Well, Kerry says he is writing his own withdrawal plan legislation
that could be introduced this week. We're eager to see what kind of
support his bill will get -- and which of his Democratic colleagues
will actually vote for retreat after voting against it.

Never Surrender?
Ibd
Fri Jun 16, 7:00 PM ET
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ibd/20060616/bs_ibd_ibd/2006616issues

Iraq: Democrats have relentlessly called, or implied their support,
for a pullout. But when they get a chance to bring troops home, they
don't back up the talk. Perhaps they should sit out the rest of the
war in silence.

Democratic senators had their first chance last week to force the
administration to surrender, uh, pull the troops from Iraq. The Senate
considered a resolution Thursday that would have brought U.S. soldiers
home by the end of the year.

The debate was described by one reporter as "bitter and sometimes
raucous." This might make one think that, in a Senate that is nearly
evenly split between the parties, the vote would be close.

The result? By a 93-6 margin, the idea was rejected. So much for all
the fuss.

The six votes in favor of withdrawal were, of course, cast by
Democrats. But a large majority of Senate Democrats -- 37 of them --
are forever on the record as voting to keep U.S. troops in Iraq.

What happened to all the heated rhetoric about the war being a blunder
and the need to retreat from the "quagmire"? Is it confined to those
six who supported a pullout: Sens. John Kerry and Ted Kennedy
of Massachusetts, Robert Byrd of West Virginia, Barbara Boxer of
California, Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and Tom Harkin of Iowa?

Maybe real Democratic opposition to the war is found only in the
House, where on Friday congressmen voted to stay in Iraq by a margin
of 256-153. All but four of those "nay" votes came from Democrats.

Yet 42 Democrats supported it along with 214 Republicans. As pundit
Robert Novak noted, that's a significant defection for a party in an
election year. The observation that Democrats voted based on what they
figure will give them their best chances in the upcoming elections is
no more cynical than casting a vote for just that reason.

Last fall, House Democrats had a chance to force an immediate pullout
from Iraq soon after decorated Vietnam War veteran John Murtha, a
Democratic congressman from Pennsylvania, began to mouth off about
bringing troops home.

But they voted in large numbers against retreat. The final tally was
403-3. Is there a resolution short of one that says the sky is blue
that could get so close to having unanimous support in this --
seemingly -- divided House?

So why must Democrats talk so much about pulling out of Iraq when they
refuse to follow through on their rhetoric? Are they so politically
reflexive against the Bush war that they can't control their tongues
even as they know that staying the course in Iraq is necessary?

The Democrats have muttered about Republicans baiting them with loaded
legislation. Thursday's House bill, for instance, included language
about winning the war on terror and protecting "freedom from the
terrorist adversary." How, they ask, could they vote against that even
when they oppose the primary provision of the resolution -- the
rejection of a forced timetable for a pullout?

Well, Kerry says he is writing his own withdrawal plan legislation
that could be introduced this week. We're eager to see what kind of
support his bill will get -- and which of his Democratic colleagues
will actually vote for retreat after voting against it.


--
"Science is the record of dead religions." -- Oscar Wilde

"There are no absolute certainties in this universe. A man must try to
whip order into a yelping pack of probabilities, and uniform success is
impossible." -- Jack Vance

"Civilization is the interval between Ice Ages." -- Will Durant.

"War is God's way of teaching Americans geography" -- Ambrose Bierce

"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant

Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net

Never Surrender?
Ibd
Fri Jun 16, 7:00 PM ET
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ibd/20060616/bs_ibd_ibd/2006616issues

Iraq: Democrats have relentlessly called, or implied their support,
for a pullout. But when they get a chance to bring troops home, they
don't back up the talk. Perhaps they should sit out the rest of the
war in silence.

Democratic senators had their first chance last week to force the
administration to surrender, uh, pull the troops from Iraq. The Senate
considered a resolution Thursday that would have brought U.S. soldiers
home by the end of the year.

The debate was described by one reporter as "bitter and sometimes
raucous." This might make one think that, in a Senate that is nearly
evenly split between the parties, the vote would be close.

The result? By a 93-6 margin, the idea was rejected. So much for all
the fuss.

The six votes in favor of withdrawal were, of course, cast by
Democrats. But a large majority of Senate Democrats -- 37 of them --
are forever on the record as voting to keep U.S. troops in Iraq.

What happened to all the heated rhetoric about the war being a blunder
and the need to retreat from the "quagmire"? Is it confined to those
six who supported a pullout: Sens. John Kerry and Ted Kennedy
of Massachusetts, Robert Byrd of West Virginia, Barbara Boxer of
California, Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and Tom Harkin of Iowa?

Maybe real Democratic opposition to the war is found only in the
House, where on Friday congressmen voted to stay in Iraq by a margin
of 256-153. All but four of those "nay" votes came from Democrats.

Yet 42 Democrats supported it along with 214 Republicans. As pundit
Robert Novak noted, that's a significant defection for a party in an
election year. The observation that Democrats voted based on what they
figure will give them their best chances in the upcoming elections is
no more cynical than casting a vote for just that reason.

Last fall, House Democrats had a chance to force an immediate pullout
from Iraq soon after decorated Vietnam War veteran John Murtha, a
Democratic congressman from Pennsylvania, began to mouth off about
bringing troops home.

But they voted in large numbers against retreat. The final tally was
403-3. Is there a resolution short of one that says the sky is blue
that could get so close to having unanimous support in this --
seemingly -- divided House?

So why must Democrats talk so much about pulling out of Iraq when they
refuse to follow through on their rhetoric? Are they so politically
reflexive against the Bush war that they can't control their tongues
even as they know that staying the course in Iraq is necessary?

The Democrats have muttered about Republicans baiting them with loaded
legislation. Thursday's House bill, for instance, included language
about winning the war on terror and protecting "freedom from the
terrorist adversary." How, they ask, could they vote against that even
when they oppose the primary provision of the resolution -- the
rejection of a forced timetable for a pullout?

Well, Kerry says he is writing his own withdrawal plan legislation
that could be introduced this week. We're eager to see what kind of
support his bill will get -- and which of his Democratic colleagues
will actually vote for retreat after voting against it.


--
"Science is the record of dead religions." -- Oscar Wilde

"There are no absolute certainties in this universe. A man must try to
whip order into a yelping pack of probabilities, and uniform success is
impossible." -- Jack Vance

"Civilization is the interval between Ice Ages." -- Will Durant.

"War is God's way of teaching Americans geography" -- Ambrose Bierce

"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant

Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net