our troops, let alone the wounded, go into battle without the proper rest, training, and equipment?
Anyone that answers yes to those questions makes it obvious that he/she believes the troops are just toy soldiers. But I think it’s obvious how gutless you are, Crosspatch, in that you can’t bring yourself to explicitly say those things. Oh sure, you never explicitly supported sending our wounded back into battle, you just…”innocently”…pointed out that wounded have returned to battles in other times in our history. Yeah, sure, you’re not suggesting there. Totally innocent. Whatever.
You also conveniently ignore how wounded some of these soldiers are. If they can’t wear body armor, should they really be sent back? What if they can’t hold a rifle? When wouldn’t you send them back, crosspatch?
Wingnuts: “Support the Troops (as long as we don’t have to give them body armor or proper health care)!”