Nancy Astor: “If I were your wife, I would put poison in your coffee.”
Sir Winston Churchill: “And if I were your husband, I would drink it.”
Perhaps I should have waited until later today and filed this as a Ridiculous Headline post. Here’s the AP/Yahoo! Headline:
Democrats seek tougher action on Iraq
Wouldn’t that be a great thing if the Dems wanted to get tougher? But wait. That’s not what they want at all.
Tired of waiting for an opportunity to try to stop the war in Iraq, some Democrats say they want to use legislation approving billions of dollars in war spending to insist that President Bush not send more troops.
Others want to use the spending measure to bring the troops home by a certain date.
“The longer we delay taking action, the greater the failure in Iraq and the larger the cost in American blood and treasure,” said Sen. Christopher Dodd, [D-Con-Job], who supports legislation that would cap the number of troops allowed in Iraq.
Why, that’s not being tougher. That’s Cut and Run v. 8.0 (codenamed Quagmire).
The headline should read, “Democrats seek tougher action on America”
Sen. Barack Obama said he would push his legislation ordering troops out of Iraq by March 2008.
“This is not a symbolic vote,” Obama, [D-Clean], said of his proposal, which is backed by two House Democrats. “This is what I think has the best chance of bringing our troops home.”
Here’s an alternative you might want to try Senator, Victory has the best chance of bringing our troops home.
I’m convinced that the real aim is not Iraq, but rather 2008.
Sen. John Kerry, who drafted a similar proposal, said Congress’ actions will be watched carefully by voters headed to the polls in 2008.
“If the Congress is going to procrastinate, if they refuse to debate the most important issue of our time … then that is going to be clear issue in the context of ’08,” said Kerry, [D-MassHat]
It’s all about the nutroots base after all.
Democratic leaders in both the House and Senate have pledged to their rank-and-file that a vote on a nonbinding resolution opposing the troop buildup would merely be the first attempt to pressure Bush to shift course in the war. Other legislation will be binding, they said.
I’m not John Boehner’s biggest fan, but he has this exactly right.
“If you’re not for victory in Iraq, you’re for failure,” Boehner said. “The consequences of failure are immense. I think it destabilizes the entire Middle East, encourages Iran and on top of that it’s pretty clear that the terrorists will just follow us home.”
Wake me up when the Dems want to get tough on terror instead of America’s interests.
Sphere: Related Content