Earlier today, I pointed out that political forces here at home - spearheaded primarily by the Democrats - are pushing for withdrawing from Iraq in the face of the enemy, despite the fact that the enemy has yet to actually come out on top in any given engagement.
Murtha has said that our Army is “broken”, which makes him a “hawk”, at least as far as Donks go, and now House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has managed to tuck herself into Murtha’s back pocket.
Despite being one of the 403 House members who voted NOT to cut and run, she is now advocating precisely that - cutting and running.
First of all, she might be the “House Democratic leader”, but her actual title is ”Minority Leader”. However, we can’t have Democrats referred to as being in the minority, because people might realize what kind of bullshit they are pulling when they can’t get their way.
Pelosi, D-Calif., said she wouldn’t call for a party caucus position on the plan by the Pennsylvania Democrat because “a vote on the war is an individual vote.”
Nevertheless, she said: “I believe that a majority of our caucus clearly supports Mr. Murtha.”
Except for that whole 403-3 vote, she means…
All the way down to the last paragraph to find the opposing point of view.
A day after Murtha’s Nov. 17 announcement, Republicans sought to put the House on record rejecting immediate withdrawal and forced a vote just before adjourning for Thanksgiving break. Democrats called the vote a political stunt meant to undermine Murtha and limit debate on the war. Most in the minority party, including Pelosi, voted against immediate withdrawal in what they said was a protest, making the tally 403-3 against it.
“In what they said was a protest”? What cowardice. It was a non-binding “Sense of the House” resolution, and no more restrictive of the Executive Branch than would be a resolution announcing a ‘National Citrus Fruit Week’. And to protest staying in Iraq? The best way to protest that would be to vote in favor of ending it, wouldn’t you think?
The only conclusion I can come to is that Nancy Pelosi - who, by definition and virtue of her elected office, is not “on the fringe” of the Left - either says what she does not mean or means what she does not say. Or both.
Nothing major has changed in Iraq: the Iraqi Constitution has still been ratified (by 80% of the vote), there is still an election scheduled for two weeks from yesterday, and 14 of the 18 Provinces in Iraq are stable, safe, and prosperous. What changed her mind?
She changed her position at a news conference after Bush sought to lay out the administration’s Iraq strategy in a speech at the U.S. Naval Academy.
“I’m endorsing what Mr. Murtha is saying, which is that the status quo is not working and that we need to have a plan that makes us safer and our military stronger and makes Iraq more stable,” she said.
Given what Murtha is actually demanding, I’d lurve to know how immediately terminating military operations and redeploying our forces elsewhere in the region (without actually specifying where, but who needs details when you are emoting?) makes us safer and our “broken” military stronger? And given the historical data involved when we have cut and run - in places like Beirut, Somalia and Vietnam - how would that translate into making Iraq “safer”?
I think that Speaker Hastert and the GOP leadership needs to have another vote once they get back from Christmas. Any bets on the vote total?
Less...
