As I write, the Senate is still in all-night session in "debate" over the Democratic plan to surrender and run from Iraq. It will accomplish nothing, except perhaps feed some red meat to the hard anti-war left, unhappy with the slow progress towards defeat.
When Republicans held the majority and Democrats killed this bill and that over the threat of filibuster, many conservatives argued we should force the Democrats out in similar all-night sessions, making them follow through on the threat of filibuster. The idea was that with 24 hour coverage on video, filibusters such as Strom Thurmond's record marathon speech, in which he spun tails of fishing as a youngster and read from the DC telephone directory, would be exposed as ridiculous and become unsustainable.
But people with entrenched political positions are unlikely to be moved by criticism from the opposition - which is where it all would originate. This effort gains publicity, but adds neither clarity nor insight to the debate, nor does it have any effect on the ultimate fate of the legislation.
All it proves is that, of all elected federal officials, Senators can be the most ridiculous.
The salient point was made earlier today, by Senator John McCain. Read it below the fold:
No matter where my colleagues came down in 2003 about the centrality of Iraq to the war on terror, there can simply be no debate that our efforts in Iraq today are critical to the wider struggle against violent Islamic extremism. Already, the terrorists are emboldened, excited that America is talking not about winning in Iraq, but is rather debating when we should lose. Last week, Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda's deputy chief, said that the United States is merely delaying our "inevitable" defeat in Iraq, and that "the Mujahideen of Islam in Iraq of the caliphate and jihad are advancing with steady steps towards victory." He called on Muslims to travel to Iraq to fight Americans, and appealed for Muslims to support the Islamic State in Iraq, a group established by al Qaeda.
General Petraeus has called al Qaeda "the principal short-term threat to Iraq." What do the supporters of this amendment believe to be the consequences of our leaving the battlefield with al Qaeda in place? If we leave Iraq prematurely, jihadists around the world will interpret the withdrawal as their great victory against our great power. Their movement thrives in an atmosphere of perceived victory; we saw this in the surge of men and money flowing to al Qaeda following the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan. If they defeat the United States in Iraq, they will believe that anything is possible, that history is on their side, that they really can bring their terrible rule to lands the world over. Recall the plan laid out in a letter from Zawahiri to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, before his death. That plan is to take shape in four stages: establish a caliphate in Iraq, extend the "jihad wave" to the secular countries neighboring Iraq, clash with Israel - none of which shall commence until the completion of stage one: expel the Americans from Iraq. Mr. President, the terrorists are in this war to win it. The question is: Are we?The supporters of this amendment respond that they do not by any means intend to cede the battlefield to al Qaeda; on the contrary, their legislation would allow U.S. forces, presumably holed up in forward operating bases, to carry out targeted counterterrorism operations. But our own military commanders say that this approach will not succeed, and that moving in with search and destroy missions to kill and capture terrorists, only to immediately cede the territory to the enemy, is the failed strategy of the past three and a half years....
Those are the likely consequences of a precipitous withdrawal, and I hope that the supporters of such a move will tell us what they believe to be the likely consequences of this course of action. Should their amendment become law, and U.S. troops begin withdrawing, do they believe that Iraq will become more or less stable? That al Qaeda will find it easier to gather, plan, and carry out attacks from Iraqi soil, or that our withdrawal will somehow make this less likely? That the Iraqi people become more or less safe? That genocide becomes a more remote possibility or ever likelier?
Mr. President, this fight is about Iraq but not about Iraq alone. It is greater than that and more important still, about whether America still has the political courage to fight for victory or whether we will settle for defeat, with all of the terrible things that accompany it. We cannot walk away gracefully from defeat in this war.
Permalink | Send To A Friend | Linking Blogs | Digg this!
Filed under:
Congress
Tags: debate, Iraq, Senate
Comments (2)
I think I'm officially sick... (Below threshold)1. Posted by Falze | July 18, 2007 9:55 AM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
I think I'm officially sick of the 'if we leave everyone will say they beat us' argument. It just doesn't hold water and those of us that think we're doing the right thing in Iraq really should come up with a better argument. The Israeli incursion into Lebanon is a ready template. It doesn't matter if we win, lose, or draw in Iraq, the psycho killers will proclaim that they have beaten us and the unschooled and the liberals will give them a big 'amen' on it and then try to justify it as no more than we deserve for having the audacity to fight back when they slaughter our innocents.
I truly believe we could sequester the innocents in Iraq, let's say in the eastern half of the country, set up our military in the west, and invite any and all islamofascist stone-agers to come and get some. We could kill them until the bodies piled to the sky, until we ran out of bullets, until we ran out of bombs. We could slaughter everyone in the world intent on religious control through terrorism, hand the now-safe (yet corpse littered) country over to the innocent iraqis, and head home, victorious - and the next day Nancy Pelosi would be decrying our humbling in Iraq. The remaining religious diehards (the non-terrorist ones that didn't show up to be killed) would issue proclamations that we were driven from Iraq with our tails between our legs, and gloat about how they made us have to fight them and risk our soldiers just to kill simple 'insurgents.'
It just sounds like the argument of perpetual losers to me, too much like the lame "if we don't go out to dinner tomorrow the terrorists have won" laments. Do I think it's important to finish the job? Yep. Do I think the innocents in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East deserve to be free of the threat of being blown up for the crime of going to the store or having a job to feed their children? Yep. I just think this is a bad argument for it in light of the fact that Israel waged a very successful campaign in Lebanon, the enemy leader admitted that Israel had crushed them, and yet it is already widely accepted that Israel not only lost in Lebanon, but lost badly because they failed to kill every enemy hiding amonst the innocent populace or didn't win without firing a shot or lost because they didn't aquire the Phoenix Suns as part of the war or something.
Just come out and say it. "If we leave before finishing the job of making Iraq a safer place, capable of defending itself against terrorist threats, and removing internal threats, it is because we were unwilling to confront terrorists willing to cut off the heads of the innocent and blow up children at play and because it is true that America no longer has the will to fight to defend freedom at home or abroad. We surrender." John Edwards wants a bumper sticker? Make him one that says, "We surrender!" and get one for all our congressmen and make sure they put them on their cars. Give them out at VFW events and Memorial Day parades. Stop beating around the Bush (and beating the Bush about it) and be upfront about what 'ending the war' means. You can only end a war when one (or both) sides no longer continues either through surrender (ceding the contested battlefield) or the inability to continue the waging of the war (destruction). When one side wants to keep fighting and has the means and the second side also has the means to keep defending themselves, yet leaves the battlefield, the retreating side has indeed 'ended the war'. It has done so by surrender. Just as we will never have a signing of peace terms with terrorists, we need not sign any surrender terms. Ceding the battlefield to them is all the evidence the world needs that we have lost by surrender. "We surrender!" Take the initiative from the leftists and the Hillary who would be Queen and stop letting them use weasel words about 'ending the war'. Jump up on stage with them proudly waving "We surrender!" bumper stickers and make sure they hold them, too. After all, we're all in this together. If they're going to surrender, we're all going to surrender. Then ask them what our next step is after we retreat behind our no-longer-protective seas? Gut intelligence. Gut the military. Get rid of missile defense. You want a DNC bumper sticker? It's "We surrender (and we're taking America down with us)!"
1. Posted by Falze | July 18, 2007 9:55 AM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on July 18, 2007 09:55
2. Posted by Steve_in_Corona | July 18, 2007 6:05 PM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
There is no reason for the all-night session when a cloture vote does not have the 60 votes necessary, and that is why the GOP did not do these sorts of stunts.
A true filibuster takes place when there are 60 votes for cloture, and a Senator refuses to give up the floor - because he knows cloture (and the subsequent legislation vote) will pass.
THAT is what Thurmond did. THAT is what Byrd has often done. THAT is what Mr. Smith Goes to Washington was all about.
Frankly, all it takes is one member of the opposition to voice against unanimous consent - and the thing stalls. The GOP did not have to be there en masse last night.
This was a Reid stunt, nothing more.
2. Posted by Steve_in_Corona | July 18, 2007 6:05 PM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on July 18, 2007 18:05