Shame on Congress; Democrats Vote For Defeat

Given the low level of respect most Americans have for Congress, I would not really have believed it was possible that Congress could take action that would lower its repute even more. Yet the passage of the "so-called" supplemental military spending bill does just that.

Faced with the fact that the American people would actually like to win in Iraq, Nancy Pelosi and the Democrat leadership in the House decided that they could not get the votes for a straight-forward and open vote on defunding the war. So what did the Democrat leadership decide to do?

They resorted to a tried and true tactic; they greased the skids for the anti-war vote by combining it with a vote for $20 billion in pork barrel spending. Gosh, their statesmanship and courage are just breathtaking! Funny, though, I could have sworn that the Dems campaigned on the theory that pork spending was out and legislative shenanigans were a thing of the GOP past. Oh well, campaign promises are just "aspirations"; sometimes the harsh reality of scoring political points requires adjustment of campaign commitments.

Negative comment on this disgrace is coming in from many sources. Austin Bay slams the vote and calls for a Bush veto. Greyhawk at Mudville Gazette, has been all over this story, here and here. John Hinderaker at PowerLine was unequivocal in his condemnation of this move. He quotes President Bush's veto threat and his appropriately harsh criticism of the Democrats action. The money quote from Hinderaker is this one:

"I think it has become clear to pretty much everyone that the Democrats want defeat in Iraq in order to advance their political agenda. That is not a view that is shared by the American people. If President Bush stays firm, the Dems could be in trouble. Of course, everything depends, as always, on events on the ground."

The amazing thing about this move is the brazen and unabashed politics of the bill. I hope you saw the videotape of Congressman Obey telling some liberal critics to calm down and wait for this supplemental. He pointed out the strategy to wed the anti-war vote with the one thing no congressman can turn down: pork!

[Update: Here's the Obey video.]

Finally, this puts to rest any cover the Democrats try to claim by saying they "support the troops, not the mission". This action will out and out hurt the troops and it has the added "benefit" of piling another $20 billion in spending into our federal deficit. The explanation of the harm this will do to the troops is outlined in the second link to Greyhawk, above. I'll repeat part of it here:

"So what if congress refuses to pass or even debate such a bill in a timely manner? Here's Defense Secretary Robert Gates' answer:

This morning I had -- I met with members of the House Army Caucus, a bipartisan group of representatives who have a special interest in the strength and well-being of the Army. We discussed several key issues relating to the Army's readiness. I received questions from both sides of the aisle as to the measures the military will need to take if the Congress does not pass the FY '07 supplemental by April 15th.

For example, according to the Army, which went through this experience last year, if the supplemental is not passed by April 15th, the service will be forced to consider the following kinds of actions: one, curtailing and suspending home station training for Reserve and Guard units; two, slowing the training of units slated to deploy next to Iraq and Afghanistan; three, cutting the funding for the upgrade or renovation of barracks and other facilities that support quality of life for troops and their families; and fourth, stopping the repair of equipment necessary to support pre-deployment training.

If the supplemental is not passed by May 15th, the Army will be forced to consider the following: one, reducing the repair work being done at Army depots; two, delaying or curtailing the deployment of brigade combat teams to their training rotations; three, this, in turn, will cause additional units in theater to have their tours extended because other units are not ready to take their place; four, delaying the formation of new brigade combat teams; five, implementation of a civilian hiring freeze; sixth, prohibiting the execution of new contracts and service orders, including service contracts for training events and facilities; and seventh, holding or cancelling the order of repair parts to non-deployed units in the Army.

This kind of disruption to key programs will have a genuinely adverse effect on the readiness of the Army and the quality of life for soldiers and their families. I urge the Congress to pass the supplemental as quickly as possible."

So that's what those "supportive" Democrats have voted for. I know that I am a partisan, but I cannot think of a more shameful and craven political act. If the Democrats think they have a mandate to end the war, so be it. Take an open vote on it and accept the consequences. Instead of doing that, the Dems have opted for positioning themselves for political gain if the Iraq War situation does not improve. One thing is certain, if Gen. Petraeus turns out to be a modern-day Sherman and the "surge" turns Iraq around, the "Defeato-crats" will have sealed their doom with this vote.