I've said multiple times over the last several months that Democrats want another Vietnam and are determined to get it. Well, now they're even admitting it.
After Republicans blocked a Senate debate for a second time, Democrats said Saturday they'll drop efforts to pass a non-binding resolution opposing President Bush's troop buildup in Iraq and instead will offer a flurry of anti-war legislation "just like in the days of Vietnam."
The tough talk came a day after the House of Representatives passed its own anti-Iraq resolution and as the GOP used a procedural vote to stop the Senate from taking a position on the 21,500 troop increase.
Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said Democrats would be "relentless."
"There will be resolution after resolution, amendment after amendment . . . just like in the days of Vietnam," Schumer said. "The pressure will mount, the president will find he has no strategy, he will have to change his strategy and the vast majority of our troops will be taken out of harm's way and come home."
Given that the non-binding resolution would do nothing except signal our enemies that we aren't serious, you have to wonder why the Democratic leadership was so insistent that there be one. If it was simply a statement of their support of the troops, why were they so reluctant to allow Republican amendments supporting said troops?
The reason is transparent: they want us to lose. Now.
Well, maybe not right away. Democrats are almost as afraid of being plastered with the consequences of their actions as they are of us actually winning in Iraq.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told Democrats, "You want to be seen in history, I guess, or for the next election that `this wasn't my idea, this was Bush's folly.'
"If you believe half of what you're saying in these resolutions then have the courage of your convictions to stop this war by cutting off funding. But no one wants to do that because they don't really know how that's going to play out here at home."
The truth is, they do know how it would play out at home: not very well. Even the people who say they want the war to end don't want to cut off funds for the troops.
The vote was 56-34 this time, with seven Republicans defecting. Those people who need to be replaced with real Republicans are: Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, John Warner of Virginia, Olympia Snowe of Maine, Gordon Smith of Oregon and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, Norm Coleman of Minnesota, and Susan Collins of Maine.
And Joe Lieberman proved once again why he's more Republican than Arlen Specter. He voted with the Republicans.
I hope Democrats do keep up this drumbeat, particularly if the reinforcements in Iraq make a big difference (and all indications so far is that they have). It will be great information for the '08 election cycle. I wonder how Hillary Clinton will parse her votes now?
UPDATE: And speaking of Senator Hillary, she wants President Bush to start pulling out troops in 90 days.
U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, the early front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, has called for a 90-day deadline to start pulling American troops from Iraq...
"Now it's time to say the redeployment should start in 90 days or the Congress will revoke authorization for this war," the New York senator said in a video on her campaign Web site, repeating a point included in a bill she introduced on Friday.
I'm sure Hillary wants all the troops out of Iraq before she has to deal with the war as president in January 2009. That would be real convenient for her.
UPDATE x2: Captain Ed points out that it is questionable whether Congress could even revoke war authorization.
It's not even clear that such a demand would be Constitutional. Congress can suspend the funding for the troops, but Congress has never actually revoked an AUMF before while hostilities continued. An attempt to do so would probably meet a Presidential veto, which Congress would be unable to override. Even if it did, the White House would sue the Congress and demand a Supreme Court decision on the legality of such a move -- which would take weeks, at the least, during which our troops would find themselves in limbo. At that time, our enemies would pounce, and create a huge political firestorm over whether we should retreat under fire.
And she wants to run to fill the role of Commander-in-Chief?
|