Sen. Reid Vows Defeat In Iraq
MichaelW on Nov 16 2007 at 8:06 pm | Filed under: Domestic Politics, Election 2008, Foreign affairs, MichaelW's Page, Military Matters, Notes on the war
The war funding bill passed by the House was shot down by the Senate, but against the White House through attrition (my emphasis):
Nearly a year after anti-war voters put them in power, congressional Democrats remain unable to pass legislation ordering troops home from Iraq.
Frustrated by Republican roadblocks, Democrats now plan to sit on President Bush’s $196 billion request for war spending until next year — pushing the Pentagon toward an accounting nightmare and deepening their conflict with the White House on the war.
“We’re going to continue to do the right thing for the American people by having limited accountability for the president and not a blank check,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.
As the situation on the ground in Iraq continues to brighten, and a light begins to appear at the end of the war tunnel, is it the brightest thing in the world to starve the military at this juncture? Anti-war Democrats constantly harp on how Pres. Bush has “broken” the military. Do they feel any responsibility when they pull purely political stunts like this? I’m guessing not.
Senate Republicans on Friday blocked a $50 billion bill by Democrats that would have paid for several months of combat but also would have ordered troop withdrawals from Iraq to begin within 30 days. The measure, narrowly passed this week by the House, also would have set a goal of ending combat in December 2008.
The 53-45 vote was seven votes short of the 60 needed to advance. It came minutes after the Senate rejected a Republican proposal to pay for the Iraq war with no strings attached.
These sorts of games hurt not just the war effort, but also the ever-shrinking confidence in our federal legislators. The entire funding process is nothing more than gamesmanship and pocket-lining. Meanwhile, our folks in uniform and the common Iraqi citizen are being made to suffer, all so some incumbents can strengthen their grips on power, which is then used to enrich themselves and their friends.
What’s worse is the persistent efforts being made by the likes of Reid to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. A year ago, well prior to Petraeus’ confirmation and the beginning of the surge, Reid’s crusade to indirectly hamstring our military and the Bush Administration (because he doesn’t have the fortitude to do anything as direct as floating a bill to cut off funds altogether) might have made sense. Certainly the voters would have been more sympathetic.
Now that violence has dropped precipitously, former insurgency and al Qaeda supporters are working with the MNF and Iraqi forces, and the Iraqi army has taken the security lead in most of the country (including in Baghdad), the Reid Democrats appear to be interested in one thing and one thing only — a U.S. defeat. Perhaps that can be successfully rephrased as simply wanting failure for Bush’s Iraq policies, but the reality is that Reid’s means of accomplishing the task is to cause the U.S. to leave Iraq in a shambles, thus allowing a safer place for Islamic terrorists and Iranian militants to operate.
How does that help America? How does that make us safer? How on earth can anything about Reid’s plan be considered honorable?
It doesn’t, we’re not, and it can’t.
UPDATE: Gateway Pundit has a roundup of the Democrat game-playing.
Welcome Instapundit Readers!
Take a tour and note how veterans are made into victims, the canning of Democratic debate, get a gander at one of the best arguments for the existence of god, see why China may not be as big and bad of an economic power as we used to think. Look at some of the stranger toys one might want to consider this Christmas, discuss where innovation in health care comes from and make a detour to see how the media can manipulate what we think we see and hear.
Definitely give our non-coms the chance to address some rather outdated opinions from a few fellow soldiers.
Also, what about those contempt of Congress charges against Bolten and Miers?
Technorati Tags: Harry Reid, Congress, Democrats, withdrawal, Iraq, appropriations, war funding, earmarks, Bush Administration
Sphere: Related Content6 Responses to “Sen. Reid Vows Defeat In Iraq”
Trackback URI | Comments RSS
I do NOT care how Senator Reid is ejected from his seat; can’t someone (HELLO NEVADA!!!!!!!!) get this dipshit OUT OF OFFICE?!?!?
Frank,
I must respectfully disagree with you. Reid is not a dipsh*t. It appears you attribute his treasonous behavior to a lack of intelligence. Reid and the DNC are irreversibly wedded to defeat in Iraq. Any progess, let alone victory, is intolerable to them, politically.
We must lose in Iraq or the DNC will suffer at the polls. As they cannot advance their agenda through legislation, the DNC must win elections so it can appoint activist judges sympathetic to that agenda who will legislate from the bench. If the US has to lose a war and more of our fighting men have to die to make that happen, well, that’s a small price to pay for “abortion rights”, affirmative action, gay marriage and the redistribution of wealth. The ends justifies the means.
People like Reid aren’t just misguided. They aren’t stupid. They are rabid partisans who are willing to weaken their country for short term political gain.
Hey, this is great! The Pentagon can announce that all funding for earmarks in the Defense budget will be directed to fund the war in Iraq, and will go exclusively to that until all the funding Bush requested is provided.
:-)
Greg: that can’t happen. That is why porks are called earmarks. Neither Defense nor the White House can direct a cent to anything other than the porks as earmarked.
Wait, didn’t we already win? That’s what I keep hearing!
Not here.