Tuesday :: Apr 29, 2008

Soft


by Turkana

The Democratic House "leadership" is soft on terror. The Bush Administration openly and unapologetically flouts international strictures against torture, and the Democratic Congress does nothing. The Bush Administration lied the country into a war that didn't need to be fought, and that has devastated both an innocent people and the U.S. military, and the Democratic Congress does nothing. The Bush Administration has systematically undermined American national security, and the Democratic Congress does nothing. In 2005, they were so focused on winning the 2006 elections that they took impeachment off the table. In 2007 and 2008, they've been so focused on winning the 2008 elections that they're taking ending the war off the table. The Democratic House "leadership" is so focused on winning the government that they're refusing to govern.

Gallup last week reported that opposition to the war is at an all-time high. The Associated Press reported yesterday that April was the deadliest month for U.S. troops since September. Two weeks ago, McClatchy reported that the Pentagon's elite National Defense University considered Iraq "a major debacle," with its outcome "in doubt." Everything that the propagandists say is supposed to be happening in Iraq isn't. The only thing that is happening is death and destruction. So, you would think, perhaps, the House Democratic leadership would want to finally take a stand. Defund. Mandate timetables for withdrawal. Something. Well, they do. As reported by the San Francisco Chronicle (and with a h/t to Magnifico):

House Democratic leaders are putting together the largest Iraq war spending bill yet, a measure that is expected to fund the war through the end of the Bush presidency and for nearly six months into the next president's term.

The bill, which could be unveiled as early as this week, signals that Democrats are resigned to the fact they can't change course in Iraq in the final months of President Bush's term. Instead, the party is pinning its hopes of ending the war on winning the White House in November.

Not can't. The word is won't.

"It's going to be a tough sell to convince people in my district that funding the war for six months into the new president's term is the way to end the war," said Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Petaluma, a leader of the Out of Iraq Caucus who plans to oppose the funding. "It sounds like we are paying for something we don't want."

I've spoken with Rep. Woolsey, and I am confident that she doesn't want the war. I'm not so sure about the Democratic "leadership." Because that six month extension into next year is a tell. If there was an expectation that the war would begin to end in the first six months of next year, there would be no reason to extend full funding. The Democratic House "leadership" could, instead, wait for a Democratic presidential nominee, and then consult with that nominee about the first six months of next year. Instead, it's more of the same. They're not resigned that they "can't" stop the war while Bush is still in power, they're unwilling to make any effort to stop it. Even after Bush is out of power. And by the middle of next year, they'll be worrying about the 2010 elections. They're so worried about looking soft that they're proving how soft they really are.

Turkana :: 2:18 PM :: Comments (15) :: Digg It!