AP: Democrats In ‘Disarray’ On Iraq
What’s that noise all across Washington? Why, it’s the furious backpedaling of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, as they ‘cut and run’ from the political mess they’ve made:
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, 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 of Delaware and Carl Levin 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, 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, 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.
Indeed…life is, in fact, more complicated than the ‘progressive’ mantra (Bush bad, war bad, Republicans evil) would suggest. Who would have thunk it?…
If they were “Swept into power by voters clamoring for an end to the war” then why are they afraid to act? Is it simple fear that the voters are fickle and will punish them for ending the war? Do they fear the Republicans accusing them of giving up? Are they worried about reinforcing the opinion that they are soft on issues of national security?
Do they know something we don’t? Could it be they lack the courage of their convictions? Or maybe their only concerns are political? Or their leaders just aren’t? Perhaps the bipartisan opposition to the war has some practical limits?
Well, I must say, I question the notion that Iraq was the sole reason for the Dems’ big ’06 victory. A reason, yes, but there was also the whole corrupt/inept Republican thing, too…
Mark Foley wasn’t on voter’s minds though…notta one.
I don’t think he was, actually…very few people are foolish enough to take an isolated incident like the Foley thing and generalize it to an entire political party, despite the best attempts of the liberal blogosphere…
I think it was mostly that Republican voters had become disillusioned with their party. Fiscal conservatives weren’t happy about the excessive spending. Religious conservatives were angry that President Bush didn’t mention a Federal Marriage Amendment after the 2005 SOTU and that he appointed Harriet Myers to the Supreme Court. And the lack of instant success in Iraq dissillusioned a lot of neo-cons.
Also, President Bush’s primary goal in his 2nd term — SS reform — floundered, so the GOP was without an overall message other than, “If you’re not happy now, you’ll be less happy with them.”
It’s because they’re actually trying to get something that Republicans will vote for. They haven’t accepted that all of them are so morally bankrupt that they’ll stick by ol’ Prezzy Boy no matter what they say to the contrary before the vote. Because I guess when the rubber hits the road…..I don’t know. I don’t know why they’re sticking by him.
But Mark, your criticisms of the Democrats now, compared with your praise of the Republicans before, and vice versa, seems to betray a bit of a lack of any kind of central unifying principle in your opinions on Congress’s action (or inactions).
My unifying principle is that I am for giving the surge a chance to work, so my commentary on this issue is colored by that – anything that delays Congressional action to undercut our troops and commanders, I’m all in favor of…
[...] See: Democrats Split Over Iraq Plan Details QandO, Captain’s Quarters, Flopping Aces, Transterrestrial Musings, Decision ‘08 and Blue Crab Boulevard McQ / QandO: ON IRAQ, CARL LEVIN CAN’T WIN, NOR CAN THE DEMOCRATS (UPDATE) Ed Morrissey / Captain’s Quarters: Democrats Hit Reverse On Hitting Reverse Curt / Flopping Aces: The Democrats Soft Shoe On Iraq Rand Simberg / Transterrestrial Musings: CONVENTIONAL UNWISDOM Mark / Decision ‘08: AP: Democrats In ‘Disarray’ On Iraq Gaius / Blue Crab Boulevard: Overplayed — It appears that at least some sanity … [...]