Dems Plot Final Victory For Their Iran/Al Qaeda Allies
Neil Abercrombie and Lynn Woolsey are in perfect agreement on the war in Iraq: It’s a disaster that should be ended now.
But the two House Democrats are sharply divided on how to use the limited powers of Congress to make it happen.
Abercrombie believes in making common cause with wavering Republicans to create a powerful coalition that will force President Bush to change policy.
Woolsey has little interest … in a political strategy that requires any compromises with the GOP in the name of consensus. She believes the anti-war movement can only succeed in Congress by mandating a quick and clear end to the war.
The two approaches clashed vividly last week in a behind-the-scenes battle among House Democrats over a measure sponsored by Abercrombie, backed by some liberals and many moderates, requiring Bush to report on the status of an Iraq plan. The measure was poised to win the support of many Republicans — until Woolsey and her allies stopped it cold.
The weeklong legislative tussle underscored the difficulty anti-war forces face in agreeing on political strategy — a problem that threatens to hamstring Democrats when they return in September and face a series of confrontations with Bush over Iraq.
Woolsey feared that any measure which allowed Republicans to argue that they were holding the administration’s feet to the fire — without actually imposing policy changes — could be worse than nothing.
“I don’t want legislation that takes us backward,” Woolsey said, noting that the House had passed a bill several weeks ago calling for a complete redeployment of combat troops by April 1, 2008. “While we’re standing here, our troops are dying, and we’re not moving the ball forward to bring them home.”
Abercrombie argued that his approach would have demonstrated that the anti-war movement is not just a partisan cause.
“We attracted the overwhelming majority of Republicans to go with us, which is the most powerful element working in this right now,” Abercrombie said. “If you keep passing bills on issues that have a bare majority, then it becomes Democrats versus Republicans and people make up their own minds as to who is really participating and who isn’t.”
In the end, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), after heavy lobbying from prominent House liberals, sided with Woolsey and scuttled the Abercrombie plan.
Both Abercrombie, from Hawaii, and Woolsey, from the Bay Area of California, have impressive anti-war credentials. Abercrombie sponsored one of the first troop withdrawal resolutions to gain bipartisan support. He is a member of the Armed Services Committee and a close ally of Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), one of the war’s foremost congressional critics.
Woolsey is an original founder of the Out of Iraq Caucus and a co-chair of the Progressive Caucus. She sponsored a 2005 resolution, urging the president to present a withdrawal plan to Congress. Along with fellow California Democratic Reps. Barbara Lee and Maxine Waters, Woolsey is part of a trio of vocal anti-war Democrats calling themselves “the Triad.”
In part to reconcile such different approaches, Pelosi created a “working group” early in the year to develop House Democrats’ Iraq strategy. And she asked her close ally Rep. John B. Larson (D-Conn.) to head up the group, Larson said.
“The speaker said we’ve got to start coalescing and building a consensus around this,” Larson said. “We needed to decide what to do to move the ball forward and prepare for the August debate,” when members return to their districts and discuss the war with constituents.
Larson tried to draw members, both moderate and liberal, into the group. Reps. Bill Delahunt of Massachusetts, Kendrick B. Meek of Florida, Marcy Kaptur of Ohio, John Tanner of Tennessee, Abercrombie and others joined him.
The group ultimately backed several proposals, including one banning permanent military bases in Iraq, another requiring stricter troop readiness requirements and the Abercrombie bill, co-sponsored by Tanner.
The bill originally contained a detailed section on the “comprehensive strategy for the redeployment of United States Armed Forces in Iraq.” But that section was removed in the House Armed Services Committee in order to attract the support of Republicans. Twenty-six Republicans voted for it after the change, along with all of the committee’s Democrats.
Abercrombie had to fight to get Democratic leaders to agree to bring the bill to the floor, but by midweek it looked as though he had succeeded. He anticipated that the measure would send the first broad bipartisan message to the president.
But the Triad had leapt into action to kill it, a move that pitted progressive lawmakers like Woolsey, Lee, Waters and Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) against others like Abercrombie, Delahunt and Kaptur.
That earlier legislation was indeed much stronger, but it had the support of only a few Republicans. Abercrombie wanted to offer more modest language to win the backing of dozens of Republicans.
Still, the Triad wasn’t convinced. At its urging, the Progressive Caucus passed a resolution on Tuesday vowing to “firmly oppose any Iraq-related bills or amendments that come to the House floor that do not include a clear timeline and date for the redeployment of U.S. troops and military contractors from Iraq.”
The Triad sent out an “action alert” Thursday, urging more than 70 members of the Progressive Caucus to oppose a procedural maneuver that would have brought the bill to the floor.
“This is a sneak attack to pass a weak bill to allow the president to give a report on the status of a redeployment plan — with no deadline to end the occupation,” the three wrote.
Just six minutes later, a high-level staff member in Pelosi’s office shot back a reply that the action alert was “premature.”
Pelosi called a meeting of the parties, the latest of several last week, and afterward decided not to bring the bill to the floor. The Triad was assuaged: Republicans would not be given the chance to back a measure directing the president to take certain actions regarding Iraq.
Schakowsky explained the thinking in the anti-Abercrombie camp.
“I don’t think the words of bills we pass here will change (Republicans’) minds. … This bill allows people who have no more conviction about ending the war than the president to claim they asked the president for a new plan,” she said.
“Republicans won’t change until they feel the war is an albatross around their necks and they have no other choice.”
Be respectful of others and their opinions. Inflammatory remarks and inane leftist drivel will be deleted. It ain’t about free speech, remember you’re in a private domain. My website, my prerogative.
If you can't handle using your real email address, don't bother posting a comment.
August 6th, 2007 at 11:09 pmProphetic words: “albatross”, “neck”. But it’s your neck, Pelosi. And the albatross has its claws dug into your windpipe. Take a deep breath, it may be your last.
The Dem’s are showing again they don’t have a clue on how to protect the country, or run one for that matter.
The panic rush to get something done is because there is measured success in Iraq. They have to sabotage it before things start to settle down there.
If they don’t it becomes totally clear that the Liberals where trying to cause us to fail instead of supporting the US in it’s effort to win the conflict.
August 6th, 2007 at 11:48 pmpeople are so retarded our here in the bay people i chill with and i have nothing to do with these fairys tho.
August 7th, 2007 at 2:11 amThe more I listen to the democrats the more I believe the government would find a paper trail from the democrats to Al Qaeda if they ever investigate the sleezeballs. When will they ever shut the fuck up. Oh yea! I forgot about the 2008 elections. If I NEVER heard Pelosi and her gang speak again it would still be to soon! Please understand thatI do mean this in a christian way.
August 7th, 2007 at 2:51 amThe UNholy Triad.
August 7th, 2007 at 3:34 amfor years now the democrates have been tearing at the fabric of America..they ask just because we veer to the left that makes us anti-american..HELLO..they have no respect what so ever for our currently ELECTED president, they say hes the worst president ever, compare him to hitler, they fight him every step of the way, and the list goes on and on..the people that are in the democrats camp are hommosexuals, illigal immigrants, sean penn, anti-war protestors, environmentalist, holier than God hollywood dickheads, al-quida, hugo chavez, cindi sheehan..the list is huge and its frightning
August 7th, 2007 at 4:21 amthose fuckers use the phrase “occupation” to describe our mission in Iraq
I would not be upset to see 15.16 g of lead occupying certain craniums
August 7th, 2007 at 6:13 amYeah Steve they call it occupation I know, like they have no idea its an active war. Like we have come to take over land or something..That word alone pisses me off and they use the same word when Israel has an offensive in west bank or Gaza. We plan on leaving when the job is done
August 7th, 2007 at 6:48 amazbastard, Let’s not forget Ted Turner and his ex Hanoi Jane, Mahmoud Amadumbass, Michael Moore, Algore, Alfranken and a host of other immoral excrement.
August 7th, 2007 at 6:54 amAh yes, the agenda of the Defeatocratic Peoples Party of Amerika. They are torn between their priorities, defeat in the war or clean out the treasury to line their pockets…
I feel the only hope for our nation is they continue with their shenanigans and the sheeple finally wake up in time for the ‘08 elections and at least turn congress over to people who actually care about the future of our nation.
August 7th, 2007 at 7:26 amBoom bop brings up a good topic that I have been thinking about for a while; Dems getting so desperate that they start taking drastic measures. Who knows what they will do in September when all the venomous statements they have been making over the last 4 years are shown to be more than dissent and resemble something more like treason.
Will they cross that fine line to actual treason? Have they already done so? Maybe they will schedule another meeting with Syria and ‘mistakenly’ give more information than they should … which would be passed along to Iran?
I am not a conspiracy theorist … but … is this the reason that the warrantless wire tapping bill was so important, so that the govnm’t can listen to people from Washington calling overseas to possibly give the enemy information?
I, for one, pay very close attention to what the Dems say. To me, the Dems seem to have gone ‘all in’ on the belief that we are going to lose the war in Iraq. There will come a day (maybe yesterday) that they come to the realization that their bet was premature and the time is coming to show their losing cards. What are they going to do to get out of the mess they made for themselves and would they go so far as to sell out their own country?
Since the Dems have no vision and don’t seem to think about the repercussions of their actions (kind of like children), I just can’t trust them and when backed into a corner, they may be willing to do the unthinkable. I really hope someone is watching … closely.
August 7th, 2007 at 8:18 amWe speak of treason but see no action such that I have come believe that this charge has no more meaning in our world. It seems the crime isn’t even a misdemeanor today. No more worthy of prosecution than spitting on the sidewalk.
Daily we see acts of sedition and aiding the enemy committed by high members of the Democratic Party as they jockey for position for the next election. Their shameful words of defeatism play out on our televisions every evening. We have yet to hear of one of these contemptible individuals called to account for their despairing half truths and outright lies of subversion regarding the state of affairs in Iraq. The ironic nature of the whole situation is that those who so frequently cast themselves upon the world stage as standing for the rights of individualism and laborers everywhere are so willing to fast track the Iraqi common man back into Hell for their own political gain.
The democratic ploy is clear. It is the age old subterfuge of the Big Lie. Their stratagem is to create enough smoke through fabrications, deceptions and witty slights that the casual participant in the political process comes to believe, given the repetition, that there must be some fire in their false charges. For conservatives, taking the high road has not worked at all. Allowing the Left’s charges to go unchallenged has proven to be a failed strategy. The absence of argument, indignation and legal action from the ranks of Republican lawmakers has given credibility to the anti-Bush hate-mongers. Through their inaction, the Republican leadership has allowed the Left to get a toehold in the minds of the people and weakened the resolve those who would stand with them.
Unfortunately our parents were wrong when they told us that “Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me”. The words of the Left have emboldened our enemies and cost American lives needlessly. It is the ultimate in hypocrisy to tell a man or woman who lives at the tip of the spear and at any time may find themselves sacrificing all that they are and all that they ever could have been that: “I stand with the troops but I am against the war”. These vile pathetic words are no more than a half-excuse of a loathsome traitor to explain away a personal betrayal. They come straight from the mouth of the Democratic Party. And no matter what anyone says, they strike at the very hearts of our soldiers and undermine their will to fight for us. Morale matters and the morale of soldiers in a time of war matters most.
I think it is time for a change in tactic. A good dose of intolerance and indignation is in order. No subversion should go unanswered. And for those who aid the enemy by undermining the morale of the troops, they should be prosecuted to the fullest measure possible under the law.
August 7th, 2007 at 2:23 pmCPL Viper
“To me, the Dems seem to have gone ‘all in’ on the belief that we are going to lose the war in Iraq. There will come a day (maybe yesterday) that they come to the realization that their bet was premature and the time is coming to show their losing cards.”
Your right on, they have gone all in. But your wrong when you say there will come a day that they’ll decide to show their bad cards. There will be some that muck their cards and disappear, and some that never admit they were wrong, even if we win, and they’ll just work overtime at the revisionist history.
August 7th, 2007 at 4:09 pm