Democrats fear vote on funding troops

AP/Houston Chronicle:

Given a chance, many House Democrats might support a resolution committing Congress to fund U.S. troops in Iraq. But fearing that might muddle their message opposing President Bush's Iraq policy, party leaders are not giving them the opportunity.

As the House opens debate on a symbolic resolution registering opposition to Bush's proposed troop buildup in Iraq, Democrats are set to prevent Republicans from offering their own version. The fear is that a GOP alternative could expose a potentially messy divide within Democratic ranks over whether to cut off or restrict funding for troops on the ground.

The choreography of this week's Iraq debate reflects the dilemma facing Democrats on the war, which figured prominently in their rise to power. There is broad support for the Democratic-written resolution opposing Bush's plan to add 21,500 troops. But many rank-and-file members — particularly moderate newcomers who rode to Congress on a wave of public discontent about Iraq — are wary of ending funding for the mission.

"We don't think that it ought to be confused by any other issues that might be raised," House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland said of his party's resolution Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press."

Hoyer had said earlier that Republicans would have a chance to offer their own measure, but reversed course over the weekend and said that was "not necessarily" the case.

The tightly controlled approach to running the House is becoming a habit with Democrats, who complained bitterly during their dozen years in the minority about similar Republican tactics. When Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, the Republican leader, groused about it Sunday, Hoyer shot back sarcastically, "Poor John."

...

OK. So we know the Democrats are hypocrites about House rules, but the bigger message of this debate is that they are hypocrites when it comes to the war in Iraq. They are willing to take an irresponsible position on the war as long as it is just for political purposes, but they do not have the courage or the conviction to cut off funds.

This Washington Times Editorial examines what happened to the Democrat's promise to allow a vote on the Republican alternative.

...

Mr. Hoyer's broken promise is indicative of the way Democrats have been talking out of both sides of their mouth on the Iraq war. For their anti-war base, Democrats are keeping hope alive that they will -- at some uncertain date -- oppose the war more forcefully, perhaps by voting to cut off funding. But to the public at large, Democrats don't want to be viewed as abandoning the troops. A clear example of this doubletalk are all the Democratic votes confirming Gen. David Petraeus and Adm. William Fallon, both of whom support the president's new war plan. For now, all the Democrats have the strength for is a nonbinding resolution that opposes the troop surge. That kind of resolve was nicely ridiculed by presidential aspirant John Edwards, who compared it to a child "standing in the corner and stomping his feet."

...

They are trying to keep hope alive for the enemy and their phony anti war base.