Democrat definitions of “change in course”: a retrospective

Prior to the election, the American people were promised by Democrats hoping to get elected or re-elected or Dems who were trying to help out either that we needed a ‘change in course’ in Iraq. That ‘change in course’ was a bit mysterious on its face, because the Democrats never really clearly defined what that ‘change in course’ was. The Dems read the polls, saw that Americans were unsatisfied with how the Iraq war was going, and told potential supporters ‘we’ll change the course in Iraq’, which, to the casual follower of politics sounds like ‘they’re gonna take us from losing to winning.’

Not long after the elections, the Dem ‘leadership’ finally defined what that ‘change in course’ actually meant. Below, you’ll find a small sampling of what exactly it was they meant (and what their Democratic supporters wanted):

— 11/8/06 — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says Iraq is “not a war to be won, but a situation to be solved.”

— 11/12/06 — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi endorses Rep. John Murtha, who had pushed for a cut and run plan that would have had our troops out of Iraq byNovember 2005, for House Majority Leader. Murtha is considered by Pelosi to be the person responsible for changing the ‘national debate’ on Iraq.

— 11/14/06 — Harry Reid is elected Senate Majority Leader. He states in December that he’d be ok with a short-term surge in troops, but mysteriously changes his mind once the President announces his surge plan.

— Mid Nov. 2006 — Some House Dems start to throw Steny Hoyer, the more moderate Dem candidate for Majority Leader, under the bus because he didn’t share Murtha’s cut and run position on Iraq. Surprisingly, Hoyer won.

— 12/1/06 — Anti-war Democrat Silvestre Reyes is chosen to be the House Intelligence Committee chair. In December, he states that he would be on board with a surge plan. In January, he abruptly changes his mind.

— End of December 2006 — Several Democrats announce they’re on board with placing ‘spending restrictions’ on the Iraq war.

— 1/4/07 — Rep. John Murtha tells the Arianna Huffington in an interview that he planned on “fencing the funding” for the Iraq war. The leftosphere jumped with joy.

— 1/6/07 — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Rep. John Murtha announce that “it’s time to bring the war to a close”, signalling the official beginning of the Dem plan to cut and run in the Democratic controlled Congress.

— Mid Jan. 2007 — Democrats who were formally for the surge come out against it– once the President makes clear he’s for it.

— 1/18/07 — Fox News releases a poll that shows 49% of Dems in this country either don’t want us to win in Iraq or are “don’t know” whether or not they want us to.

— 1/23/07 — When the President talks about the need for victory in Iraq in his SOTU, most Democrats – including Speaker Nancy Pelosi, seated behind the President – do not stand, and do not applaud.

— 1/24/07 — The Senate Foreign Relations Committee votes 12-9 against Bush’s surge plan.

— 1/25/07 — Senator Russ Feingold announces that he plans to use the “power of the purse” to end the Iraq war.

— 2/14/07 — The Dem ‘slow bleed’ strategy to force the President into withdrawing from Iraq is revealed.

— 2/16/07 — The Washington Times quotes Rep. Murtha saying this about the ‘slow bleed’ Iraq war funding strategy:

“They won’t be able to continue. They won’t be able to do the deployment. They won’t have the equipment, they don’t have the training and they won’t be able to do the work. There’s no question in my mind,” Mr. Murtha said.

— 2/16/07 — Democrats overwhelmingly pass a ‘non-binding’ resolution stating condemning the President’s surge plan. 17 Republicans join. That these Republicans joined up with Democrats on this resolution is a disappointment (as is Republican Senator Chuck Hagel’s weak-kneed stance on the Iraq war), but the fact that it rec’d such overwhelming support from Democrats who want to make this country think they are strong on national security issues should not get lost in the shuffle (read the blogosphere buzz on today’s non-binding resolution vote here).

The President, as the CIC, naturally is supposed to project strength in a time of war. Having the support of Congress to complete the mission would show a unified front, and would provide encouragement to our troops serving in Iraq as well as show the terrorist thugs that we stand strong – and together – in fighting terrorism. That these Democrats have chosen to present a united front against the President at this crucial time in the Iraq war when our troops, our nation, and the enemy need now more than ever to see a strong united front speaks volumes about supposed Democratic ‘strengths’ on national security: they simply don’t exist.

Read related thoughts via: Captain Ed, Hugh Hewitt, Jules Crittenden, John Hinderaker at Powerline, Decision ’08, Blog For All, Flopping Aces, bRight and Early, Sweetness and Light

Comments are closed.