Author: Jonn Lilyea

According to Washington Time’s Christina Bellantoni, the Democrats have so many “plans” they can’t even keep them straight any more;

Rep. Maxine Waters, California Democrat, of the Out of Iraq Caucus could hardly keep the details straight as she attempted to excoriate the plan proposed by her Democratic leaders.
    “What they say is, if in fact there is no progress that we will pull out, if they can’t certify by October, by December, but if there is progress, if they are doing well, we will stay,” she said. “This would eventually get us out perhaps by March. The latest we would get out I guess with another progress report, or certification, by August of 1980.”

Yup, 1980. I guess Marxist Maxine isn’t getting senile much.

So let’s listen (or read, rather) to Nancy Pelosi’s explanation;

After House Speaker Nancy Pelosi carefully detailed the Democrats’ suggested benchmarks and requirements for President Bush to ensure that U.S. troops are fully ready before being sent to Iraq, reporters peppered her with questions to try and get the point.
    “I’m confused,” one reporter told the speaker.
    “OK, well, let’s try again,” the California Democrat responded. “If the president cannot demonstrate that progress has been made in reaching the benchmarks which he, President Bush, has established by July 1 of 2007, we begin — the 180-day period of redeployment begins, to be finished in 180 days.”
    But, what happens between July 1 and Oct. 1? the scribe asked. 
   “If the president shows that progress is being made on July 1, say he can certify that, then we …”
    “All he has to do is say progress is being made?” the perplexed reporter interrupted.
    “Well, he has to certify and demonstrate that it has been. If he cannot — if he does that, that takes us to October 1, where we want to see the completion of those benchmarks. If that is not achieved, the 180 days begins.”
    Some in the room giggled.
    Exasperated, she concluded: “No matter what, by March 2008, the redeployment begins.”

Got that? Me neither.

Kimberly Strassel of the Wall Street Journal describes Peolsi’s dilemma;

Ms. Pelosi has been backed into a tight corner over President Bush’s $100 billion request for war funding. Hoping to quell a revolt from a liberal bloc that wants out of Iraq, pronto, the speaker unveiled a new, new plan yesterday that includes a timetable for withdrawal — to begin as early as July. Ms. Pelosi needs to win this vote, the first real showdown over Iraq. But it’s becoming increasingly clear she can only do that by sacrificing her moderate wing, which opposes her plan and could pay heavily for it in next year’s election.

Maybe it’s because the Democrats don’t know why they won the Novemeber election. They’d like to think it’s because of the war – that would be the easiest answer. But, I’ve always held that they won because republican Congress was acting too much like a Democrat Congress and it angered Republican voters. But Democrats would have to give up their “mandate from the voters” in order to admit that scenario.

So we bloggers will get two more years of foundering Democrats to point at and laugh.

According to an AP story in the DC Examiner the Democrats will push for a Fall ’08 withdrawal from Iraq;

In a direct challenge to President Bush, House Democrats announced Thursday that they will push legislation setting a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq.

The Democratic plan, said House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, will bring an “orderly and responsible close” to American participation in Iraq’s “civil war.”

Any other information they want to give al Qaida? And why did Democrats wait to announce this just as the President leaves the country for delicate talks with our allies to the South? Is this their way of undermining those efforts, too?

Now the Islamic world can just sit back and relax, rebuild and train; they have the schedule. And I wonder why Democrats chose Fall of 2008 as their exit date. What’s happening then?  Why didn’t they really display their cojones and push for Fall 2007? Maybe because Iraq would be bathed in fire by the time elections rolled around if they had and they’d have to admit that they don’t know squat about dealing with terrorists during an election.

The Washington Post writes about the anguished Democrats;

Even in her conservative Kansas district, calls and letters to freshman House Democrat Nancy Boyda show a constituency overwhelmingly ready for U.S. troops to come home from Iraq.

Yet as the House nears a legislative showdown on the war, Boyda finds herself wracked with doubts. She is convinced that Congress must intervene to stop the war, but is fearful of the chaos that a quick U.S. pullout could prompt. “Congress has an obligation to do something,” Boyda said. But she is unsure what to do, worried about anything that “affects commanders on the ground.”

Yeah, I can see how much they care about the commanders on the ground.

Meanwhile, attacks in Iraq are down 80% according to the World Tribune. i wonder if attacks down because they know they can just wait us out – or wait Congress out.