Democratic Presidential Candidates Change Their Tune on Iraq

Did anyone else catch the Democratic hopefuls' mass change of tune on Iraq at their last Bush-bash...er.....debate?

I saw some clips of their responses on O'Reilly last week, and my jaw almost dropped.

All three Oval Office wannabes- Hillary, Obama and Edwards, when pressed, declined to promise that troops would be out of Iraq by the end of 2009.

Funny, that. Haven't they all assailed Bush constantly for keeping troops there?

Yes, when given the clear, explicit opportunity to put their money and promises where their mouths are, each one, individually, cited unforeseen circumstances and developments which might hinder their ability to implement the total withdrawal they've been pressing our sitting President to conduct.

Cynical, or just newly-cautious? I'd guess some of both, really.

All three Dems are becoming wary of the sound bite that will, well, bite her/him in the ass, come the general election campaign. None of them want to promise total withdrawal, only to have conditions change in mid-campaign, or seem too soft on terrorism.

If they are caving on such a knife's edge issue this early, what else will they waffle on in the coming months?

And what punishment will moveon.org extract from them for their transgressions?

Frisco Nan's Fiscal Promise-Breaking

Last week's tussle over pork being stuffed into the Iraq funding bill provided voters with a clear view of how Frisco Nan (Pelosi), the House Speaker, has already broken her promises for better fiscal management of the budget.

Her main man, Pennsylvania Rep John Murtha, was caught threatening Mike Rogers, a Republican, with a total elimination of any funding requests for his district, because Rogers challenged a specious earmark project in Murtha's district.

According to the House's own rules, this type of intimidation and coercion is supposed to be illegal. So much for the Democrats new broom sweeping clean.

In fact, they had to lard the Iraq funding bill with quite a bit of pork, in order to tempt some of their own party to vote for it, despite it being vetoed the first time around.

As I wrote in my prior post, here, the Congressional Democrats are on record now breaking promises, left and right. Mostly left, of course.

Seriously, they've tried to unplug the funding for the war in Iraq, but without actually taking responsibility. They've now returned to earmarking, and even last minute insertions of them, a la Tom Delay- something they vowed to 'clean up' if they won control of the Lower Chamber.

Honestly, you can't make stuff up that's as good fodder for election campaigns as these actions by the liberal House Democrats.

Another reason to have bright hopes for a return to Republican control of at least one House next election, if not both, even by slim margins.

Congressional Democrats Run to the Left on Iraq

This past week's Congressional buckling under to President Bush's refusal to sign an Iraq funding bill with a withdrawal timetable has accomplished what conservatives (like me) expected all along.

Frisco Nan, Reid, and their cohorts showed their true colors, trying to force a withdrawal from Iraq, without actually taking responsibility for it. It backfired, they couldn't override the veto, and had to back down.

But they are on record as having now voted, clearly and decisively, to cut and run in the face of global terrorism.

Additionally, it forced Hillary to run left, in order not to be outflanked by Obama Bim Baden and Chris Dodd. All three are on record now as having voted to gut support for our armed forces, and try to pretend we are a continental island in a troubled world.

Was 9/11 that long ago, that these Democrats think American voters won't recall that this type of thinking didn't work before? I continue to believe that they have badly misunderstood American voter sentiments, i.e., whether or not we should be in Iraq, we are, so let's win this time. Unlike the liberal Democrats' sabotage of our Vietnam policy during the Nixon administration.

Thanks to President Bush's fortitude, the Republicans now have the gift of a big, fat target at which to aim in the 2008 elections. The liberal Democrats are now "out" as soft and spineless on Iraq and the war on terror. This should result in GOP seat gains, and maybe a return to majority, in both Houses during the next election.

Frisco Nan's Latest Blunder: Iraqi Withdrawal Timetable Legislation

House Speaker Frisco Nan is about to step up to the legislative plate for strikeout number three- backing a bill to set a timetable for US forces to withdraw from Iraq.

The gist of the current situation is that Pelosi's own erstwhile candidate for House Majority Leader, John Murtha of Pennsylvania, is leading his ultra-liberal, anti-war contingent to demand that any resolution the House now passes on Iraq be binding and cut off funding for the war, mandating withdrawal.

Whereas some cowardly Republicans would have run for cover in 2008 by voting for the original Pelosi non-binding resolution, they can safely retreat from Pelosi's new, Murtha-mandated version.

According to Kim Strassel of the Wall Street Journal, in her excellent Friday column on this matter, Nan was unable to muster the House's radical left caucus of 70 Representatives, leaving her the unpalatable option of treating with the Minority's John Boehner to pass any Iraq war resolution.

Instead, she is moving left (yet again, as with the minimum wage fiasco, and the recent card check embarrassment), and planning to attach various pork items (funny, didn't Nan tell us that era was dead? oh, well.....) to lure the centrist, newly-elected Blue Dog House Democrats to vote for Iraq withdrawal and a funding cutoff.

As Ms. Strassel wrote in her column,

"The joke is that even if Ms. Pelosi can buy the moderate wing to her side, her proposal still might go...poof. And why? Her liberal wing, of course. After all the speaker's concessions, anti-war critics were still griping yesterday that the withdrawal proposal left Mr. Bush too much flexibility over the timing. Reps. Lynn Woolsey and Ms. Lee introduced their own amendment to the legislation that would demand a complete withdrawal by year-end."

At this point, I have to ask- don't any of these people recall what happened in Vietnam, when the Democratic Congress sank the prospects for salvaging any time of safety for Vietnam by publicly mandating a pullout by a known date? The North simply outwaited the withdrawal, attacked, and brutally conquered the South. Won't Murtha, Lee and Woolsey be proud when that happens to Iraq?

But, back to Frisco Nan's dilemma. Once again, she's caught between the wings of her party's House delegation. The new, majority-providing centrists Democratic Blue Dogs cannot risk, nor do they even philosophically support, Iraqi withdrawal. Meanwhile, Nan's own ideological kindred group, the ultra-left liberals in the House, won't support any moderation, now that they have finally retaken power after a decade in the wilderness.

Welcome to the big leagues, Nan. Maybe if you focused on the national interest, instead of purely partisan, fringe-group politics, you'd have better results. But, then, that would mean you'd be an above-average Speaker. And that's likely not in the cards for this hack in a skirt.

The US House of Representatives' Non-Binding Surrender...er...Resolution

Well, 'Frisco Nan has done it again. Conservatives could never convince voters that the Democrats, in the majority, could behave as unpatriotically and spinelessly as Nan has demonstrated that they can.

With this week's 'non-binding resolution,' or, shall we say, surrender, on Iraq, the House Democrats (and a few fellow gutless Republicans who should be turned out in 2008), have shown themselves to be totally lacking in the courage of their convictions.

By the way, I caught a few minutes of some discussion of this on one cable program- either Kudlow, O'Reilly, or Hannity & Colmes- and as a conservative guest kept calling it "surrender," a Democratic strategist guest furiously screamed that it was no such thing. Guess you know when you've hit home, eh?

By making the resolution non-binding, they hope, of course, to have it both ways. Vote down further activities in Iraq calculated to win, but not actually force the issue and take responsibility.

The Senate version of this resolution failed on Friday.

Personally, I think this is an ideal counterpoint for conservatives who appreciate Bush's steadfast leadership on the issue.

For instance, when the Democrats complained that the war wasn't going well, Bush switched tactics and leadership. Now that Casey, whose strategy they say failed, is out, the Democrats are quoting him left, right and center to allege that Bush is wrong for now fixing what was wrong before. Petraeus is seen as catering to Bush's whims, while Casey is now lionized by the Democrats as a sort of victim of Bush's tyrannical personality.

Really, you can't win either way with the obstructionist Democratic Congress. Don't listen to them, and you are inflexible. Respond to them, and those who delivered failure are suddenly dethroned heroes and experts, while the newly-appointed commanders must be political patsies.

This is going to seriously hurt all the Democrats come November, 2008. The House will probably lose a lot of seats over this- more than enough to offset the ouster of the Republican turncoats. The Senate, from which most of the Democratic Presidential contenders hail, will have this stuck in their throats, no matter what the outcome in Iraq. If they move to hamper funding, it will be doubly bad for them. A victory, or improving situation, will show them to be cowards. A worsening situation will make them liable for the defeat. Just like ....ah.....yes, Vietnam!

There's that old aphorism again, that from which you do not learn, you are destined to repeat. And the Democratic liberals are about to repeat their failure in Vietnam, only in Iraq this time.

"Reckless Caution"

The following is an editorial, copied in its entirety, from the Wall Street Journal late this past week. It's a very succinct, clear and thought-provoking piece.

By JAMES TARANTO
February 8, 2007; Page A15

When NBC's Tim Russert asked John Edwards on Sunday if he, as president, would accept a nuclear-armed Iran, the silver-tongued lawyer got tongue-tied: "I -- there's no answer to that question at this moment. I think that it's a -- it's a -- it's a very bad thing for Iran to get a nuclear weapon. I think we have -- we have many steps in front of us that have not been used. We ought to negotiate directly with the Iranians, which has not, not been done. The things that I just talked about, I think, are the right approach in dealing with Iran. And then we'll, we'll see what the result is. . . . I think -- I think the -- we don't know, and you have to make a judgment as you go along, and that's what I would do as president."

Less than two weeks earlier, Mr. Edwards had spoken by satellite to Israel's annual Herzliya Conference. "Let me be clear: Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons. . . . To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep all options on the table. Let me reiterate -- all options must remain on the table."

Why did Mr. Edwards's views morph so quickly from hawkish to weaselly? Probably because confrontation with Iran is very unpopular among the Democratic antiwar base. Last week Ezra Klein of The American Prospect, a left-liberal magazine, confronted Mr. Edwards about the Herzliya speech, and the candidate waffled. Although allowing that "it would be foolish for any American president to ever take any option off the table," he offered this criticism of President Bush: "When he uses this kind of language 'options are on the table,' he does it in a very threatening kind of way." Does Mr. Edwards mean to be docile?

Mr. Klein asked if America can live with a nuclear Iran. "I'm not ready to cross that bridge yet," Mr. Edwards answered. There's a world of difference between the unequivocal "under no circumstances" and the coy "I'm not ready." And that "yet" suggests it is only a matter of time before he does cross the bridge.

Mr. Edwards is not the only Democratic presidential candidate without a comprehensible position on Iran. Last week Hillary Clinton spoke to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, and Heather Robinson of PoliticalMavens.com reported that Mrs. Clinton said: "There are many, including our president, who reject any engagement with Iran and Syria. I believe that is a good-faith position to take, but I'm not sure it's the smart strategy that'll take us to the goal we share. What do I mean by engagement or some kind of process? I'm not sure anything positive would come out of it . . . but there are a number of factors that argue for doing what I'm suggesting." Whatever that may be.

Mr. Edwards and Mrs. Clinton have something else in common: Both voted for the Iraq war in 2002, and both turned against it only after it become unpopular. On Iraq, they followed public opinion; on Iran, they are waiting to be led.

Pandering to public sentiment may be fine for a senator, but the president needs to be able to make decisions in the national interest -- which sometimes means shaping public opinion, sometimes defying it. Mr. Bush has done both, whether or not his decisions were wise ones.
Perhaps voters next year, chastened by Mr. Bush's dangerous boldness, will opt for someone more risk-averse. But if a crisis arises and the president proves unable to lead, they may find themselves longing for Mr. Bush's steadfastness. An excess of caution is itself a form of recklessness.

I found this editorial to be a truly brilliant expose of the lack of leadership and conviction by any of these Democratic Presidential hopefuls. Ironically, perhaps the Iran question, by virtue of its hypothetical nature, is the better litmus test of Presidential leadership ability for 2008, rather than the reality of Iraq, on which so much second-guessing and foot-shufflings is now occurring.

On the latter topic, the Journal featured another editorial, on Thursday, chronicling Hillary Clinton's predictable attempts to distance herself from her earlier pro-war stance on Iraq. The article points out that, whereas, initially, she was bound to support her husband's pro-interventionist statements, stance and actions regarding Iraq, the realities of being flanked on the left by other Democratic Presidential candidates has sent her running headlong from her earlier, solid pro-Iraq-war votes, statements and positions.

Essentially, we have two Democrats, one a former Senator, one still sitting, who voted for the Iraq war, now showing their inability to lead, persevere in their convictions, or do other than pander to what they perceive as popular opinions. In that manner, both Edwards and Hillary seem to be chips off the triangulating Clinton block.