Symbolic vote

Dems to schedule "symbolic vote"

Political hypocrisy seems to be reaching new stratospheric levels. Tonight, President Bush will reveal his new plan for victory in Iraq. Part of that includes sending more troops to Iraq for temporary added security. Should this have been done months ago? Nancy Pelosi thought so, but dwelling in the past does nothing to assure victory. Say what you want about Bush, but he values the opinion of his military leaders. If they ask for something, they get it. That has always been the case, so the current troop increase doesn’t appear to be any different. Obviously, the military leaders on the ground feel that more troops are needed, and Bush wants to see that it’s done.

So the Democrats have a response planned. The majority of them don’t want more troops, that’s understandable. They see more troops as a Vietnam-esque escalation, also understandable. So they plan to hold a "symbolic vote" on the President’s proposal. A symbolic vote…not an actual vote with power behind it. They plan to propose that all of Congress votes on whether or not they approve of the troop increase. Again, the outcome of the vote is meaningless, it just puts each Congressman on record for supporting or not supporting Bush’s proposal. The point behind it is this, make the Republicans vote, and put themselves on the record, so if it goes wrong then ’08 looks good for the Dems. Naturally, the Dems will allow the funding for the troop increase while voting "symbolically" against the troop increase. Basically, it’s a way for them to say they voted for AND against the troop increase, so either way, regardless of the outcome, they look good.

This may be smart politics, but it’s politics nonetheless. I see the Democratic Party as the party of cowardice, and that’s about as nice as I can be about it. You see, if they REALLY opposed the troop increase, they could stop it…they simply deny the funding for it. The President can do nothing about it. BUT, that would make the Dems look like they’re not supporting the troops, a bad campaign move for ’08. So even though they oppose troop increases, they don’t REALLY oppose them because it may hurt them politically to do so. Basically, they lack true principle. Their actions are based, not on doing what they think is right, but on doing what’s needed to win elections. This is politics at its core and it’s disgusting. This symbolic vote thing is ridiculous, and I think it will backfire.

In my view, the Dems need to put their money where their mouth is. If they oppose Bush’s plan, then deny the funding. In essence, STAND UP FOR WHAT YOU BELIEVE. I have much more respect for people who do that than those who play the political game. If they vote "symbolically" against the troop increase, then vote to approve the funding, it makes them all look like a bunch of John Kerry’s… "I voted for the war before I voted against it". Flip-flop, flip-flop. As I recall, he LOST in ’04. It was a bad strategy.

This is probably a retaliatory thing. Remember, when all the Dems were talking about pulling out of Iraq, the Republicans put the issue to a vote. And the Dems voted against a sudden troop pull-out. They were forced to go on record amid their rhetoric, and they were mad about it. So now, it has come full circle. My guess is that the Republicans will go along with what the troop commanders want. They will symbolically vote for the troop increase, at least if their smart, so that a follow up vote to approve the funding won’t look contradictory. The Dems will be the ones looking foolish here, but that’s not anything new.

What I would like to see is BOTH parties having a common goal…Victory in Iraq. Wouldn’t that be nice? Politics has no business – NONE – in war. It just gets more people killed while accomplishing nothing. Remember Vietnam? If these politicians would just shut it and get the hell out of the military’s way, this war could be won. But, that may make one party look better than the other, and our politicians simply can’t allow that.