Happy Friday to all! It’s that time of the week again! Do you have an interesting post you want to share with everyone? The official Surrender Monkey of the Democratic Party says to do what the Lefties don’t, since they all have the same talking points: link it!
This time, Surrender Feingold tried, and burnout, baby!
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Senate on Wednesday voted overwhelmingly against withdrawing all combat troops from Iraq by March 31 as a majority of senators embraced an alternative plan tying U.S. reconstruction funds to Baghdad’s progress in stabilizing the country.
The Senate’s votes, while nonbinding, were orchestrated to ease passage on Thursday of a war-funding bill so that House of Representatives and Senate negotiators can get to work on a compromise that President George W. Bush could sign by the end of May.
By a vote of 67-29, the Senate rejected an amendment by Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin to cut off all funds for combat by March 31.
The Nutroots must be having hissy fits!
"It is time to end a war that is draining our resources, straining our military and undermining our national security," Feingold said before the amendment was defeated.
First, what point is a military if you do not use it? Second, the only people undermining our national security are Democrats. I’d love to see what their plans are for for deploying active duty federal troops within the USA. They can certainly be very useful after the terrorist attack, eh? I would think they would be best used in fighting the jihadis overseas as much as possible.
And, it only gets worse for the party of surrender
Wednesday’s vote to cut off funding by March 31, 2008, was voted down 67-29, with 19 Democrats joining every Republican in opposing the measure, which was submitted as an amendment to an unrelated bill. Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold, who put forth the measure with Majority Leader Harry Reid, noted optimistically that a majority of his caucus voted for the measure, which is one way of defining majority down.
There seemed to be some ambivalence, moreover, even among the 29 who supported the measure. Presidential hopefuls Hillary Clinton and Obama both voted for Mr. Feingold’s amendment, but they also indicated that it was more about sending a message than setting policy. We recall Bob Dole’s legendary advice to a freshman Republican that he couldn’t go wrong voting for a bill that failed. The two Democrats thus don’t give competitor John Edwards any running room on the antiwar left, but they also don’t have to take responsibility. Ah, war-time leadership.
The Democrats, in other words, remain trapped in the land of symbolism over the war. Taking up the responsibility that the "power of the purse" gives them does not seem to be on the agenda. They’d rather posture, appeasing their party’s left wing without taking ownership of war policy. This evasiveness won’t let them off the hook, however. The political consequences of defeat won’t only belong to President Bush. To the extent that Democrats are making the conduct of the war more difficult and less certain, they already bear responsibility for the war’s outcome whether they like it or not.
Democrats have nothing else. It is well over 5 years since 9/11, and they have no anti-terror plans, other then saying "bring the troops home." Four years in Iraq, and they still have no plan other then "bring the troops home." Maybe Osama was right.
Send a trackback to this post, but don’t forget to link it.