War debate

At the top of the news this morning are the House and Senate debates on the war in Iraq.  Word that Abu Musab al Zarqawi has been eliminated, the Iraqi cabinet has been filled, and a security crackdown has begun in Baghdad, has prompted Democrats to renew calls for troop withdrawals.  Inexplicable as that may sound, they have little choice.  Having followed a strategy for so long of condemning whatever the Administration sets out to do as either dishonest or incompetent, to change their course on the war on terror is at this point utterly impossible.  From the Washington Times:

Democrats said President Bush misled the country and lashed the administration for gaffes such as the torture of detainees in the Abu Ghraib prison. Several called for the firing of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.

"Our postwar mission as presently defined cannot succeed," said Rep. Jane Harman of California, the ranking Democrat on the House intelligence panel, who called for a "dramatic change of course."

Mr. Murtha rattled off some grisly statistics, including the increase in the number of attacks in Iraq daily, the rise in the number of insurgents and the conflict's $8 billion per month price tag.

Rep. George Miller, California Democrat, called the war "a blunder of historic proportions by this president."

House Republicans responded by noting the progress, a dose of reality, and the stakes.

But Rep. Henry J. Hyde, chairman of the House International Relations Committee and the resolution's sponsor, said lawmakers owe Mr. Bush "thanks, not condemnation."

"To insist that decisions must await perfect intelligence ... is to guarantee our defeat," the Illinois Republican said, adding, "Defeat in this new and more dangerous world means annihilation."

Meanwhile in the Senate debate went forward on resolution to withdraw troops by year end.  Washington Post reporting described the debate as a Republican attempt to portray Democrats as soft on defense that was "largely thwarted".

In the Senate, Republicans were also spoiling for a chance to depict Democrats as soft on the war, but Democrats largely thwarted the effort. GOP senators wanted a vote on language recently drafted by Kerry calling for nearly all U.S. troops to be withdrawn from Iraq by the year's end. But Kerry, his party's 2004 presidential nominee, surprised the Republicans by declining to offer the language as an amendment to a defense authorization bill, after colleagues had urged him to consider possible revisions.

To force a debate and a vote, McConnell, the GOP whip, introduced Kerry's language as his own, knowing that all Senate Republicans and most Democrats would vote against it. Democrats objected when Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) called the measure "Kerry's amendment." Kerry said the maneuver led to "a fibbing, fictitious vote."

But rejection of the amendment by a vote 93 to 6 not only fails to dispel Democratic reputation for softness on the war and on defense, but also shows most of them as not even willing to go on record in support of their own position.

The six Democrats who voted against killing it were Kerry, Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Robert C. Byrd (W.Va.), Russell Feingold (Wis.), Tom Harkin (Iowa) and Edward M. Kennedy (Mass.).

The House debated for over eleven hours yesterday and is expected to vote today on a resolution to complete the mission in Iraq.  From the New York Times:

The resolution under debate in the House declares that the United States and its allies are "engaged in a global war on terror, a long and demanding struggle against an adversary that is driven by hatred of American values and that is committed to imposing, by the use of terror, its repressive ideology throughout the world." It also declares that "the terrorists have declared Iraq to be the central front in their war against all who oppose their ideology."

Republicans were armed with a 74-page document drafted by the White House and distributed by the Pentagon which, as one might expect, supported the Administration's position.  The document containing timelines, quotes, and talking points was not reported in the Washington Times, but garnered brief mentioned in the Post.

Their position was bolstered by a 74-page document drafted by the White House and distributed by the Pentagon, replete with talking points, quotations and timelines to back administration policy. Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) called the document "an affront to the American people."

Meanwhile the New York Times called it unusual, failing to note that it was authored at the White House.

In a highly unusual attempt to influence the debate, the Pentagon sent a 74-page "prep book" to several members of Congress, outlining what it called "rapid response" talking points to rebut criticism of Mr. Bush's handling of the war and prewar intelligence. The Pentagon sent the book to Democratic leaders on Wednesday night, apparently in error, then sent an e-mail message two hours later asking to recall it.

I'm guessing the "e-mail message two hours later asking to recall it" was an attempt recall a previously sent email message rather than a written message requesting the document be returned. 

In any case, a news story appearing at the top of the front page of the Washington Times website bolsters the Republican position.  The Times provided details on the documents retrieved from the rubble of Zarqawi's "safe house".

"We believe al Qaeda in Iraq was taken by surprise," said Mowaffak Rubaie, Iraq's national security adviser. "They did not anticipate how powerful the Iraqi security forces are and how the government is on the attack now." He referred to the intelligence take as a "huge treasure."

[...]

The seized al Qaeda in Iraq document released yesterday reflects discouragement by the terror group's leadership.

"Time is now beginning to be of service to the American forces and harmful to the resistance," the documents state. It lists a number of allied successes against the terrorist "resistance":

• "Undertaking massive arrest operations, invading regions that have an impact on the resistance, and hence causing the resistance to lose many of its elements."
• "Undertaking a media campaign against the resistance resulting in weakening its influence inside the country and presenting its work as harmful to the population rather than being beneficial to the population."
• "By tightening the resistance's financial outlets, restricting its moral options and by confiscating its ammunition and weapons."
• "By taking advantage of the resistance's mistakes and magnifying them in order to misinform."

But invariably the Democrats greet each indication of success with renewed calls for a pull out.  Grim news from Iraq has them arguing the war can't be won.  When there are visible signs of success they argue troops are no longer needed there.  Whatever the circumstance, retreat is the Democratic answer.  At this point in midterm election campaign we can expect the Democrats to appeal to their hard left pacifist fund raising base by stepping up their demands that we stop fighting the war on terror.  Again, I can't imagine how this is going to be a good year for Democrats.

Comments

[S. Schunk]

If you haven't read Henry Hyde's full speech, you should. It's for the ages. I've posted it in full here.

[Tom Bowler]

I agree, it's a great speech. Thanks for putting in the link.

[HD Bender]

Being an x lifelong Republican I'm amazed at how easily the public is mislead. America is being lied to to enrich the few. The same folks that get rich on the war also get rich by keeping us in fear always creating a new bogeyman. I'm so frustrated by the lies being told as truth by all main stream media as they are owned by the same manipulators. We must not reelect a single incumbent because a common idiot could not do worse then these guys. Actually they are doing quite well for themselves fooling us into bad decisions by any and all deceptions being fully supported by the lying left/right media. Always follow the money and never listen to the BS. Help save America from corporate greed and fascism.

[Tom Bowler]

Ex lifelong Republican? Really? What country? Sorry. That was a cheap shot. Joking aside, I find I'm less frustrated at the direction of our country than at any time I can remember. Media lies are not the problem they once were, now that everybody knows they're lying. And they don't often come right out and lie. They're just quite selective about the truths that get reported and in what proportions.

And I do follow the money, but it's not legitimate corporate profits that shows up on a tax return that you have to worry about. It's the stuff that goes where you can't see it -- like into somebody's freezer.

[ny patriot]

Or Haliburton stock options.

You get your yuks over a backwater congressman hiding $90Gs in the fridge while every government contract in Iraq goes to the Republican lobbyists. What a joke Tom. I'm not downplaying the criminality of Jefferson or Cunningham for that matter, but screwing the public in the behind either legally or illegally causes the same amount of pain.

Less frutrated? You stand tall in the minority my friend. Opinion polls in this country show such a great disconnect, such a great deal of "frustration" that I'm afraid you are losing complete touch as you continuously drink the kool-aid. How sad.

[Tom Bowler]

Oh, please. Halliburton? You think the magic incantation "Halliburton" is going to work over here? Last I heard they were losing their shirts in Iraq. Can you tell me something Halliburton has done that was illegal?

[michael i]

 
Whatever the circumstance, retreat is the Democratic answer.

Ahh, Tom Bowler, that was a bell-ringer line! Like true-believer claims for paranormal powers or UFOs from distant planets, such claims of the Democratics are not falsifiable and therefore are far, far from being "reality-based".

Similarly, the Raise Taxes and Increase Spending no matter what fiscal bromides of the mainstream Democratics also lack falsifiability-in-principle. Untestable beliefs pervade Democratic Party policy bromides and the in-the-dustbin-of-history programme of so-called Scientific Socialism.