Posted on 02/26/2007 6:50:35 PM PST by mdittmar
Democratic leaders backed away from aggressive plans to limit President Bush's war authority, the latest sign of divisions within their ranks over how to proceed.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (news, bio, voting record), D-Nev., said Monday he wanted to delay votes on a measure that would repeal the 2002 war authorization and narrow the mission in Iraq.
Senior Democrats who drafted the proposal, including Sens. Joseph Biden (news, bio, voting record) of Delaware and Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record) of Michigan, had sought swift action on it as early as this week, when the Senate takes up a measure to enact the recommendations of the bipartisan Sept. 11 commission.
Reid, who will huddle with Democrats Tuesday to discuss whether to postpone the Iraq debate, cited pressure from victims' families for quick action on the Sept. 11 bill as the reason for doing so.
"Iraq is going to be there — it's just a question of when we get back to it," Reid said, predicting it would be "days, not weeks" before the Senate returned to the issue. The war reauthorization legislation also appears to lack the 60 votes it would need to pass the Senate.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., meanwhile, said she doesn't support tying war funding to strict training and readiness targets for U.S. troops.
The comments distanced her from Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting record), D-Pa., who has said he wants to use Congress' spending power to force a change in policy in Iraq, by setting strict conditions on war funding.
Pelosi said she supports holding the administration to training and readiness targets, but added: "I don't see them as conditions to our funding. Let me be very clear: Congress will fund our troops."
Asked whether the standards should be tied to a $100 billion supplemental war spending measure — as Murtha has proposed — Pelosi demurred, saying it was up to the panel that drafts funding bills.
The developments on both sides of the Capitol reflected a new level of disarray in Democratic ranks on Iraq. Swept into power by voters clamoring for an end to the war, Democrats have seen their efforts falter under a reality more complicated than they found on the campaign trail.
While the public is fed up with Iraq, there is little consensus over what to do.
Internal divisions, Republican opposition and a president who — while weakened — still appears to have the dominant voice on the war have all left Democrats flailing for a way to change the war's course.
The Democrats' symbolic measure disapproving of Bush's troop buildup passed the House only to stall in the Senate. The House plan to place strict restrictions on war funding appears to lack enough support within Democratic ranks to succeed, and looks likely to be scaled back, considering Pelosi's latest comments. The Senate bid to narrow the 2002 resolution authorizing the war appears to lack enough votes to be approved, and action on it now is likely to be put off — at least for the week.
The first signs of impatience among Democrats' allies are sprouting.
"The public is saying, 'We hired you to get out of Iraq — now figure it out,'" said Tom Matzzie, Washington director of the anti-war group MoveOn.org. "There is a risk that without action, frustration boils over into anger."
Democrats argue that their failed efforts to thwart Bush's war plans will ultimately pay off by ratcheting up pressure for a change.
"The administration is increasingly isolated and they are increasingly at odds with where the American people are," said Jim Manley, a Reid spokesman. "We're going to keep on going at it until the administration changes course."
But Democrats also are worried about being at odds with public opinion as House and Senate leaders push divergent measures.
House Democrats, who enjoy a 32-seat majority, will try this week to determine if there is enough support among themselves to pass the Murtha plan. Senate Democrats will discuss whether to postpone action on the war reauthorization, as Reid suggested.
Bush told governors Monday that he looked forward to a "healthy debate" on Iraq, but warned Congress against limiting funding for the war or commanders' flexibility in waging it.
"I do not believe that someone is unpatriotic if they don't agree with my point of view. On the other hand, I think it's important for people to understand the consequences of not giving our troops the resources necessary to do the job," Bush said.
Democrats' troubles finding a strategy on the war reflect a wider lack of consensus among the public about what course to take in Iraq. AP-Ipsos polls show that while a clear majority are pessimistic about the war and oppose a buildup, most people do not support cutting funding for the troops.
Zbigniew Brzesinski, Jimmy Carter's former national security adviser, said Democrats "run the risk of losing momentum."
They would be better off pushing some simple policy statements that could garner Republican support — such as opposition to establishing permanent bases in Iraq or to further expansion of the war — than trying to find a way to tie Bush's hands, he said.
"One has to be very careful not to get involved in micromanaging a military engagement," Brzesinski added.
Bush still enjoys substantial advantage when it comes to trumpeting his message on the war, even though his image and clout suffered major blows in last fall's elections.
Democrats, by contrast, have a cacophony of voices — including several presidential candidates — weighing in on what to do next in Iraq.
"The party's not unified. Until you control the executive branch, you really don't have a party — you have all these independent actors," Lawrence Korb, a Reagan administration Defense Department official, said of the Democrats' plight.
Translation: Democrats cut and run.
Is there anything Dems don't eventually back away from?
This will not sit well with the moonbats.
This is good.
They could have done real damage. Sure it would have made them look stupid but the safety of our our troops and not giving comfort to the enemy outweighs any political gain the Republicans might have had if the Dems over-reached.
The Dems are putting themselves between Iraq and a hard place.
Dingy Harry was afraid Leiberman was going to put him into the minority.
The public hired you because the media successfully portrayed the Republican Party as Jack Abramoff's merry band of kiddie diddlers. But you go on and keep believing your charge to keep is to lose the Iraq war. More power to ya'.
Is it possible that the apparent success of the surge and new rules of engagement has those who can think more than a week into the future pondering how they would look a year from now if they officially back the democrat plan?
I did a search,nothing came up.
Except for exploiting the war to win an election the "Neo-Copperhead" Democrats never had any plan for Iraq.
(Henry P. Wickham, Jr. of the American Thinker or who ever coined that name sure hit the nail on the head).
Well, the article did mention a minority point of view....
Everyone that believes Reid and the Dems raise your hands
And we have a winner!!!!
Very creative!!!
IOW, "Do what we anti-American liberals want or we'll start smashing things!"
What a bunch of spoiled punks!
No guts. Won't they make a stand on anything? If you want to support the troops by bringing them home, put forward legislation to bring them home tomorrow. If Bush lied and people died then impeach him. They wriggle and squirm like worms. No wonder terrorists think they can attack us.
These democrats are wasting time on this non-binding resolution.
The president really threw them for a loop when he announced a surge. They are still trying to react to it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
