Skip to comments.Despite Its Unpopularity, Iraq War Hurts Democrats, Helps GOP in Congress
Posted on 06/22/2006 12:32:06 PM PDT by West Coast Conservative
As each house of Congress began its own Iraq War debate, the unpopular war continued to have the curious effect of hurting those it should help, and helping those it should hurt. Democrats may be accused of wanting to "cut and run" in Iraq, but the fact is that they "broke and ran" in the debate.
The Republican advantage here comes with the recent death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and the discovery of intelligence information that suggests al Qaeda feels it is losing in Iraq.
On the Senate side, Democrats blundered themselves into a minefield, with Republicans bringing up the actual resolution as proposed by Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) to withdraw from Iraq by the end of 2006. This was a resolution that some in the press had laughably said would put pressure on Republicans, but Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) seized the opportunity by proposing it himself. The Doves were slaughtered in a 93-to-6 tabling vote, with Kerry among the six. Inexplicably, the Democrats pressed for more punishment by discussing resolutions with later withdrawal dates -- equally unhelpful to them. The vote benefits Kerry in his quest for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, but it hurts the caucus with its base.
On the House side, things were scarcely better, as Republicans were the ones bringing their own resolution. Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) took center stage, again denouncing the Republicans' "stay the course" war resolution as a political stunt. (More on Murtha below.) The problem: Forty-two of Murtha's fellow Democrats ended up supporting the "political stunt," including almost every member facing a difficult re-election this year, such as Representatives Jim Marshall (D-Ga.), John Barrow (D-Ga.), Leonard Boswell (D-Iowa), Melissa Bean (D-Ill.), John Spratt (D-S.C.). This House vote turned into a rout -- a real embarrassment for the Democrats -- due to the large number of defectors.
Once again at center stage is Democrats' timidity over Iraq, which one would expect to be as good an election issue as they could ever invent against the Republicans and President Bush. The Iraq War is apparently unpopular and Americans supposedly want the troops to come home -- yet Democrats feel so little confidence that this will translate into election victories that they cannot be persuaded to adopt a consistent anti-war position. Even as Democrats are too divided to embrace the long end of the stick, Republicans are eager and united to embrace the short end. Do they believe that weariness with the war is as shallow as support for it once was -- that just as it waxed and has now waned, support for the campaign in Iraq could wax with sufficient success? Or that the bad feeling about the war is not strongly felt?
Murtha's role in this drama continues to smack of opportunism, particularly since his announcement of candidacy for majority leader. His suggestion on NBC's "Meet the Press" last Sunday that troops could be "redeployed" to Okinawa -- about 6,000 nautical miles from the theater's landing points in Kuwait and Bahrain -- became somewhat unrealistic when he asserted, incorrectly, that troops could be brought back quickly if needed. In fact, the transit time alone would be 11 days by boat plus a few days over land for a Marine Expeditionary Unit, and that doesn't count the desert preparation that would be required for redeployment to the Middle East. Murtha's answer embarrassed Democratic House members who would not dream of publicly criticizing the 74-year-old war veteran.
Murtha has worked to make himself the hero of the party's anti-war wing, and as a social conservative, it is something he can especially afford to do. But before November he had kept a low profile ever since being an unindicted co-conspirator in the Abscam investigation 26 years ago, in which he agreed to testify against popular Rep. Frank Thompson (D-N.J.). Of eight members of Congress on videotape being offered bribes by a phony Arab sheik, Murtha was the only one who did not take the cash -- but he did express interest in further negotiations while bragging about his political influence. His testimony created lifelong enemies in the Democratic cloakroom.
Today, Murtha wears his Vietnam combat record like a suit of armor, using it to disqualify adversaries who have not tasted combat, which includes the vast majority of Congress.
A significant but little-remarked rebuke of the Bush Administration on the topic of Iraq, meanwhile, came when the Senate unanimously approved of a demand that the war be budgeted for in the normal budget process.
We have to keep publicly calling them on their cut & run mentality to help show undecideds why they can't be trusted with National Security.
The mistake that the Dems made was in trying to turn it into a partisan issue.
What a senile imbecile. Even I could tell right away that such move is pure stupidity. The old bag thinks he is now a great strategist.
I think we need to get away from calling the Democratic policy on Iraq "cut and run" and call it something that puts it in starker terms in regards to the stakes here, "retreat and defeat."
Funny only a year ago Democrats were saying we didn't have ENOUGH troops in Iraq to do the job, now they're wanting us to cut troop levels?? These people will flip flop on every position to get some perceived political gain, and all the while not a single voice in the media will call them on it.
National Security is not a popularity contest. Leaders lead, political whores read polls.
As Rush said the other day, this so called unpopularity is based on polls only. If there were really a populist groundswell against the war then more people would be speaking up and showing up at these "rallies."
Yes, some things are above politics. And the second thing they did was want to cut and run. Even friends and family I have who are agains GWB and going in to Iraq realize we have no other recourse at this point but to win. Anything else emboldens the terrorists. I figure most Americans know this.
True, just like in the exit polls in 2004 showing Kerry winning easily.
True, just like in the exit polls in 2004 showing Kerry winning easily
LOL! That's right! Probably one of the most blatant examples of poll manipulation, and it blew up in their faces. Beautiful.
Kerry is a self serving git. He amply proved that in 2004.
Dems - cut from the same cloth...
What war is ever 'popular'? It's not about popularity, Bob, it's about getting the job done. If anything, a component of the bad Iraq poll numbers are disaffected conservatives, who think (accurately) that we're handcuffing ourselves with p.c. rules of engagement. The bump in the polls after the Zarqawi takedown are those folks getting back on the train.
and Americans supposedly want the troops to come home
Of course they do. They want them to come home VICTORIOUS, and not be evacuated from Baghdad by helicopter as the enemy closes in, as traitors like Murtha and Kerry are trying so hard to reprise.
Just shows that Americans overwhelmingly prefer incompetence to treason.
They are just throwing up anything and everything in order to find something that sticks.
The poll numbers must be all over the place, and so naturally they don't know what to think or say.
It's not at all curious that it would help the Republicans. Of course the war is "unpopular." It's not a sitcom. The American people are understandably ambivalent. They hate war but they know how important this is, and that there's no choice but to fight and finish what we began.
The Dems who voted against running away know this despite what media polls say.
Maybe that's the Dems' problem, assuming that a lack of popularity is indicative of anything.
I think a better question is how many Americans want to win, and how many want to lose?
Q. Do you approve of the way the administration is handling the war?
A. No 59% (40% No, we need to be tougher. 19% No, I'm a democrat)
Q. Do you want the troops to come home?
A. Yes. (90% yes, when the mission is completed. 10% yes, I'm a democrat.)
Still not stark enough, Mike. Call it what it really is, "cowardice." They aren't content to be cowards personally, they wish to extend their cowardice to the brave men and women who enable them to snivel and whine.
They aren't called DUmmies for nothing. :)
Well, yeah it is that. But we need something clever that will stick in peoples' minds when they go to vote this fall, something with a ring to it and "retreat and defeat" fits the bill. Americans don't ever like the thought of our military having to retreat or that America is defeated at any venture.
The only ones that the war is unpopular with are the socialists and communists.
I don't like the way our Service Men are being prosecuted for defening themselves, but I am not against the war.
That's it! The rat is finished! Even no-facts gets it!
We need to find video of this and blast it over the net every time this weasel opens his mouth.
Okay, some of the poll questions are push driven obviously. Demo are skewed. However, what is obvious is that the public goes up on good news. Down on bad. Basically they are taking the luxury to be flighty on the issue because it's just a poll and assume the President won't take them seriously enough to determine his action on THIS issue according to these polls. I wouldn't say its admirable of some sectors of the public, but it's a far cry from embracing Murtha in the ballot box.
Being flightly with a poll is one thing. Being flighty with the lives of your family at the ballot box is another. Therein is the "nuance" the Liberals and washington analysts fail to understand.
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.