Democrats: Chaos Ahead

The Democrats who have been arguing against President Bush's "surge" plan for Iraq, are waging a new war against the President's ability to control the military in Iraq.

Democrats have promised to produce a relentless torrent of legislation on Iraq. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) has said -

"There will be resolution after resolution, amendment after amendment . . . just like in the days of Vietnam," Schumer said. "The pressure will mount, the president will find he has no strategy, he will have to change his strategy and the vast majority of our troops will be taken out of harm's way and come home."

And Chuck appears to be correct so far.

After the House passed the recent non-binding resolution on the President's "surge" plan in Iraq, top House Democrats, led by Rep. John Murtha (D-PA), went to work on a plan that would essentially put an end to U.S. involvement in Iraq.

The plan works like this, Murtha will attach a provision to an upcoming appropriations bill for Iraq and Afghanistan that will restrict the release of funds for troops heading to Iraq unless a list of requirements are met. These requirements, as Murtha admits, can only be met by a few of the units to be used for the proposed "surge" plan by the President. In effect, this will restrict the President's ability to select and deploy troops, provide reinforcements, move troops, all the things that a Commander-in-Chief might need to do to win a war. Indeed, General Petraeus may find it difficult to execute his plan to suppress the insurgency in Iraq with these restrictions in place.

But the plan goes further than that. These restrictions on which troops would be available to redeploy to Iraq would make it hard for the Pentagon to find replacements for troops returning from the Iraq theater. So they come home, but no reinforcements can go back in their place. Essentially, it ends the US military presence in Iraq through a "slow bleed." And without directly cutting off funding. It's a sly plan that placates the anti-war left who want the troops out of Iraq yesterday while not seeming to turn their back on the troops already there.

Attaching this plan to an appropriations bill is a sly move.  Because the President needs these funds to be passed by Congress in order to continue funding for military operations in Iraq.  And appropriations bills cannot be filibustered.

Murtha explains that his plan is setup to look out for the troops' best welfare by making sure they are equipped, trained, rested, etc. But almost in the same breath admits that due to the requirements of his plan they won't have the training, they won't have the equipment, they won't be able to do the work.  He even goes so far as to say, "We have analyzed this and we have come to the conclusion that it can’t be done"

Link to entire video with accompanying analysis here.

In response to Murtha's rambling, Fox's Britt Hume and a few others had this to say about Murtha's plan...

Murtha's plan may see its way through the House but is likely to face a tough fight in the Senate.  Even if it somehow passes through both chambers it's hard to say where this will go exactly.  The Constitution seems clear on who commands the military - and it's not Congress.  The President has made his side clear however, and he seems ready for a fight.

But it doesn't stop with Murtha's plan.  Sen. Joseph Biden (D-DE) and Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) also have a plan regarding Iraq.  Biden is the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and Levin is the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.  Their plan is to simply repeal the authorization given by Congress in 2002 to use military force in Iraq.  They will replace this with new legislation that will restrict the U.S. military's role in Iraq.  House Speaker, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), supports this plan.

Charles Krauthammer had this to say about these plans at the Washington Post:

"Slowly bleeding our forces by defunding what our commanders think they need to win (the House approach) or rewording the authorization of the use of force so that lawyers decide what operations are to be launched (the Senate approach) is no way to fight a war. It is no way to end a war. It is a way to complicate the war and make it inherently unwinnable -- and to shirk the political responsibility for doing so."

And it looks as if the Democrats might be overplaying their hand with all this as well.  Two recent opinion polls show that Americans aren't necessarily behind the idea of a hasty retreat from Iraq.  From the Washington Times:

"According to a poll released Feb. 20 by Public Opinion Strategies, by a margin of 53 to 46 percent, Americans agree that "The Democrats are going too far, too fast in pressing the President to withdraw the troops from Iraq." By 57-41 percent margins, voters agree with both of the following statements: "The Iraq War is a key part of the global war on terrorism," and "I support finishing the job in Iraq, that is, keeping the troops there until the Iraqi government can maintain control and provide security."

Now Murtha seems to be taking a trip back to the drawing board even before the plan is officially introduced to Congress.

"If this is going to be legislation that's crafted in such a way that holds back resources from our troops, that is a non-starter, an absolute non-starter," declared Rep. Jim Matheson (Utah), a leader of the conservative Blue Dog Democrats."

The Democrats have other problems to contend with:  the ultra left.  Besides demanding an immediate end to the war, ultra left wing elements are demanding impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney.  And they seem to be growing increasingly impatient as time goes on and these two items are not addressed.

For proof of that, I need only to point you to Michelle Malkin who has this article concerning Sen. Patty Murray in Washington State - with story and links to video - Dear God, by all means watch the video.  Further analysis here.

As one commenter noted, "hate it when you find yourself accountable to the idiots that elected you."