Dems Retreat – Also, The Sun Rises In The East
What is it with the Democrats and their constantly shifting positions on foreign affairs?
Top House Democrats retreated Monday from an attempt to limit President Bush’s authority for taking military action against Iran as the leadership concentrated on a looming confrontation with the White House over the Iraq war.
Officials said Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other members of the leadership had decided to strip from a major military spending bill a requirement for Bush to gain approval from Congress before moving against Iran.
Conservative Democrats as well as lawmakers concerned about the possible impact on Israel had argued for the change in strategy.
The developments occurred as Democrats pointed toward an initial test vote in the House Appropriations Committee on Thursday on the overall bill, which would require the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq by Sept. 1, 2008, if not earlier. The measure provides nearly $100 billion to pay for fighting in two wars, and includes more money than the president requested for operations in Afghanistan and what Democrats called training and equipment shortages.
The White House has issued a veto threat against the bill, and Vice President Dick Cheney attacked its supporters in a speech, declaring they “are telling the enemy simply to watch the clock and wait us out.”
House GOP Leader John Boehner of Ohio issued a statement that said Democrats shouldn’t count on any help passing their legislation. “Republicans will continue to stand united in this debate, and will oppose efforts by Democrats to undermine the ability of General Petraeus and our troops to achieve victory in the Global War on Terror,” he said.
It doesn’t exactly fill one with confidence when every working day brings a new strategy. If they didn’t overreach (or – imagine this – governed from principle) they might not have to beat so many retreats.
I’m reminded of the immortal words of Mayor Quimby of the Simpsons: “”Very well, if that’s the way the winds are blowing, let nobody say that I don’t also blow”…
It’s unreasonable to expect a single, unified position from Congressional Democrats. The Bush administration has gotten us into quite a mess with Iran and Iraq, and there aren’t any no-brainer solutions in sight. One would expect there to be a range of opinions from over two hundred people who range the spectrum from Barney Frank to Heath Schuler.
Moreover, I think it is a misread of this event to call it a change in strategy. The object is to get bills passed. Apparently enough Congressmen objected to the bit about Iran that a compromise was made to make Iraq the focus of the spending bill. Legislation changes all the time as it is brought to the floor — nothing unusual or unseemly about that.
[...] Original post by Mark [...]
With all due respect, peter, you can’t be serious. Are you trying to say that it’s the Bush Administration’s fault that Democrats keep coming up with extreme policy positions from which they retreat in response to public opinion. “The object is to get bills passed.” Yeah, you keep telling yourself that. The object is to inflict political damage and to gain political advantage. Whatever damage this maneuvering causes to our troops, our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the safety of our citizens is secondary to the primary political goals. I think it’s irresponsible and unfortunate, but that is par for the course with today’s Democratic leadership(and I use leadership in its broadest sense).
I find it a little sad that while most on the left are willing to concede that those on the right don’t want to hurt the country, and just strenuously disagree with the methods and strategy of the administration, people like DBrooks insist on accusing those on the left of actively trying to harm the country.
It’s hard for me to be more eloquent than Fargus, but I will try. Suggesting that those you disagree with are motivated by nothing more than a desire “to inflict political damage and to gain political advantage” is an easy way to dodge confronting the issue. The Wall Street Journal does it routinely. However, in addition to being unsupported by evidence — we’re supposed to assume that opposition to the war in Iraq is prima facie evidence that opponents are out to hurt Bush and help the enemy — it is also irrelevant. Even if the motivation were entirely political — which it is not — the issue is which is the best way to end the mess in Iraq. Impugning motives has nothing to do with the best way out.
“Extreme position?” It’s not extreme — it’s mainstream:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/03/13/iraq.poll/
If you really believe that the attitude of assuming the worst of your political opponents is largely a facet of behavior on the right, while it’s just confined to a fringe on the left, I suggest you get out more. Or at least point you Web browser to a few lefty sites. You’ll quickly be disabused of the notion of liberal purity.
But as to the subject at hand, it seems a bit ridiculous to crow about how popular opinion is on the Democrats’ side, and claim they were elected to end the war, and then excuse them when they can’t begin to figure out what exactly their position is. At some point, it’s going to start to hurt them, and merely being anti-Bush isn’t a governing philosophy.
“Assuming the worst” is a lot different than an accusation of collusion with the aims of terrorists, wouldn’t you say? Gross incompetence does not equal treason, last I checked.
1) In my view, the difference between right and left regarding ad hominem attacks is that those on the left who engage in name-calling are mostly bloggers and fringe players, while those on the right have positions of authority. A handy example is Boehner’s quote above which claims that Democrats are striving “to undermine the ability of General Petraeus and our troops to achieve victory in the Global War on Terror” (ignoring the dubious assumption that there is any connection between our invasion of Iraq and the “global” war on terror.) Or Karl Rove claiming that Democrats greet terrorists with “tea and sympathy” while Republicans fight back with manly assertiveness. I challenge you to find anyone of similar rank among the Democrats who has made similar pronouncements about the Bush administration.
2) It’s a lot easier to end a war than to begin one. There is broad consensus on what the position is (the war is a disaster and we should get out). Determining the best means to that end is something else entirely.
So, when the Democratic leadership accuses President Bush of undermining the War on Terror in a “misadventure” in Iraq, how is that any different. The Democrats always accuse the president of taking actions that are ideologically driven and are detrimental to US interests.
And I don’t believe that the Democrats are seeking to intentionally undermine US efforts in the War on Terror. I believe that they are ariming to destroy the president. Unfortunately, the country is caught in the crossfire. I wouldn’t even go as far as to say that the Democrats don’t care if they hurt America.
This is largely due to their historical view of the Cold War. They refuse to acknowledge the influence of President Reagan and the United States on the fall of the Soviet Union and insist that the fall was due exclusively to internal factors within the Soviet Union, and so they assume that the War on Terror will be won the same way — that is when the moderate forces in Islam overcome the more radical ones. Thus, in their view losing in Iraq won’t even be a setback.
Right, I forgot that Reagan stormed the Kremlin by himself and then tore down the Berlin Wall with his bare hands. How dare I.
Fargus, surely you haven’t missed the routine choruses of “No blood for oil,” “Halliburton” and the like. And that doesn’t even get into scary antisemitic comments like Wesley Clark claiming the war was supported by the “New York money people.” There are no lack of accusations of criminal greed on the part of the left.
Peter, Boehner’s statement is strong stuff, but it’s not the same as saying Democrats want terrorists to win. Things like that or Cheney’s recent statements get a lot of complaints from the left, just as Obama’s and McCain’s comments about lives being “wasted” get complaints from the right. I’ve got no problem with either statement. War supporters do think Democrats are unwittingly playing into the hands of our enemies, just as war opponents do think Republicans are doing the same and that any life lost in the fighting in Iraq it is a life wasted.
But there’s a big step between thinking your opponent is doing something that’s foolishly dangerous, or so blinded by domestic politics that he or she is heedless of the consequences of his or her actions (which is exactly what Democracts have said the multiple times they’ve accused the administration of using the war as a vote-getter), and thinking your opponent is motivated by true treason, either because of ideology or greed. I don’t see as much of the latter as many people do, but what I’ve seen has mostly come from the fringe, and it’s been very evenly distributed.
As for the Democrats’ multiple positions on edning the war, (I’m assuming you meant it’s a lot easier to begin a war than end one), that truism doesn’t change the fact that if you get claim you were elected on an antiwar platform, and then show you have no idea how to enact such a platform, that’s a pretty clear failure of vision and leadership, not just something you can brush off as natural. The Democrats have power now. They can’t just sit back and blow raspberries.
Fargus, would you explain how vitriolic sarcasm — or in other words, the only language you know how to speak — does anything other than discourage the intelligent debate which you claim to enjoy despite never engaging in it?
Stupid double post!
Aaron:
1) Truth is an absolute defense against libel: if you can show that a statement is true, you cannot be convicted of libel. The war in Iraq is, in fact, a misadventure, it is ideologically driven, and plenty of evidence exists to show it has been detrimental to American interests. Moreover, that is not an ad hominem attack: there is a wide gulf between criticizing a policy action, no matter how severely, and calling your opponent a traitor.
2) This administration did a pretty good job of self-destructing – they don’t need much help from the Democrats.
3) Your claim that the Democrats “don’t care if they hurt America” is unsupported by any evidence, as is your claim about Democrats and Reagan.
4) If the war on terror is to be won, it will be when moderate forces overcome radical forces. How else can it be won?
Fargus, your sarcastic comment about President Reagan actually goes a fair way toward proving Aaron’s point. Much of the left spent the 1980s deriding Reagan as a trigger-happy cowboy who was too ignorant to recognize that nuclear war was bad. And so when the Berlin Wall got torn down, the left had to figure out if Reagan was just a lucky bystander or a mover of history.
I think Reagan-worship is over the top by many on the right, but refusing to acknowledge the role his administration played – one that viewed victory in the Cold War as plausible at a time when the conventional wisdom assumed the Soviets would be around forever – is a good example of letting partisan anger blind you.
There are strong parallels in the war on terror. Republicans now, as in the 1980s, favor a stronger, more belligerent approach toward the enemy. Democrats believe softer, more self-reflective approaches will win hearts and minds. Republicans in the 1980s were vindicated by the victory over the Soviets, although that victory doesn’t mean their every tactic against the Soviets was correct, nor does it mean that similar tactics will work against a more diffuse threat of Islamic terrorism. But there are definite historical reasons undergirding both Republican and Democratic approaches to the war on terror that find their echo in the Cold War.
Dennis:
Undermine is not a passive word. When Boehner says that Democrats exert effort to undermine our ability to succeed in the “global war on terror,” it’s hard to read that as anything except a charge of treason. It says they are actively doing something to effect a desired result (i.e., failure in the “war on terror.”) If the inference is slightly different – maybe not outright sabotage but the suggestion that the poor, naïve Democrats are so blinded by hatred of Bush that they will help terrorists strike America — this is a distinction without a difference.
“Democrats believe softer, more self-reflective approaches will win hearts and minds.”
They do? Did you see many Democrats oppose the invasion of Afghanistan?
Peter and Aaron – My response was sarcastic simply because of the over-the-top hero worship that many on the right engage in when it comes to Reagan. I’ve never doubted that he played a part in events that led to the end of the Cold War, but the suggestion by many that he did it single-handedly, or that he was even the main influence in the fall of the Soviet Union, are historically illiterate. Wasn’t there a guy with a birthmark on top of his bald head who had something to do with it, or am I misremembering?
The Cold War happened for years, and there were a lot of forces on a lot of sides that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. That’s my point, and I agree very much with Peter’s suggestion that while the contributions of the Reagan Administration deserve to be recognized, it’s taken too far over the top by some. That having been said, though, the obsession by some (like Aaron) with creating an image of Bush in the mold of Reagan is also over the top, as is his accusation that the reason those on the left want to get out of the war is because they don’t realize how exactly like the Cold War this situation is. It’s not.
The thing I can’t understand about Reagan is his image as a cowboy or a rancher or an American hero. Ronald Reagan spend the bulk of his life in Hollywood as an actor. So did Warren Beatty. So how come Reagan is thought of as a rootin’ tootin’ cowboy and Beatty is thought of as an effete liberal?
Neither is accusing the administration of being profligate with American lives for ideological goals. Nor is declaring your political perspective to be a provable fact, like some kind of math equation, which no one may argue with. Yet I accept both as the natural belief of someone who does not necessarily assume the worst of his opponents. Your continuing belief that only the right plays unfair or makes harsh accusations strikes me as a certain partisan blindness.
As for Afghanistan, you’re right in that most Democrats favored the invasion. But that doesn’t chnage the fact that Democrats argue for a softer, less beligerant approach to the war on terror overall – witness John Kerry’s talk about it being primarily a police problem, the promotion of direct talks with places like Iran and Syria, etc. If there are places Democrats are advocating military strikes on other spots of the globe, I’m unaware of them.
Fargus, I can’t speak for Aaron, although I didn’t see anything in his post comparing Bush to Reagan, or indulging in Reagan worship, so I don’t see the need for firing off sarcasm at a target that wasn’t there. But in any event, as you state yourself, he (and I) see parallels with the Cold War and believe the left does not see those parallels. You state baldly there are no parallels, which would seem to confirm what he said. So what’s your objection? We see things from one perspective, and that has guided our policy preferences. You see it differently. Since we’re talking about very serious subjects, naturally this will lead to concern that the alternative viewpoint will lead us to dangerous consequences.
That doesn’t mean either of us have to assume the other wants the nation humbled for nefarious purposes. But clearly some people assume the worst of their opponents, and I’ve seen no lack of corresponding vitriol from the left in that department.
As mentioned above, truth is an absolute defense against libel. I think the statement that “the administration of being profligate with American lives for ideological goals” is a defensible one. The administration was so convinced that we would be greeted as liberators in Iraq that they didn’t bother to plan for the contingency which we actually found ourselves in. That is reckless, if not profligate. The influence of neo-con ideology as a driving force is undeniable. So while the statement is arguable, it is certainly not outlandish, and it is within an acceptable realm of debate. It is a far different statement than saying that your opponents greet terrorists with tea and sympathy.
I’m not sure who you are referring to with your second sentence, so no comment there.
As for “only the right plays unfair:” let’s exclude Cindy Sheehan, Harry Belafonte, Micheal Moore, Kos, etc. (as well as Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, etc.) and instead focus on people like Ted Kennedy, Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, etc. To be sure, they have all severely criticized the administration. However, I’m not aware of a single incident where any Democrat of stature has suggested that Bush and Cheney support the enemy or put political considerations ahead of national security. However, you don’t have to go far to see top Republicans accuse Democrats of that very thing — just take a look at Cheney’s speech to AIPAC earlier this week, or Bush campaigning last year on the “a vote for Democrats is a vote for Al Qaeda” platform. Both sides get over-heated, but I don’t think there is any equivalence between right and left here.
As for a “softer, less belligerent approach:” I agree with you to the extent that Democrats favor both carrot and stick, and the Bush administration is stick only (at least until lately). I don’t think there is anything wrong with that, and there are decades of history to support it.
As for “police problem:” it’s an unfortunate phrasing, but Kerry has a very valid point. Police work is not just cops, but the FBI, CIA, NSA, etc. The alleged plot to bomb airlines was disrupted by British police work. The FISA wiretaps is part of police work, as is the data mining. Police work is not the whole thing, but it’s a very big part of it.
As for Iran and Syria: considering that this approach was endorsed by the ISG group, whose members include such GOP stalwarts as Ed Meese, Allen Simpson, and Sandra Day O’Connor, I’m not sure that you can accurately describe this as a Democratic or a leftist proposal.
As for talking to Iran and Syria: seeing that ISG members such as Allen Simpson, Ed Meese, and Sandra Day O’
I think we’re at an impasse, then, Peter. I agree with you that your feelings about the war are defensible, although I’d argue that calling something defensible is far different from calling it the “truth,” which in essence brooks no argument.
As for the complaints about the leadership of the right, I just have to disagree with you. Saying the Democrats are advocating a course that plays into the hands of our enemies is no different than what the Democrats have been saying, repeatedly, about the Bush administration. Democratic leaders have routinely said Iraq is a diversion from the war on terror, or encourages Al Qaeda, that it’s killing Americans for no good purpose, etc. That’s strong stuff, claiming the Bush administration is playing into the hands of our enemies, but it’s defensible, just as what the Republican critics are saying. If you don’t see this, I doubt there’s anything anyone could say to get you to budge.
I think the disagreement narrows down to the implication of motive. If the Republicans want to argue that the net effect of the Democratic platform is to aid terrorists: fine, I have no problem with that (although I disagree vehemently, it is a legitimate argument). My issue comes from the implication that Democrats espouse their policies not because they believe in them, but because of partisan considerations or (to use Rove’s word) sympathy to terrorists. If you want to tell me that I am wrong, that’s fine — but if you want to tell me that I am wrong because I am more concerned with getting elected than protecting the country, that is shameful.
However, this is also an eye-of-the-beholder thing – you and I could read Cheney’s speech this week to AIPAC (for example) and come away with very different perceptions.
If we are impugning motives then there is this:
“There was no imminent threat. This was made up in Texas, announced in January to the Republican leadership that war was going to take place and was going to be good politically. The whole thing was a fraud.”
- Senator Ted Kennedy
I don’t offer that as a “you started it” or “you’re worse” example, rather I put it there so we can see that both sides are quite willing to attack the other’s motivation. It would appear there is no greater insult to hurl at a politician than that of political motivation. Ironic, wouldn’t you say?
Arguing that the Democrats latest strategy enables our defeat in Iraq and is in line with the insurgents aims needn’t be pejorative or an attack on motivation, it can simply be an expression of consequences expected to arise from the strategy position. Now, I am not so young nor naive to believe that there is not a political component to such attacks that may, in fact, include the implication that one’s opponent is motivated by sympathy with the enemy, but in some ways that is how politics work.
The Democratic strategy, if implemented, will have it’s results in the future. Those results are not known (will Iraq descend into chaos, will al-Qaeda declare us no longer an enemy because we’ve left) thus there are no facts to evaluate. The political process requires that opponents of their policy predict the future as being especially dire; if motives are questioned along the way, all the better, politically.
It is unfortunate that we can’t simply have a list of facts and results at our disposal, ones that all of us agree on, as we make decisions. So I guess we are stuck with this process, adversarial as it may be, until someone comes up with a ouiji board that really works.
For what its worth, I personally learn a lot from these discussions, both from the folk with which I agree and disagree, and feel I am better informed as a result.
I never said Reagan was exclusively responsible for the fall of the Soviet Union. I said he influenced it. And you wonder why I think you don’t read the stuff to which you respond . . .
3) Your claim that the Democrats “don’t care if they hurt America” is unsupported by any evidence, as is your claim about Democrats and Reagan.
4) If the war on terror is to be won, it will be when moderate forces overcome radical forces. How else can it be won?
3) It is supported by the evidence that they are promoting policies that will be harmful to the US.
4) My apologies, I was unclear. Yes that is correct. But Democrats assume that this will happen inevitably, when, in fact, it is by no means inevitable.
And the only comparison I made to the Cold War was that it was a conflict in which America has to do something in order to win.
“It is supported by the evidence that they are promoting policies that will be harmful to the US.”
And what evidence is there that these policies will be harmful to the US?
Actually, I’m sorry. I was caught off guard by your bait-and-switch there. I actually said the following: “I wouldn’t even go as far as to say that the Democrats don’t care if they hurt America.”
The misread there is reasonable, considering that I committed the garamatical fallacy of using a double-negative.
But, in any case, I never made the claim that Democrats don’t care if they hurt America. They just don’t realize that they will be.
To draw another analogy, I used to read a lot of Star Wars books, even though I knew that the goodguys would always win no matter what, or for a more contemporary and mainstream comparison, in 24, you always know that Jack Bauer is going to beat the terrorists. You don’t watch or read to find out if the goodguys will win, so much as how. This is the way the Democrats view America’s future. While they accuse the neo-cons of excessive hubris, they are quite guilty of it themselves. They believe that no matter what happens, no matter what we do, America can only have setbacks, but they won’t keep us from victory, even if we don’t work for it.