To quote today's NY Post op-ed:
February 7, 2007 -- President Bush Monday survived the first attempt by congressional Dem ocrats to undermine the U.S. mission to Iraq - a bid to declare "no confidence" in his ongoing troop surge.
So far, so good.
But the Democrats, busy little beavers as always, are readying another effort to score political points at the expense of the president's strategy - and America's fighting forces, too.
Senate Democrats could muster only 49 of the 60 votes they needed to invoke cloture, cutting off a GOP filibuster of a symbolic resolution that would have expressed disagreement with the troop-surge plan.
Senate GOP leaders were prepared to let the resolution move forward - if Democrats agreed to permit votes on two measures more supportive of the president. No deal, said the Dems.
I see how it is. No 60 votes needed, sez Dems. And no other alternative resolutions allowed. There goes another campaign promise of "ethics" and "bipartisanship", effectively replaced by a Senate bully pulpit attitude of "my way or the highway".
As is usual, Congress is trying to play the game both ways. Don't send troops. Don't attempt to win in Iraq, but then overwhelmingly confirming Gen. David Petraeus as chief U.S. commander in Iraq, and Adm. William Fallon to head the overall U.S. effort.
Can you yell "hypocrisy" at the top of your lungs?
This slight of hand behaviour doesn't fool Joe Lieberman, the Dem's favorite pariah, one bit. And he's not mincing his words when calling the anti-Iraq-success membership on their game playing.
We cannot have it both ways. We cannot vote full confidence in Gen. Petraeus, but no confidence in his strategy. We cannot say that the troops have our full support, but disavow their mission on the eve of battle."
Even some media pundits are finally calling the Dems on their overt hypocrisy. Another, in addition to the NY Post, is Susan Jones at Cybercast News Service in her commentary today, Who's Blocking Debate on Iraq War?"
On Wednesday morning, Sens. John Kerry (Mass.), Patty Murray (Wash.), Jack Reed (R.I.), and Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.) will join veterans of the Iraq war in calling on Senate Republicans to "stop blocking a debate" on President Bush's plan to send 21,500 additional troops to Iraq.
"Before sending another 48,000 young Americans into battle, the Congress owes it to our troops, their families, and their communities to have an honest and open discussion about their mission," the Democrats said in a news release. (It's not clear where the 48,000 number came from.)
"Help me send a message to Republicans in the Senate," Reid said in an email written on behalf of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee: "Click here to tell Senate Republicans to stop blocking the debate on escalating the war in Iraq -- let's have an up or down vote on the president's plan," Reid wrote.
Let's have a vote on more than just the president's plan, Republicans insist.
Shall I reiterate from the NY Post op-ed? "NO DEAL", say Dems.
Surprisingly enough, even the extreme liberal, anti-Iraq NYTs recognizes the Senate's forked-tongue attitude. Again, from the CNS op-ed, quoting from NYTs Wednesday editorial pages:
An editorial in Wednesday's New York Times accused the Senate of "fumbling" the Iraq war issue.
"The Democrats' ultimate goal was to express the Senate's opposition to President Bush's latest escalation," the newspaper said. "But the Democrats' leaders have made that more difficult -- allowing the Republicans to maneuver them into the embarrassing position of blocking a vote on a counterproposal [dealing with war funding] that they feared too many Democrats might vote for."
The New York Times said it opposes the war funding resolution. "But the right way for the Senate to debate Iraq is to debate Iraq, not to bar proposals from the floor because they might be passed. The majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, needs to call a timeout and regroup," the editorial said.
Will Congress listen to their own most powerful media mouthpiece? Or has so many years of hate built up that they can no longer function as an unbiased governing body with the best interest of Americans at heart?