Friday, March 23, 2007

Washington Post on Pork

From the sub-title: Are Democrats in the House voting for farm subsidies or withdrawal from Iraq?

AT issue is the $20 BILLION in pork spending, added to bride Democrates to support the withdrawal timetable. Captain's Quarters has this to say:

The pork shows that the Democrats have no mandate for a cut-and-run strategy. Had that mandate existed, they would have simply voted to explicitly defund the war and force a withdrawal, a move well within Congressional authority.

Because, in case you need me to connect the dots, they would have supported the supplemental funding without the pork incentives.

Of course, the pork had nothing to do with their sudden support. They gave up on their wrongheaded but principled demand to produce an honest withdrawal bill out of a sense of ... what? Duty? Honor? It seems that surrender comes rather naturally to this group of Democrats.

The timing of the withdrawal seems rather suspect, too. What conditions led them to select August 31, 2008? Did they carefully review the current operations in Iraq and determine when they could reasonably be completed? No. They selected that date because it comes about ten weeks before the Presidential election -- an election they hope to win by giving their activist base the surrender they have demanded for years.

Oh, that can't be true! Certainly the democrats are not that politically motivated.