Thursday, June 15, 2006

House Democratic Crybabies

A number of House Democrats held a press conference yesterday to complain about the terms of debate for the resolution to be debated today on Iraq and the Global War on Terror. They cleverly tied their wrists with yellow ribbons to show that 'their hands are tied' (clever, see?), and that this is a false debate:

Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii) complained Wednesday that House leaders were not going to permit Democrats to offer amendments to the resolution, forcing them into a position of either voting against supporting the troops or for the Republican formulation of the war.

"Our hands are tied — literally — on the floor of the people's House," Abercrombie said at a news conference, his hands tied together with yellow rope to symbolize his frustration. "Do not put us through the farce and the fraud of a pseudo-debate."

House Majority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) was unsympathetic.

"That is not a 'gotcha.' They have a decision to make. That is what we get elected to do," Boehner said.

So already this is sort of amusing. Faced with charges that they are insufficiently committed to winning the War on Terror, Democrats respond by complaining that the charge is unfair, and then they tie their hands with yellow ribbon and say that they are powerless.

Smart politics! Here's another idea: try nominating a WAR HERO for President!

Moving on, the kernel of their argument is that they are being forced to either vote yes or no - with no opportunity for amendment - on this resolution:

2d Session
H. RES. 861
Declaring that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror, the struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary.


June 12, 2006
Mr. HYDE submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned


Declaring that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror, the struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary.

Whereas the United States and its allies are engaged in a Global War on Terror, a long and demanding struggle against an adversary that is driven by hatred of American values and that is committed to imposing, by the use of terror, its repressive ideology throughout the world;

Whereas for the past two decades, terrorists have used violence in a futile attempt to intimidate the United States;

Whereas it is essential to the security of the American people and to world security that the United States, together with its allies, take the battle to the terrorists and to those who provide them assistance;

Whereas the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and other terrorists failed to stop free elections in Afghanistan and the first popularly-elected President in that nation's history has taken office;

Whereas the continued determination of Afghanistan, the United States, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization will be required to sustain a sovereign, free, and secure Afghanistan;

Whereas the steadfast resolve of the United States and its partners since September 11, 2001, helped persuade the government of Libya to surrender its weapons of mass destruction;

Whereas by early 2003 Saddam Hussein and his criminal, Ba'athist regime in Iraq, which had supported terrorists, constituted a threat against global peace and security and was in violation of mandatory United Nations Security Council Resolutions;

Whereas the mission of the United States and its Coalition partners, having removed Saddam Hussein and his regime from power, is to establish a sovereign, free, secure, and united Iraq at peace with its neighbors;

Whereas the terrorists have declared Iraq to be the central front in their war against all who oppose their ideology;

Whereas the Iraqi people, with the help of the United States and other Coalition partners, have formed a permanent, representative government under a newly ratified constitution;

Whereas the terrorists seek to destroy the new unity government because it threatens the terrorists' aspirations for Iraq and the broader Middle East;

Whereas United States Armed Forces, in coordination with Iraqi security forces and Coalition and other friendly forces, have scored impressive victories in Iraq including finding and killing the terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi;

Whereas Iraqi security forces are, over time, taking over from United States and Coalition forces a growing proportion of independent operations and increasingly lead the fight to secure Iraq;

Whereas the United States and Coalition servicemembers and civilians and the members of the Iraqi security forces and those assisting them who have made the ultimate sacrifice or been wounded in Iraq have done so nobly, in the cause of freedom; and

Whereas the United States and its Coalition partners will continue to support Iraq as part of the Global War on Terror: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives--

(1) honors all those Americans who have taken an active part in the Global War on Terror, whether as first responders protecting the homeland, as servicemembers overseas, as diplomats and intelligence officers, or in other roles;

(2) honors the sacrifices of the United States Armed Forces and of partners in the Coalition, and of the Iraqis and Afghans who fight alongside them, especially those who have fallen or been wounded in the struggle, and honors as well the sacrifices of their families and of others who risk their lives to help defend freedom;

(3) declares that it is not in the national security interest of the United States to set an arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment of United States Armed Forces from Iraq;

(4) declares that the United States is committed to the completion of the mission to create a sovereign, free, secure, and united Iraq;

(5) congratulates Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki and the Iraqi people on the courage they have shown by participating, in increasing millions, in the elections of 2005 and on the formation of the first government under Iraq's new constitution;

(6) calls upon the nations of the world to promote global peace and security by standing with the United States and other Coalition partners to support the efforts of the Iraqi and Afghan people to live in freedom; and

(7) declares that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror, the noble struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary.

Now what is so unfair about this resolution? Either you agree with it or you don't. The Democrats complain that this resolution politicizes the debate. Are you kidding me?

This complaint comes from the same folks who went to Baghdad before the war and said they believed Saddam over President Bush. The same folks that complained that the press can't film coffins arriving from Iraq. The same people who ran to the cameras breathlessly to excoriate the President over Abu Gharib and Haditha, and who say that regardless of what the facts may ultimately show about such events, senior military officials should be punished, and Rumsfeld forced to resign. The same folks who are trying to rewrite history on the questions of WMD in Iraq.

The same people who forced this debate!

THEY are complaining that this resolution 'politicizes' the debate.

Well you know what? When you win the majority, you can write the resolution. Until then, you can have your say - 5 hours worth of debate time - and then vote 'aye' or 'nay.'

Back to the top.


Anonymous said...

You obviously can't admit that this whole resolution does nothing but waste time and money trying to embarass people that don't support the president.
The party in control should be doing something usefull.

The Editor at IP said...

Thanks for your comment.

The party in control never intended to hold this debate at all - it was forced by the minority. And when they did so, it was clear the form that the debate would end up taking.

If the debate embarrassed the Democrats - as I predicted it would in the post I wrote in April - then perhaps they should not have forced it.