Dubious Democrats

I'm finding it increasing frustrating trying to understand where the Democrats and the Left are leading the country regarding Iraq. Well, I guess when I mean "leading," what I really meant was backseat driving, as you can't really lead squat without control of any branch of the government. But, being a backseat driver, you sure can make things miserable for anyone who's along for the drive.

We have been told since the beginning of the war that honest "debate" is necessary, and that it is "patriotic" to dissent--especially against a criminal President and his "illegal" war. Bring the troops home now, they demand (apparently at the behest of a "majority" of Americans). Honest debate is great, but really, how honest are the politicians who are clammoring for "discussion" over the "quagmire?"

C.S. Scott reports today that Republican leadership in the House is planning a 10-12 hour debate specifically on the Iraq War, followed by a vote:

House Republicans have scheduled 10 to 12 hours on Thursday to debate an Iraq war resolution aimed at putting representatives on the record with respects to their positions on Iraq. Democrats, which are widely divided on the issue, reacted by proclaiming the resolution politically motivated, which it undoubtedly is in some capacity. Regardless, what is wrong with putting our elected representatives on the record about the greatest challenges facing the country?

It [the resolution] puts Iraq in the context of the War on Terror and says its wrong to set a troop withdrawal date. Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier, R-Calif., said Tuesday the resolution and ensuing House debate would allow the House to express itself on Iraq and give members time to let their feelings be known about the war so far. Republicans want to draw Democrats out on the pullout question and show they remain unified on Iraq. But House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer called the resolution "a political statement, not a policy statement." Asked what he thought of Democrats being deprived the right to offer an alternative, Hoyer told FOX News: "It tells me Republicans are afraid of ideas about Iraq."

I'd have alot more respect for a representative who took this debate head-on, laid out their positions and voted on the resolution with conviction, regardless of what that view was, then someone trying to dance around the issue and not allow their position on Iraq to become part of the public record. If the majority of the country is "against the war" and it's the disaster they say it is, why the reluctance?

The Democrats continuing push to frame any actions in this war in the worst possible light, without any context of the big picture, have been dubious enough. But as they have demanded "debate" on the issue, the House of Representatives is allowing for all of the opponents of the war to go on record in their demands to leave Iraq now and the refuse to do so.

Let's see where this vote ends up. Note all the Democrats that vote for "support" in staying the course in Iraq, and then turn around and demand the troops to come home in front of the cameras afterward.

Geeze, if these guys can't stand up to the Republicans (apparently with the "backing" of their constituents), how in the heck are they going to stand up to the Islamic Fundamentalists? This isn't schrewd political maneuvering, it's pandering to the extreme Left of their party, which won't accept any action short of putting Bush in jail.