Or put a “sunset provision” on it?
They act like the only option they have is the budget, which is too strange.
Perhaps you are unaware that the President would have to sign any repeal.
Besides, the Democrats have an image as a “soft on defense” party (not entirely unearned, it must be noted.)
Even as unpopular as this war is, the Democrats can’t pull out in such a way as to make them unelectable. So look for a lot of squabbling around the margins, and no direct confrontations on war funding or the authorization of force.
Unless there were two-thirds in each house of Congress ready to override a veto – which, even after the midterm elections, would require a lot of Pub defections.
For the same reason they voted to invade in the first place – because they’re chickenshits.
I don’t think you can unring that bell.
And semifrequently there are stories on CBS, MSNBC, and CNN about senior Republican Senators and Representatives distancing themselves from Bush – and mainly on Iraq.
Actually yes. Entirely unearned. Without any great affection for the Democrats, There is still not a a single instance when one of their administrations has neglected to take defensive action in response to an attack upon the United States.
Unless you mean ‘unearned by the GOP’, in which case you are correct. The GOP has done the hard work and spends the cash to buy a ‘soft on defense’ reputation for the Democrats.
It must also be cited.
Jimmy Carter and the taking of our embassy staff in Iran.
Bill Clinton and the two US embassies and the USS Cole (minimal response at best)
Bill Clinton and US troops in Somalia (yes, Bush Sr. put us there first, Clinton kept us around).
Now, you can certainly claim that none of these was US soil (the embassy being one of those legal distinctions). You can also mention that Clinton was distracted by a hostile Republican operation. But these events do hurt the Democrats in this area.
Now shall we add in members of Gore’s team tossing out military absentee ballots in Florida? While it can be justified for multiple reasons, I want to point out that it played VERY poorly among the military. Add in recent comments from certain senior Democrats about the people in the military, and it STILL does not play well.
The Republicans certainly do use soft on defense in their propoganda, but the Democrats can certaily be found guilty of feeding them straight lines and making it easy.
Perhaps I have mixed soft on defense with pro-military too much, but the Republicans have gotten away with the characterization because there is enough truth to the claim.
But, strangely Reagan’s hasty retreat from Lebanon after 241 American soldiers, sailors and marines were killed is not taken as evidence that the Republicans are “weak on defense”. Neither is the Republican opposition to Clinton’s intervention in Kosovo and his air strikes against Al Qaeda. Neither is the refusal of the Republican Congress or President Bush to inact the provisions of the 9-11 Commission with regard to port security. Similarly the repeated Republican cuts of funding to the Veterans Administration over the last few years are not taken as evidence that Republicans are hostile to the military.
The four major American military engagements of the past hundred years (both World Wars, Korea and Vietnam) have been primarily fought under the administrations of Democratic Presidents. (True Nixon oversaw the last six years of the Vietnam War, but during that time his primary goal was de-escalation and ending the conflict.) Similarly it was a Democratic President (JFK) who stared down the USSR during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
There is just as much evidence that the Republicans are as “soft on defense” as the Democrats or more so, yet that’s never talked about. Probably because the Democrats haven’t spent the last twenty years aggressively pushing that particular empty talking point … .
(FWIW I don’t really think the Republicans are inherently any softer on defense than the Democrats. I’m just pointing out that the “evidence” of Democratic weakness exists only through a selective reading of history.)
If the Democrats manage to force a withdrawal against the wishes of the President he can make political hay out of it.
Also, there is this: what if he refuses to withdraw them and “abandons” them in place? When the money runs out Congress will have to authorize more money whether they want to or not or they will be the ones seen as abandoning the troops. The Democrats will never win another election again. Ever.