Despite the fact that they’ve done nothing of consequence to change the U.S. war effort in Iraq, Democrats are still talking about doing that, somehow, some way:
Frustrated by the lack of political progress in Iraq, under pressure by antiwar groups and mindful of polls showing that most Americans want the war to end, the Democrats last week put forward a $50 billion war spending bill with strings attached knowing it would fail.
…
All signs indicate that Democrats will continue proposing such measures as long as Mr. Bush remains in office and troops remain in Iraq. “We are going to keep plugging away,” said Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, chairman of the Armed Services Committee.
It would have been refreshing if Levin had said that Democrats are going to keep trying to pacify the left wing of their party by talking tough about doing something and then, at the last minute, pretending to decide not to for the next 15 months. It’s part of party policy to take this tack, even though following through on their rhetoric would be the height of irresponsibility. Small wonder they’ve accomplished nothing.
Yet there are some who would actually abandon Iraq to the jackals, namely one Christopher Dodd:
“The perception is that we are not leading on this issue. I get it every single day, wherever I go.”
Mr. Dodd said lawmakers should just stop financing for the war. “Congress has one authority here, and that’s the funding,” he said. “The founders never intended for us as a body together to manage a conflict.”
Happily, Dodd has about as much chance of becoming president as I do.
Dodd is right about Congress not being able to micro-manage war efforts. Senator Mel Martinez of Florida hits this nail right on the head:
“The commander in chief is the guy in charge of running a war, and they can’t affect that,” said Senator Mel Martinez, Republican of Florida. “And they are not going to get the votes to do what they are trying to do, so I don’t see why they continue.”
“The Democrats have been pursuing a very political agenda, rather than a get-things-done kind of agenda.”
Exactly. As the Times says:
[Democrats’] explanation for their latest foiled effort seemed to boil down to a simple question: “What else are we supposed to do?”
How about putting petty partisanship aside and doing what’s right for the future of both America and Iraq?
h/t memeorandum