Posted by
on Saturday, February 17, 2007 7:02:51 PM
The kids are always reminding me of the ideological battle between right and left. But, as far as punditry goes, they are two of the most intellectually-honest people I know. They are always reminding me that when the other side does something right, it should be acknowledged. So, in honor of their unwritten rule, I give you the Washington Post today,/li> as they slap the snot out of John Murtha and his "Defeatocrat" ideas regarding the war. (Link care of Instapundit)
REP. JOHN MURTHA (D-Pa.) has a message for anyone who spent the week following the House of Representatives' marathon debate on Iraq: You've been distracted by a sideshow. "We have to be careful that people don't think this is the vote," the 74-year-old congressman said of the House's 246-182 decision in favor of a resolution disapproving of President Bush's troop surge. "The real vote will come on the legislation we're putting together." That would be Mr. Murtha's plan to "stop the surge" and "force a redeployment" of U.S. forces from Iraq while ducking the responsibility that should come with such a radical step.
We'll return to Mr. Murtha's plan, but first it's worth considering the five days of debate that he so breezily dismissed. It's true that nonbinding resolutions won't stop the troop surge, which is already underway. But after years of minimal debate and oversight of the war, the House Democratic leadership was right to allow scores of representatives to speak at some length on Iraq. Some of the speeches were little more than partisan rhetoric, but there were also intelligent and heartfelt interventions, especially from veterans of Iraq and Vietnam.
The House vote does matter: It ought to increase the pressure on Mr. Bush and the Iraqi government to follow through on their pledges to accompany the military campaign with tangible steps toward political accords and economic reconstruction. Senate leaders would be wise to reach an agreement today allowing a similar debate. And both chambers should aggressively conduct oversight hearings aimed at holding the administration to its promise to link continued U.S. troop deployments to Iraqi performance.
Mr. Murtha has a different idea. He would stop the surge by crudely hamstringing the ability of military commanders to deploy troops. In an interview carried Thursday by the Web site MoveCongress.org, Mr. Murtha said he would attach language to a war funding bill that would prohibit the redeployment of units that have been at home for less than a year, stop the extension of tours beyond 12 months, and prohibit units from shipping out if they do not train with all of their equipment. His aim, he made clear, is not to improve readiness but to "stop the surge." So why not straightforwardly strip the money out of the appropriations bill -- an action Congress is clearly empowered to take -- rather than try to micromanage the Army in a way that may be unconstitutional? Because, Mr. Murtha said, it will deflect accusations that he is trying to do what he is trying to do. "What we are saying will be very hard to find fault with," he said.
Mr. Murtha's cynicism is matched by an alarming ignorance about conditions in Iraq. He continues to insist that Iraq "would be more stable with us out of there," in spite of the consensus of U.S. intelligence agencies that early withdrawal would produce "massive civilian casualties." He says he wants to force the administration to "bulldoze" the Abu Ghraib prison, even though it was emptied of prisoners and turned over to the Iraqi government last year. He wants to "get our troops out of the Green Zone" because "they are living in Saddam Hussein's palace"; could he be unaware that the zone's primary occupants are the Iraqi government and the U.S. Embassy?
It would be nice to believe that Mr. Murtha does not represent the mainstream of the Democratic Party or the thinking of its leadership. Yet when asked about Mr. Murtha's remarks Thursday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) offered her support. Does Ms. Pelosi really believe that the debate she orchestrated this week was not "the real vote"? If the answer is yes, she is maneuvering her party in a way that can only do it harm.
The kids are right. From time to time even the most staunch liberal establishment is correct. The Washington Post proves that today for their readers, and they should be applauded. They should be encourgaed as much as Representatives Marshall and Taylor should be. As Kathryn Jean Lopez commented on NRO's The Corner, they are probably the last "Scoop Jackson Democrats" left in the House. And that, dear readers, is the most damnable thing about these foolish resolutions. And for the record, the Senates attempt at the resolution failed to reach cloture with seven Republicans defecting. Again, Ms. Lopez the inside scoop on who those seven are (and I sincerely doubt ANYONE will be surprised.) And she also points to Senator Mitch McConnell's floor speech. (I do hope the Democrats remember the following part of his speech):
The Majority Party in the House has a stronger hand in determining what comes up for a vote. And yesterday they forced a vote on the same stay-the-course resolution that Democrats are now trying to put before the Senate. Democrats have been clear about the strategy behind this resolution: they’ve described it as a “slow-bleed,” a way of tying the hands of the Commander in Chief. The House said yesterday that it supports the troops — yet its leadership is preparing to deny the reinforcements that those troops will need in the weeks and months ahead. The Senate was created to block that kind of dealing. And today, it stops at the doors of this chamber.
Even opponents of the war denounce the tactics of the Democratic leaders. In an editorial today, The “New York Times” called yesterday’s House vote a “clever maneuver to dress up a reduction in troop strength as a “support the troops measure,” adding, “It takes no courage or creativity for a politician to express continuing support for the troops and opposition to a vastly unpopular and unpromising military escalation.”
The “Washington Post” was rightly appalled in an editorial this morning by the slow-bleed strategy, calling it a “crude hamstringing” of the military commanders and their ability to deploy troops.” The “Post” exposed the details of Mr. Murtha’s plan to add language to a war funding bill that would strangle the President’s ability to get reinforcements to soldiers in the field, all under the guise of having them better prepared.
I'll say this for the Democrats. They have most certainly stirred up a hornet's nest. The question is, do they know how to quell it, or are they going to turn French when the real put-up-or-shut-up measure comes up? THAT will be the real test of their so-called courage. The Republicans who jumped ship yesterday--the ones Hugh Hewitt calls the "White Flag Republicans"--won't get a do-over. They threw their lot in with the Democrats, and already activists and grass-roots organizers are looking for primary challengers to those Republicans. In a time of war, this nation needs to be able to look at their elected leaders, and know they stand for victory; not retreat and defeat, and that is exactly what these people are preaching.
Sabrina McKinney