The Defeatists Falter
Well, their resolution failed a cloture vote. (hat tip Instapundit.) This “failure” could be the defeat caucus’ best outcome (see why below).
From the Washington Post:
Senate Republicans today blocked a floor vote on a House-passed resolution that expresses disapproval of President Bush’s plan to send thousands of additional U.S. troops to Iraq, as a procedural motion to cut off debate on the measure fell short of the 60 votes needed.
It was the second time this month that minority Republicans successfully filibustered a nonbinding resolution opposing the troop buildup…
Go here to support victory in the great 21st century war for modernity.
Remember, we are in the wonderland of “non-binding” resolutions. Why? I suspect the defeat caucus is hedging its bets. GEN David Petraeus has a six-month window to help the Iraqi government stabilize itself. The so-called surge is proving to be a welcome change in ROE (see this from last month). GEN David Petraeus (I am given to understand) is a Democrat. He could prove to be the biggest political winner.
Still, I’m glad to see the miserable resolution defeated, even if the defeat was procedural.
New Surrendercrat Strategy: Betray The Troops — Update 4… Murtha: U.S. Troops “Have Everything They Need,†live in palace(s) Ian Schwartz CNS:He did not elaborate but went on to talk about services enjoyed by U.S. troops in Iraq but denied to many Iraqis. “Let’s take, for instance, Saddam Hussein’s…
Trackback by Bill's Bites — 2/17/2007 @ 5:58 pm
House Rebukes Bush On Iraq… In a stinging rebuke to President Bush, the House has approved a nonbinding resolution criticizing M…
Trackback by Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator — 2/17/2007 @ 6:22 pm
Austin, I served with General Petraeus when he commanded the 101st, and he never gave me the impression he was a democrat. Quite the opposite, in fact. Where did you get your information? Â ED NOTE: See my comment above. As I said, if I’m wrong, I’m wrong. I didn’t mean it as an insult. The Democrats could use a leader like GEN Petraeus.
Comment by Russ — 2/17/2007 @ 7:23 pm
How long will the General remain a Democrat?
Comment by ic — 2/17/2007 @ 10:50 pm
Austin & Russ, Who cares about General Petraeus’ party affiliation. He is a commanding officer in the United States Army. I am quite certain that he cares more about thesuccess of his mission than he does about politics. Â ED NOTE: See my comment later in this thread, which I hope adds a useful clarification. I agree with you. As a Soldier I served the US and the US Constitution.
Comment by Mike — 2/17/2007 @ 10:55 pm
It is reasonable and fair to have been a Democrat. There are reasons to not want to be grouped with country-club Republicans or rednecks, but with the demented, suicidal response of the Democrats to the events of 9/11 and the War on Terror, there are many Democrats who no longer feel comfortable in that party. We must make them welcome. There is a battle for survival going on not just for political spoils or power. Sane former Democrats are our natural allies. We should welcome them and also look for other common ground. The leftward plunge of the rest of the Democratic party endangers us all.
Comment by Rob — 2/17/2007 @ 11:07 pm
“It was the second time this month that minority Republicans successfully filibustered a nonbinding resolution opposing the troop buildup…” It is so confusing - how do you cut off debate by refusing to allow debate to be cut off? I guess I am not smart enough to be a part of those in the reality-based community who are able to understand these things, although the Wikipedia definition of “cognitive dissonance” does offer some possible insights into how they do it.
Comment by Sherlock — 2/18/2007 @ 12:25 am
I prefer calling the so called Republicans who voted for the resolution of non support of our troops and their commander in chief Pelosi Republicrats. I am a 75 year old Korea veteran who has spent two thirds of my life fighting for less gov’t and more individual responsibility and our party reps blew it.
Comment by Emory Lewis — 2/18/2007 @ 12:34 am
The hidden question in all this is how much far the Democrats will go to ensure failure in Iraq to gain power at home.
Comment by Old Sapper — 2/18/2007 @ 7:10 am
Mike, I brought up Austin’s argument about Petraeus in response to something he said that ran counter to my personal experience with him. You’re right that Petraeus is a professional and will do an exceptional job no matter what party he is. I was merely asking Austin on what he based a statement. ED NOTE: I’ve heard that from someone who knows him. If I’m wrong I’m wrong. I’m not making a large issue out of it– just to point out that GEN Petraeus is in a situation distantly analogous to Grant’s. If he comes out a winner he is a hero and that could translate into a an extraordinary political opportunity. My friend GEN Barry McCaffrey is –in my estimation– more of a Democrat than a Republican in his take on many issues. Soldiers like McCaffrey and Petraeus are American soldiers first.
Comment by Russ — 2/18/2007 @ 7:19 am
Soldiers such as General Petraeus are professionals and serve to defend the constitution. Too many people in the State Department and the CIA, however, fail to understand that they too fall under this. Too many have engaged in activities designed to undermine Bush Administration policies, instead of carrying them out. These people were exemplified by Colin Powell’s former Chief of State, a retired Marine Colonel named Wilkinson, delivered a consitutionally illiterate speech in which he accused the Vice President and by implication, the President, of “hijacking foreign policy.” Apparently he seemed unaware that the President and Vice President SET foreign policy, not the bureaucrats in the State Department. Likewise, people in the CIA have spent far too much time leaking against the Administration instead of doing what they are supposed to do, namely produce accurate intelligence for policy makers. These people would do well to take a lesson from the likes of Generals McCaffree and Petraeus. If they cannot carryout a policy they dislike, then they should look for another line of work.
Comment by Rich — 2/18/2007 @ 9:07 am
Austin, Your friend could be right. My conversations with then Major General Petraeus were limited to officer forums, but they were out of the light of cameras, and he can be very frank in private. In the end, however, I think we both agree - his political affiliation is irrelevent. He is a great professional who will get the job done through determination and the introduction of innovative ideas(as he did in Mosul in 2003). Whatever opportunities might arise afterwards are anyone’s guess. He would be much better than Wesley Clark, but whether a soldier could ever gain the democratic party’s nomination, especially if that soldier was the man who turned around the hated GWB’s policy, is very debatable. The real question is whether Congress and the press would allow even the perception of a turn around, regardless of whoever is in charge.
Comment by Russ — 2/18/2007 @ 10:04 am
Agreed. But this is just the first battle. I wonder if Bush has not decided to defeat the anti-war movement first - it is arguably the gravest strategic/grand strategic threat in the war on terror.
Comment by Harold C. Hutchison — 2/18/2007 @ 5:52 pm