posted on February 27, 2007 10:55:51 AM new
Once again the demos let their alligator mouths overload their hummingbird azzs.
By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS, Associated Press Writer Mon Feb 26, 10:24 PM ET
WASHINGTON - Democratic leaders backed away from aggressive plans to limit
President Bush's war authority, the latest sign of divisions within their ranks over how to proceed.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (news, bio, voting record), D-Nev., said Monday he wanted to delay votes on a measure that would repeal the 2002 war authorization and narrow the mission in
Iraq.
Senior Democrats who drafted the proposal, including Sens. Joseph Biden (news, bio, voting record) of Delaware and Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record) of Michigan, had sought swift action on it as early as this week, when the Senate takes up a measure to enact the recommendations of the bipartisan Sept. 11 commission.
Reid, who will huddle with Democrats Tuesday to discuss whether to postpone the Iraq debate, cited pressure from victims' families for quick action on the Sept. 11 bill as the reason for doing so.
"Iraq is going to be there — it's just a question of when we get back to it," Reid said, predicting it would be "days, not weeks" before the Senate returned to the issue. The war reauthorization legislation also appears to lack the 60 votes it would need to pass the Senate.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., meanwhile, said she doesn't support tying war funding to strict training and readiness targets for U.S. troops.
The comments distanced her from Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting record), D-Pa., who has said he wants to use Congress' spending power to force a change in policy in Iraq, by setting strict conditions on war funding.
Pelosi said she supports holding the administration to training and readiness targets, but added: "I don't see them as conditions to our funding. Let me be very clear: Congress will fund our troops."
Asked whether the standards should be tied to a $100 billion supplemental war spending measure — as Murtha has proposed — Pelosi demurred, saying it was up to the panel that drafts funding bills.
The developments on both sides of the Capitol reflected a new level of disarray in Democratic ranks on Iraq. Swept into power by voters clamoring for an end to the war, Democrats have seen their efforts falter under a reality more complicated than they found on the campaign trail.
While the public is fed up with Iraq, there is little consensus over what to do.
Internal divisions, Republican opposition and a president who — while weakened — still appears to have the dominant voice on the war have all left Democrats flailing for a way to change the war's course.
The Democrats' symbolic measure disapproving of Bush's troop buildup passed the House only to stall in the Senate. The House plan to place strict restrictions on war funding appears to lack enough support within Democratic ranks to succeed, and looks likely to be scaled back, considering Pelosi's latest comments. The Senate bid to narrow the 2002 resolution authorizing the war appears to lack enough votes to be approved, and action on it now is likely to be put off — at least for the week.
The first signs of impatience among Democrats' allies are sprouting.
"The public is saying, 'We hired you to get out of Iraq — now figure it out,'" said Tom Matzzie, Washington director of the anti-war group MoveOn.org. "There is a risk that without action, frustration boils over into anger."
Democrats argue that their failed efforts to thwart Bush's war plans will ultimately pay off by ratcheting up pressure for a change.
"The administration is increasingly isolated and they are increasingly at odds with where the American people are," said Jim Manley, a Reid spokesman. "We're going to keep on going at it until the administration changes course."
But Democrats also are worried about being at odds with public opinion as House and Senate leaders push divergent measures.
House Democrats, who enjoy a 32-seat majority, will try this week to determine if there is enough support among themselves to pass the Murtha plan. Senate Democrats will discuss whether to postpone action on the war reauthorization, as Reid suggested.
Bush told governors Monday that he looked forward to a "healthy debate" on Iraq, but warned Congress against limiting funding for the war or commanders' flexibility in waging it.
"I do not believe that someone is unpatriotic if they don't agree with my point of view. On the other hand, I think it's important for people to understand the consequences of not giving our troops the resources necessary to do the job," Bush said.
Democrats' troubles finding a strategy on the war reflect a wider lack of consensus among the public about what course to take in Iraq. AP-Ipsos polls show that while a clear majority are pessimistic about the war and oppose a buildup, most people do not support cutting funding for the troops.
Zbigniew Brzesinski, Jimmy Carter's former national security adviser, said Democrats "run the risk of losing momentum."
They would be better off pushing some simple policy statements that could garner Republican support — such as opposition to establishing permanent bases in Iraq or to further expansion of the war — than trying to find a way to tie Bush's hands, he said.
"One has to be very careful not to get involved in micromanaging a military engagement," Brzesinski added.
Bush still enjoys substantial advantage when it comes to trumpeting his message on the war, even though his image and clout suffered major blows in last fall's elections.
Democrats, by contrast, have a cacophony of voices — including several presidential candidates — weighing in on what to do next in Iraq.
"The party's not unified. Until you control the executive branch, you really don't have a party — you have all these independent actors," Lawrence Korb, a Reagan administration Defense Department official, said of the Democrats' plight.
It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived.George S. Patton
posted on February 27, 2007 12:54:23 PM new
The dems have SEVERAL different proposals they're discussing.
No surprise they can't come to any consensus. After all they never had a PLAN....and they STILL don't.
Yep, the moveon radicals are getting REAL impatient. lol
And they're NOT going to calm down anytime soon. They EXPECT the dems to do what they SAID they'd do....and they aren't living up to that. tsk tsk tsk
Meanwhile the true LEADER goes about business....doing his best to give our troops what they need to help complete their mission.
That's what TRUE leaders do. They set forth a plan and proceed to carry it out.
They don't sit around arguing for weeks, months on end about what to do.
And I believe the reason they're putting this on the BACK BURNER, so to speak, is because they don't want a legal battle/confrontation over the constitutionality of congress stepping over their LEGAL boundaries into what is constitutionally the CIC's job....NOT THEIR'S.
And I have no doubt that if and when they 'bring this up again' lol lol that's EXACTLY what they're going to face. A constitutional BATTLE between the executive branch and congress. Because this administration is NOT going to allow congress to over step their responsibilities. LOL LOL
Heck....they can't even do what the constitution ALLOWS them to do.....stop funding the war. They're GUTLESS.
It has been extremely funny though to watch them trying to rescind part of the war powers THEY voted to give this President. See...they don't even have the courage of their convictions either.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
