Liberals Locked Up

6 02 2007

Filed under: Surge, Senate, Liberalism, Politics

Republicans successfully prevented further terrorist-enabling by preventing a vote on the anti-surge resolution. Senator Joe Lieberman spoke on the floor of the Senate earlier yesterday evening and explained why this resolution should not go forward:

Now, a new course has been chosen. A new commander is in place in Iraq, confirmed by this Senate. A new Secretary of Defense is in place at the Pentagon, confirmed by this Senate. And a new strategy has begun to be put into action on the ground in Iraq by our troops.

It is altogether proper that we debate our policy in Iraq. It should be a debate that is as serious as the situation in Iraq and that reflects the powers the Constitution gives to Congress in matters of war.

But that, sadly, is not the debate that the Warner-Levin resolution invites us to have. I am going to speak strongly against this resolution because I feel strongly about it. I do so with respect for my colleagues who have offered it, but I believe its passage would so compromise America’s security, present and future, that I will say so in the clearest terms I can.

The resolution before us, its sponsors concede, will not stop the new strategy from going forward. As we speak, thousands of troops are already in Baghdad, with thousands more moving into position to carry out their Commander’s orders. This resolution does nothing to alter these facts.

Instead, its sponsors say it will send a message of rebuke from the Senate to the president, from one end of Pennsylvania Avenue to the other. But there is a world beyond Pennsylvania Avenue that is watching and listening.

In simple terms, Lieberman is saying to Democrats, “Stop flip-flopping. You voted for the war. You had the same intel Bush had. If you say ‘Bush lied’, you have to say, ‘I lied’.”

What we say here is being heard in Baghdad by Iraqi moderates, trying to decide whether the Americans will stand with them. We are being heard by our men and women in uniform, who will be interested to know whether we support the plan they have begun to carry out. We are being heard by the leaders of the thuggish regimes in Iran and Syria, and by Al Qaeda terrorists, eager for evidence that America’s will is breaking. And we are being heard across America by our constituents, who are wondering if their Congress is capable of serious action, not just hollow posturing.

This resolution is not about Congress taking responsibility. It is the opposite. It is a resolution of irresolution.

For the Senate to take up a symbolic vote of no confidence on the eve of a decisive battle is unprecedented, but it is not inconsequential. It is an act which, I fear, will discourage our troops, hearten our enemies, and showcase our disunity. And that is why I will vote against cloture.

Here, he is saying that Democrats cannot continue to appear in support of the war and speak out against it depending on the political atmosphere-du-jour.

Once again, Democrats too weak-kneed to take a stand and tell the American people where they stand. It was such flip-flopping that forced them to run conservatives as Democrats in the November election and it will cost them 2008 election if they don’t take a stand and run with it.

Cloture failed 49-47. Sixty votes were required to bring the anti-surge resolution to a vote (Hat tip: Wizbang).

John Edwards seems to have beat Hillary and Obama to the punch, albeit his excuse is pretty pathetic.

It has been amusing to see Democrats in Congress attempt to explain away their votes for the war in Iraq over the past year. Most of them have settled on the excuse that the Bush administration deceived them in October 2002 into authorizing military force based on the exact same intelligence that moved them to declare official American policy of regime change in 1998. The Democrats won a majority in the midterms by stoking Bush Derangement Syndrome, but for 2008 they face a daunting task — winning elections without using the retiring George Bush as a bogeyman.

John Edwards has found a solution by shifting blame yet again, and in the process exposing the “Bush lied” meme as a hypocritical dodge. In his Sunday appearance on Meet the Press, Edwards attempted to excuse his vote on the AUMF by blaming Clinton administration officials for confirming the intel coming from the Bush administration.

MR. RUSSERT: “A grave threat to America,” do you still believe that?


MR. RUSSERT: Why were you so wrong?

SEN. EDWARDS: For the same reason a lot of people were wrong. You know, we—the intelligence information that we got was wrong. I mean, tragically wrong. On top of that I’d—beyond that, I went back to former Clinton administration officials who gave me sort of independent information about what they believed about what was happening with Saddam’s weapon—weapons programs. They were also wrong. And, based on that, I made the wrong judgment. …

MR. RUSSERT: But it seems as if, as a member of the intelligence committee, you just got it dead wrong, and that you even ignored some caveats and ignored people who were urging caution.

SEN. EDWARDS: Well, I, I, I would—first of all, I don’t want to defend this. Let me be really clear about this. I think anybody who wants to be president of the United States has got to be honest and open, be willing to admit when they’ve done things wrong. One of the things, unfortunately, that’s happened in Iraq is we’ve had a president who was completely unmoving, wouldn’t change course, wouldn’t take any responsibility or admit that he’d made any mistakes. And I think America, in fact the world has paid a huge price for that. So I accept my responsibility. I’m not defending what I did. Because what happened was the information that we got on the intelligence committee was, was relatively consistent with what I was getting from former Clinton administration officials. I told you a few minutes ago I was concerned about giving this president the authority, and I turned out to be wrong about that.

Edwards, having discovered that George Bush cannot run for a third term, needs to find another excuse for his vote to invade Iraq, a vote which his progressive base abhors. He can’t just explain it away by saying he was too stupid to see past the web of Bush lies — after all, he sat on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and had access to the classified information that formed the basis of Bush’s case for military action. At the time, he was one of the more vocal Democratic supporters of action.

The degree to which Americans can wake up from being hypnotized by Democrats in 2006, will be the degree to which Democrats are beaten in 2008.

Captain Ed says Harry Reid has a dilemma on his hands:

Harry Reid has a dilemma on his
hands. His control over the Senate rests on a single vote; even if Senator Tim Johnson of South Dakota recovers enough to return to the Senate, the loss of one member of Reid’s caucus will allow Dick Cheney to cast the deciding vote on control of the upper chamber.

His party came to power on an anti-war platform, a fact that several in his caucus have noted in the debate on the various resolutions that have been proposed. Their activist base has already made it clear that non-binding resolutions aren’t what they had in mind when they pushed for the Democratic majority in the midterms, and a lack of progress on stopping the war in Iraq could lose them their majorities in either or both chambers in 2008.

Republicans such as John McCain have dared the Senate Democrats to take an action with real meaning in opposition to the war, claiming correctly that “sense of the Senate” votes do nothing to end the war on any terms but instead embarrass the White House and demoralize the troops. Unfortunately, anything else more substantive in the next two years will require them to relinquish their slender majority — and the Democrats do not appear willing to make that sacrifice.

I’ve always maintained that this anti-war behavior is unbecoming of a United States Senator, regardless of party affiliation, and to continue to do so is treason against the United States military and American citizens.

Others: Hot Air




Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: