Iraq War Funding: Democrats Blink, President Wins

Well, once more we see that the Democrat demagogues don’t have the courage of their (claimed) convictions.

After battling and claiming that they would not pass a bill funding the Iraq war without troop withdrawal deadlines, the Democrats capitulated. In the end they settled for “benchmarks” which would measure the level of progress being achieved by the Iraqi government. The only funding that would be affected by these benchmarks is the aid the government is receiving for reconstruction.

What all this means is that President Bush (and America) have won another victory over the fail at any cost Democrat leadership. The primary critics of the war in the Democrat leadership, including “Mad Captain Jack” Murtha, the caliph of capitulation, were forced to admit that they had been lying all through the debate in their continued claims that the troops could be funded into July.

“Congress Passes Deadline-Free War Funding Bill
Measure Includes Benchmarks for Iraqis

By Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 25, 2007; Page A01

Congress sent President Bush a new Iraq funding bill yesterday that lacked troop withdrawal deadlines demanded by liberal Democrats, but party leaders vowed it was only a temporary setback in their efforts to bring home American troops.

War opponents dismissed the bill as a capitulation to Bush and said they would seek to hold supporters in both parties accountable. But backers said the bill's provisions -- including benchmarks for progress that the Iraqi government must meet to continue receiving reconstruction aid -- represented an assertion of congressional authority over the war that was unthinkable a few months ago.

Bush, who had vowed to veto any legislation with restrictions on troop deployments, announced he would sign the $120 billion package, which was approved 80 to 14 last night in the Senate, after a 280 to 142 House vote.

He said the 18 benchmarks should signal to the Iraq government that "it needs to show real progress in return for America's continued support and sacrifice." But he added, "We're going to expect heavy fighting in the weeks and months" ahead.”

Oh my, my. This won’t please the rabid dog Lefties from whom the Democrats have been taking their marching orders. The article does say that these haters of everything American “bombarded congressional offices with angry phone calls and e-mails,” all demanding withdrawal dates be placed in the bill.

Majority Whip, Dick Durbin whined from the floor of the Senate,

“We do not have it within our power to make the will of America the law of the land.”

Boo-hoo-hoo.

Interestingly I can’t seem to find his name among those Democrats in the Senate who actually had the guts to vote their convictions. Those voting against the funding bill were Democrats, Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Mrs. William J. “Hillary“ Clinton (D-NY), Chris Dodd (D-CT), Russ Feingold (D-WI), Edward Kennedy (D-MA, John Kerry (D-MA), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Barack Obama (D-IL), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Ron Wyden (D-OR)-oh yeah, and make believe “independent” Bernie Sanders (I-VT). Among the Republicans voting against the bill, mostly in protest over the pork-barrel spending included were Richard Burr (R-NC), Tom Coburn )R-OK) and Mike Enzi (R-WY).

I find it interesting that the article states:

“In the Senate, 37 Democrats supported the bill, while 10 opposed it.”

Umm…correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t that mean that Senate Democrats voted for the funding bill almost 4 to 1? The Houston Chronicle reports that:

“the Democratic-controlled Congress grudgingly approved fresh billions for the Iraq war tonight, minus the troop withdrawal timeline that drew his earlier veto.”

“Grudgingly?!?” I’m not sure exactly how an 84-17 vote in the Senate and a 280-141 vote in the House add up to “grudging” support. That’s a five-to-one margin in the Senate and a two-to-one margin in the House, hardly what I would call “grudging.”

Over in the House, things were wonderfully amusing as Murtha, who had been in the forefront of those making the claims that the troops could be funded into July without this measure, was forced to admit:

"This is not a game. They run out of money next week,"

Well, I guess we all know never to trust what that old fool says anymore. A liar is a liar and he has been lying about this war from the first day he opened his senile old mouth. Eighty-six, over a third, of all Democrats in the House voted for the funding bill.

But let’s not be too graceless in our victory, this had to be a bitter pill for such staunch American Patriots as Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to swallow. Even more pitiful were the self-flagellation taking place by those in the Senate leadership who were unable to bring themselves to vote against this funding bill. Their anguish was truly sad to see, as Carl Levin stated:

"I cannot vote ... to stop funding for our troops who are in harm's way.I simply cannot and I will not do that. It is not the proper way that we can bring this war to an end."

I’m almost certain I saw a tear in his eye, almost certain.

That well known Patriot and solid pro-American bastion of truth (and real estate deals) Harry Reid stated:

"Senate Democrats will not stop our efforts to change the course of this war until either enough Republicans join with us to reject President Bush's failed policy or we get a new president,"

There were of course the normal black is white claims by those who oppose the troops and the war claiming “victory” to one degree or another, but Russ Feingold got it right when he described the Democrat effort as a “failure.” Feingold stated:

"Instead of forcing the President to safely redeploy our troops, instead of coming up with a strategy providing assistance to a post-redeployment Iraq, and instead of a renewed focus on the global fight against al-Qaeda,we are faced with a spending bill that kicks the can down the road and buys the Administration time."

No Senator, what this bill does is buy the Iraqis and their fledgling government time.

Democrats are still incapable of telling the truth, incapable of delivering on their promises (which are always empty), and incapable of protecting America. In fact, I suggest they take a new motto: Nunquam Idoneus (Never Capable).

Rem publicam Americanus diu viva!
(Long live the American Republic! [of course])

What do you think?

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