By a vote of 218-212, the House has approved a $124 billion supplemental
spending bill to fund the military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. The
bill includes a promise that the U.S. will surrender in Iraq by Sept. 1,
2008.
This morning's New York Times explains that passage of the
Democrat-backed measure was in doubt because some ultraliberal lawmakers
objected to spending one more dollar supporting the troops:
Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, used an
array of persuasion techniques--some hard, some soft--as
she walked through the House chamber on Thursday, seeking
out undecided legislators in hopes of securing the 218
votes needed to pass the measure. Representative John
Lewis, Democrat of Georgia and a former civil rights
leader and chief deputy whip, told Ms. Pelosi this week
that he would oppose the bill because of his commitment
to nonviolence and his unwillingness to devote more
money to the war. "Let's pray about it," he recalled Ms.
Pelosi saying. Ultimately, he added, "she respected my
decision."
In the event, 14 Democrats--a mix of far-left types like Lewis, Dennis
Kucinich of Ohio and Maxine Waters of California and antisurrender
moderates like Dan Boren of Oklahoma, Jim Marshall of Georgia and Gene
Taylor of Mississippi--voted against the bill. Just two Republicans,
Wayne Gilchrest of Maryland and Walter "Freedom Fries" Jones of North
Carolina--voted "yes." California Democrat Fortney Hillman Stark Jr.
voted "present."
That Times piece has a revealing explanation of Democratic motives:
In conversations with dozens of lawmakers in recent weeks,
often in her Capitol suite or in a late-night telephone
call, Ms. Pelosi argued aggressively for the bill, even as
she empathized with their anguish over how to vote. But
in the end, participants said, her argument often boiled
down to this: Did they want a headline saying, "Congress
is standing up to President Bush," or "Congress gives
President Bush free rein?"
Mission accomplished, Nancy: See subject. But this tells you all you
need to know about Democratic "leadership" in Congress. It doesn't
matter what's good for the country or whether America defeats its
foreign enemies, only that the headlines make the Dems look tough on
their domestic adversaries.
--
Those who cheered Bush back then as he described the enormous task
ahead, only to turn into (or back into) bitter critics with no strategic
alternatives to offer, have to be judged fundamentally unserious about
America's national security.
.
|
