The Washington Post notes that the Democrats appear to be backing away from their own position on the war:
Several Democrats joined President Bush yesterday in rebuking Dean’s declaration to a San Antonio radio station Monday that “the idea that we’re going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong.”
The critics said that comment could reinforce popular perceptions that the party is weak on military matters and divert attention from the president’s growing political problems on the war and other issues. “Dean’s take on Iraq makes even less sense than the scream in Iowa: Both are uninformed and unhelpful,” said Rep. Jim Marshall (D-Ga.), recalling Dean’s famous election-night roar after stumbling in Iowa during his 2004 presidential bid.
Dean isn’t the only Democrat making noises about surrender – Nancy Pelosi has said that half the Democratic caucus supports the Murtha withdrawal proposal – despite the fact that only 3 members of the House bothered to actually vote for it when it was put up for a vote. As the Investor’s Business Daily notes the Democrats are deeply divided over this issue:
Some Democratic leaders are also putting distance between themselves and the top-ranking Democrat in the House, Nancy Pelosi of California. Pelosi has embraced Rep. John Murtha’s, D-Pa., idea to bring U.S. forces home over six months.
The dissenters include Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., former senior White House aide to President Clinton. As chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, his job is to coordinate fundraising and strategy that will get Democrats elected to the House next year — so it’s certain he’s always thinking about votes.
Another is the Democrat second in rank to Pelosi in the House, Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md. The Washington Post reports that Emanuel and Hoyer have told fellow Democrats in Congress that Pelosi’s posturing on Iraq could backfire on the party.
Hoyer went so far as to issue a statement that seemed to aim straight at Dean and Pelosi:
“I believe that a precipitous withdrawal of American forces in Iraq could lead to disaster, spawning a civil war, fostering a haven for terrorists and damaging our nation’s security and credibility.”
Other Democrats sounded much closer to the White House position than to that of Dean and Pelosi. Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., who sits on both the Armed Services and the International Relations committees, recently visited Iraq and said this week: “It’s not helpful for Democrats to say all is lost. We need a stable Iraq that is not a haven for terrorists.”
The Democrats are hoping that the war will split the Republican base and expose the President’s weaknesses in time for 2006. On that account, they’re dead wrong. The war is the issue that unites most Republicans, and even the “dissenters” in the GOP such as Chuck Hagel or John McCain all adamantly reject any talk of an arbitrary timetable for withdrawal.
Dean and Pelosi’s comments were incredibly stupid. If half the Democratic House Caucus is for a unilateral withdrawal from Iraq, why aren’t more speaking out for it? Why did only 3 Democrats actually vote for the Murtha plan? And what does that say about the Democratic Party as a whole – that they believe that the war is totally unwinnable but don’t have the spines to actually vote for withdrawal? No wonder the majority of Americans see the Democratic position on the war as based on political expedience above all else.
Meanwhile, Joe Lieberman and Wesley Clark are actually coming up with plans to achieve lasting peace in Iraq and prevent Iraq from becoming a haven for terrorism while other Democrats don’t seem to care about either. If anything, the rabidly anti-war MoveOn.org/George Soros/Daily Kos wing of the Democratic Party will continue to push the Democrats further and further to the radical fringe left, forcing them to play to that base and ensuring that they cannot have a consistent and coherent plan for national security – which is exactly what happened in 2002 and 2004.
The Democrats don’t have a coherent national security strategy. They don’t have an Iraq strategy, and half the party is all about waving the white flag and running away. There are individual Democrats who are quite strong on both issues, but the MoveOn wing of the party keeps marginalizing them. (Just look at what’s happened to Joe Lieberman for his audacity in saying that all is not lost in Iraq…) That isn’t a strategy for victory, that’s a strategy for the Democratic Party’s third consecutive electoral loss.
The Democrats cannot win so long as they’re divided on the war, and if they take the side of the Dean/Pelosi/Murtha preemptive surrender wing, they’ll lose anyway. If the Democrats were smart, they’d start showing how they support victory in Iraq and how they would achieve it. The fundamental problem they face is that Dean and Pelosi are saying exactly what they think – that America cannot win. So long as that idea remains prevalent in the Democratic Party they will be – and should be – a minority party.
“Why did only 3 Democrats actually vote for the Murtha plan? ”
The Murtha plan was never voted on. But you already knew that. It’s just easier to lie for short-term partisan gain than to have a rational discussion about exit strategies.
“No wonder the majority of Americans see the Democratic position on the war as based on political expedience above all else.”
Last night’s CBS News poll showed that 59% of Americans favor a timeline for withdrawal. So if you’re correct that zero Republicans in Congress favor a timeline, you represent an electoral minority comparable to that which voted for Walter Mondale in the 1984 Presidential campaign.
“Meanwhile, Joe Lieberman and Wesley Clark are actually coming up with plans to achieve lasting peace in Iraq and prevent Iraq from becoming a haven for terrorism while other Democrats don’t seem to care about either”
Clark’s plan is definitely worth chewing over, but Lieberman’s “plan” is “stay the course” which a dwindling number of people view as a real plan.
“The Democrats don’t have a coherent national security strategy.”
And at this point, I’m glad they don’t. It’s time to closely evaluate the situation in Iraq and level as many exit strategy options as possible, not immediately coalesce around the first option that comes their way. Ideally, they will come to at least come level of consensus into 2006 become the midterm elections, but it’s pointless and ultimately dangerous to embrace your strategy of lockstep allegiance. Why do you hate democracy so?
Dean characteristically crossed a line by publicly saying the war was unwinnable and allowing the GOP pariahs to bait him with sedition idiocy (as always, the Republicans don’t want to talk about Iraq….they want to talk about how Howard Dean talks about Iraq). But with 59% of Americans favoring a withdrawal timeline, exploiting foolish pride and manipulating the positions of Democrats like Murtha seem unlikely to get you very far. You make it sound as if internal party division is a Democratic Party invention of the post-Clinton era….and that it’s an assured negative for two people under the same party banner to respectfully disagree. The current level of division is troubling, but if the party gravitates to a compromise position in 2006 that includes the wildly popular notion of a withdrawal timeline, your current partisan posturing isn’t gonna help you stave off a Democratic tide in the November midterms.
“The Democrats are hoping that the war will split the Republican base and expose the President’s weaknesses in time for 2006.”
Hey, it sure split the Democrats.
Yes it was. The resolution voted on was substantively identical to Murtha’s proposal, but only 3 Democrats voted for it.
That same polls says that 61% of people think withdrawing troops now – the Dean/Pelosi/Murtha option would be “a recipe for disaster”.
Wow, there’s hyperbole, and then there’s that.
If the Democrats can’t come up with a coherent strategy four years after 9/11 and two and a half years after the fall of Baghdad, then they’re simply not smart enough to lead. Furthermore, the argument that “staying the course” doesn’t work ignores the fact that it is working – Iraq has made significant progress politically, economically, and in terms of security – even the Brookings Institution agrees that there has been a significant and measurable amount of progress in Iraq. It’s just that the Democrats have spend so much time lying about Iraq that now they’re forced to act upon their own lies.
Sure, just like Kerry was going to wipe the floor with Bush…
So long as the Democrats remain terminally clueless on critical issues of national security, they will not win. And there’s very little indication that the increasingly powerful radical left wing is going to lose their stranglehold on the Democratic Party any time soon.
“The resolution voted on was substantively identical to Murtha’s proposal, but only 3 Democrats voted for it.”
Murtha’s plan calls for troops to be redeployed to the periphery within six months. While I don’t agree with that, it’s far from the voted-upon GOP proposal calling for the immediate withdrawal of troops. For future reference, trying to cover up one lie you get caught in with another transparent lie is usually not an effective strategy.
“61% of people think withdrawing troops now – the Dean/Pelosi/Murtha option would be “a recipe for disasterâ€.”
Dean’s plan called for a two-year withdrawal that fits in perfectly with the withdrawal timeline that three of five Americans support. Again, you already knew that. It’s just more rhetorically convenient to lie.
“If the Democrats can’t come up with a coherent strategy four years after 9/11 and two and a half years after the fall of Baghdad, then they’re simply not smart enough to lead.”
There’s manipulative stupidity….and then there’s that. Our situation in Iraq today has nothing do with 9/11 and has changed significantly since the fall of Baghdad two and a half years ago. Your problem is that you believe a “coherent strategy” from 2001 is a foreign policy formula for the rest of eternity that allows you to parrot “stay the course” for years and years without acknowledgement of vastly changed circumstances. Extinction befalls species and foreign policy doctrines too arrogant to evolve with changing circumstances.
“Sure, just like Kerry was going to wipe the floor with Bush…”
Wipe the floor up with Bush? I never suspected as much and any comments I may have made suggesting a landslide were intended as a headfake. I did believe Kerry was gonna win in the final weeks of the campaign, but never expected “wiping the floor up” with a guy virtually assured of more than 240 electoral votes even in Kerry landslide.
“So long as the Democrats remain terminally clueless on critical issues of national security, they will not win.”
Those who represent a viewpoint shared by 40% of the voting population on the major issue of the day are those who are terminally clueless. If the Democrats’ division ensues at fever pitch, it will hurt them, but even the slightest movement towards common ground on the part of the Democrats in the coming months will be viewed more favorably than the “stay the course” mindlessness supported by 40% (and shrinking by the hour) of voters. Keep telling yourselves you can’t lose though. It’s nice to have you right where we want you.
Which is stupid. Where in “the periphery”? Kuwait? Turkey? Saudi Arabia? There’s no place to put those troops. Murtha’s proposal is completely unworkable. It’s completely unrealistic, and it’s a based on the lie that we’d offer support to the Iraqis if/when the shit hits the fan – Murtha wants our troops out, and he’d leave the Iraqis to the wolves just as the Democrats left millions in South Vietnam to the brutality of the Communists.
No, it called for a withdrawal of over half of our troops immediately, leaving those left with almost no logistical support. Dean’s plan is even more idiotic than Murtha’s.
Except here in reality, the plan is working. The “clear-hold-build” strategy is working, and every measure of Iraq’s health is on the upswing. It may well be that two years from now our troops can leave, but that should only happen based on the situation, not some preening Democratic mouthpiece’s arbitrary timeline.
Wow, I haven’t seen spin like that from a centrifuge…
In the majority?
Then again, I’ve long wondered if Karl Rove doesn’t secretly control the DNC. The Democrats have done far more to help the GOP politically than the GOP has done to help their own fortunes…
“Which is stupid. Where in “the peripheryâ€? Kuwait? Turkey? Saudi Arabia? There’s no place to put those troops. Murtha’s proposal is completely unworkable. It’s completely unrealistic, ”
Murtha’s plan may be all of the above, but what it isn’t is a call for immediate withdrawal as you earlier suggested and have been systematically backpedaling from since in a fruitless attempt to save face after a bald-faced lie.
“Dean’s plan is even more idiotic than Murtha’s.”
See comment above.
“Wow, I haven’t seen spin like that from a centrifuge…”
Are you suggesting I predicted a Kerry landslide? A quick search from your archives will show you my exact predictions state-by-state, which included Florida going for Bush. I was wrong on four states….Ohio, Nevada, New Mexico and Iowa, states which would have given Kerry a 289-249 electoral victory, far from “wiping the floor with Bush”.
“In the majority?
Then again, I’ve long wondered if Karl Rove doesn’t secretly control the DNC. The Democrats have done far more to help the GOP politically than the GOP has done to help their own fortunes…”
All empires fall and so shall yours. With all the pontificating pundits endlessly reminding us of gerrymandered districts and partisan divisions cutting against Democratic ambitions for 2006, the important statistic consistently overlooked is that 68% of Americans want divided government. With that in mind, most independents and many Republicans are likely to vote Democrat next fall just to put a leash on the GOP. If the Democratic Party can get its act together even a little (sadly, a big if) and converge with some semblance of organized policy, the Dems win back Congress with larger majorities than anyone is currently expecting.
Yes, we’re not withdrawing, we’re just leaving the battlefield… yeah, right. And of course, I’m lying about Murtha calling for an immediate withdrawal… and obviously Murtha is himself. Right…
Yes, I am.
Wait, I have an empire now? Shiny!
Yes, and if horses had horns, they’d be unicorns…
Here’s the link comparing my 2004 predictions to yours: http://www.jayreding.com/archives/2004/10/31/electoral-college-prediction-2004/#comments
I guess I did use the term landslide based on flawed Election Day exit poll information, but certainly in a relative context where Kerry would sweep the battleground states and end up with 316 electoral votes. And I was far from alone in interpreting that exit poll information as highly favorable to Kerry.
As can be seen in the link above, I lowballed Bush’s electoral vote victory by 37 and you exceeded it by 24. I picked four states wrong, with none of them going for Bush by more than two percentage points. You dropped the ball on three states, but two of which (Minnesota and Hawaii) weren’t even close. Is that measure of accuracy really worthy of gloating about?
“Yes, and if horses had horns, they’d be unicorns…”
A party full of indicted crooks on the minority side of nearly every issue can underestimate the opposition at its own peril. Even a semblance of organized policy of domestic matters is likely to improve the Democratic Party’s reputation at your expense.
“he’d leave the Iraqis to the wolves just as the Democrats left millions in South Vietnam to the brutality of the Communists.”
Nixon, Ford and Kissinger were Democrats? Interesting take on history.
Bald faced lie, I think I heard that on the playground growing up. 6-8 month withdrawal is in effect an immediate withdrawal because even in the best conditions we could not get out of there before that time. Murtha knows that, thats why they moved the goalpost to the 2 year mark as forwarded by that great military planner…err DNC chair Howard Dean instead of 6 month timeline. To argue thats its a lie that the Republicans required a vote of the immediate withdrawal of the troops which isn’t what Murtha said is silly. Logistically if we start now in 6 months we may be out, hence the immediate part. You don’t stage and go in a day or two with all the infrastructure and all the support needed for 120000 men and women and all their gear. It took them months to get there it would take them months to get out.
The periphery “friendly” states was all the above and Okinawa, Japan, go figure there we could really mointer the events in Iraq from just a few miles away.
Either way Mark, your guys are getting a good black eye with this one. Still no calls for Howard Dean to move on, the far left seems to have a pretty good hammer lock on the upper party apparatus.
“Bald faced lie, I think I heard that on the playground growing up. ”
Wow, Ray, you had some sophisticated kids at your playground. Clearly, their precocious use of terminology didn’t rub off on certain conservative peers, however.
“To argue thats its a lie that the Republicans required a vote of the immediate withdrawal of the troops which isn’t what Murtha said is silly”
Well considering that Murtha himself voted against the GOP “immediate withdrawal” measure, he must have thought there was a difference.
“Either way Mark, your guys are getting a good black eye with this one.”
Aside from the political junkie class (five of the population maybe?), nobody is even paying attention to what Dean is saying let alone planning to decide their votes based upon his comments in next year’s midterms.
I think thats your hope not necessarily, but how do you explain the Howard Dean recant as so aptly described by Jay ? Repubs naile Murtha on the cut and run rethoric and even suprised me with the call. I think I heard Mort Kondrakie (Roll Call) say that Maxine Waters (D,Calif.) has a caucus of about 70 dems in the house that are backing the “cut and run” straedgy and she thinks it will be 100 in a few weeks. Pretty large caucus allied with a Maxine Waters style dem and add to that 2006, the dems that are running are more moderate and in some red states and don’t really need a far left eruption..