Looks like they were all against the war in Iraq -- until, when offered a chance to do something about it, the were for it.

Bravo to Investor's Business Daily for calling them on it.

Democrats have relentlessly called, or implied their support, for a pullout. But when they get a chance to bring troops home, they don't back up the talk. Perhaps they should sit out the rest of the war in silence.

Democratic senators had their first chance last week to force the administration to surrender, uh, pull the troops from Iraq. The Senate considered a resolution Thursday that would have brought U.S. soldiers home by the end of the year.

The debate was described by one reporter as "bitter and sometimes raucous." This might make one think that, in a Senate that is nearly evenly split between the parties, the vote would be close.

The result? By a 93-6 margin, the idea was rejected. So much for all the fuss.

The six votes in favor of withdrawal were, of course, cast by Democrats. But a large majority of Senate Democrats — 37 of them — are forever on the record as voting to keep U.S. troops in Iraq.

What happened to all the heated rhetoric about the war being a blunder and the need to retreat from the "quagmire"? Is it confined to those six who supported a pullout: Sens. John Kerry and Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, Robert Byrd of West Virginia, Barbara Boxer of California, Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and Tom Harkin of Iowa?

Maybe real Democratic opposition to the war is found only in the House, where on Friday congressmen voted to stay in Iraq by a margin of 256-153. All but four of those "nay" votes came from Democrats.

Yet 42 Democrats supported it along with 214 Republicans. As pundit Robert Novak noted, that's a significant defection for a party in an election year. The observation that Democrats voted based on what they figure will give them their best chances in the upcoming elections is no more cynical than casting a vote for just that reason.

Last fall, House Democrats had a chance to force an immediate pullout from Iraq soon after decorated Vietnam War veteran John Murtha, a Democratic congressman from Pennsylvania, began to mouth off about bringing troops home.

But they voted in large numbers against retreat. The final tally was 403-3. Is there a resolution short of one that says the sky is blue that could get so close to having unanimous support in this — seemingly — divided House?

So why must Democrats talk so much about pulling out of Iraq when they refuse to follow through on their rhetoric? Are they so politically reflexive against the Bush war that they can't control their tongues even as they know that staying the course in Iraq is necessary?

The Democrats have muttered about Republicans baiting them with loaded legislation. Thursday's House bill, for instance, included language about winning the war on terror and protecting "freedom from the terrorist adversary." How, they ask, could they vote against that even when they oppose the primary provision of the resolution — the rejection of a forced timetable for a pullout?

Well, Kerry says he is writing his own withdrawal plan legislation that could be introduced this week. We're eager to see what kind of support his bill will get — and which of his Democratic colleagues will actually vote for retreat after voting against it.

The obvious answer to why the Senate Democrats (and 1/5 of the hHouse Democrats) failed to vote their rhetoric -- no courage, no convictions. And as a result, no victory in the fall.

Posted by: Greg at 02:02 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 618 words, total size 4 kb.