Democrats Whining Over Being Exposed

Congress Erupts in Partisan Fight Over Iraq War

By ROBIN TONER and KATE ZERNIKE
Published: June 16, 2006

WASHINGTON, June 15 — The House and the Senate engaged in angry, intensely partisan debate on Thursday over the war in Iraq, as Republicans sought to rally support for the Bush administration's policies and exploit Democratic divisions in an election year shadowed by unease over the war.

It was one of the sharpest legislative clashes yet over the three-year-old conflict, and it came after three days in which President Bush and his aides had sought to portray Iraq as moving gradually toward a stable, functioning democracy, and to portray Democrats as lacking the will to see the conflict through to victory.

In the House, lawmakers moved toward a vote Friday after more than 11 hours of debate on a Republican resolution promising to "complete the mission" in Iraq, prevail in the global fight against terrorism and oppose any "arbitrary date for withdrawal." In the Senate, lawmakers voted overwhelmingly to shelve an amendment calling on the United States to withdraw most troops by the end of this year, although Democrats vowed to revisit the debate next week.

Both actions were carefully engineered by the Republicans in charge, and for the moment put both chambers on a path to rejecting Congressional timetables for withdrawal.

House Republicans asserted that their resolution was essential to assure American troops and the world that the United States was behind the war in Iraq and the broader struggle against terrorism, conflicts they said were inextricably intertwined.

Speaker J. Dennis Hastert of Illinois opened the formal debate on a war that, the government announced Thursday, had claimed the lives of 2,500 American troops. "It is a battle we must endure and one in which we can and will be victorious," he said of the fight in Iraq and beyond. "The alternative would be to cut and run and wait for them to regroup and bring the terror back to our shores."

He said the American troops in Iraq knew their cause was noble. "It is time for this House of Representatives to tell the world that we know it, too, that we know our cause is right and that we are proud of it." Democrats, divided over the wisdom of the war but more or less united in condemning Mr. Bush's management of it, countered that the Republican resolution was a political ploy, "a press release for staying the course in Iraq," as Representative Jane Harman, Democrat of California, put it.

At the start of the debate, Representative Ike Skelton, Democrat of Missouri, asked for a moment of silence to recognize the 2,500 American military deaths in Iraq. Many lawmakers talked about visiting the troops, in Iraq and in hospitals, and about the toll in death and suffering.

Representative John P. Murtha, the Pennsylvania Democrat and Vietnam War veteran whose call for a speedy withdrawal of troops transformed the debate last year, rose repeatedly to tell Republicans, "Rhetoric does not solve the problem." He added: "We need a plan. It's not enough to say stay the course."

Referring to the sectarian violence cleaving Iraq, Mr. Murtha said, "They're fighting each other, and our troops are caught in between."

Five months before the November elections, partisan passions ran high. Republicans argued repeatedly that their Democratic opponents lacked the toughness to confront terrorism, returning to themes that they used successfully in 2004. "Many, but not all, on the other side of the aisle lack the will to win," said Representative Charlie Norwood, Republican of Georgia. "The American people need to know precisely who they are." He said: "It is time to stand up and vote. Is it Al Qaeda, or is it America?"

Democrats countered, at times with barely controlled fury. Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the Democratic leader, described the war "as a grotesque mistake." She and others said Congressional Republicans were simply trying to "trap" Democrats, not engage them in a true debate. The resolution Republicans offered could not be amended, but only voted up or down.

Democrats in the Senate cried foul when Republicans forced a vote on a withdrawal amendment originally developed by Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts. Mr. Kerry had held off from seeking a vote on it, while working with other Democrats to seek a broader consensus. But Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican whip, simply scratched out Mr. Kerry's name, replaced it with his own and offered it for debate. Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the majority leader, characterized the amendment as "cutting and running."

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, one of many Senate Democrats who oppose Mr. Kerry's amendment, rose to declare, "There are two things that don't exist in Iraq: cutting and running, and weapons of mass destruction." Mr. Reid moved to remove the amendment from consideration, and his motion was approved by a vote of 93 to 6. Senate Democrats promised to return next week with additional amendments on an exit strategy for American troops.

Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, portrayed the vote to table the amendment as a declaration of support for the fledgling Iraqi government. "This sends a good message that the United States government opposes, overwhelmingly, a cut-and-run strategy."

Nothing Democrats hate more than being forced to show their true colors. Anyone listening to the floor debate has to be struck with the difference between the parties. The "Cut and Run" Democrats spend a great deal of time whining about their plight in being forced to take a stand. The rest of the time they spend lying about our involvement in Iraq and denying any relationship between the global war on terror and the war in Iraq. Talk about having your head in the sand. They have no answer to the statements from the terrorists themselves conflating the two. Their arguments are laced with highly charged emotional language but very few facts. The Republicans, on the other hand, only have to relate the facts.

It has been clearly documented that al Qaeda had a long standing relationship with the Hussein government prior to our invasion. It is clear from the terrorists own words that their campaign of terror is failing. The Iraqi war far from being an aimless disaster, is an astounding success. The events of the past week only serve to punctuate how successful this campaign has been. The documents recovered during the raids of this week, if they turn out to be legitimate (and they will) reveal an insurgency on the ropes. They reveal that al Zarqawi was having difficulty obtaining funding, weapons, and recruits. They reveal the desperation he was feeling and his doubts of the success of his campaign. Here is the full text of Zarqawi's Safe-house letter

In spite of the above revelations, the Democrats continue to portray the battle for the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people as a failure. The people don't want us there and would prefer to have Saddam back, yet these same people continue to stand up and voluteer to be for the police force and military,in the face of continued attacks and mounting casualties.

Further proof that they live in a world where myth passes for reality and opinion replaces fact.

Full Story: Democrats in Panic Mode

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below