Yesterday, I talked about Democrats floating a trial balloon about how to ensure defeat in Iraq. I said then that I was speculating about how they would propose this redefinition of the military’s role in Iraq. This AP article clarifies how the Democrats plan on limiting the mission. Here’s what the AP tells us about Reid’s proposal:

The wording of the Democrats’ measure, for instance whether it would try to revoke Bush’s authority for the war or merely tailor it more narrowly, remains unsettled. One version would restrict American troops to fighting the al-Qaida terrorist network, training Iraqi army and police forces, maintaining Iraq’s territorial integrity and hastening the withdrawal of combat forces.

Reid, (D-NV), intends to present the proposal to fellow Democrats next week. He is expected to try to add the measure to anti-terrorism legislation scheduled to be debated later.

This is clearly unconstitutional because the Legislative Branch is micromanaging the war, telling the Commander-in-Chief how troops should be deployed, what limits the troops must obey. In other words, Senate Democrats are trying to assume the role of Commander-in-Chief.

Yesterday, I speculated that Levin and Reid might do this by writing a new AUMF, which might be constitutional. I said then that I didn’t think it had a chance of getting past Mitch McConnell’s filibuster but Reid could argue that it’s a constitutional way of setting these restrictions. By putting this into anti-terrorism legislation, this takes it out of the realm of constitutionality.

What’s worse about this whole thing is that Jim Manley, Reid’s spokesman, is accusing the White House of spinning while telling some significant whoppers. Here’s what I’m referring to:

“They can spin all they want, but the fact is that President Bush is ignoring a bipartisan majority of Congress, his own military commanders, and the American public in escalating the war,” said Jim Manley. “The American people have demanded a change of course in Iraq and Democrats are committed to holding President Bush accountable.”

President Bush isn’t ignoring his military commanders. Gen. Petraeus asked for the additional troops. Manley also said that “the American public” is opposed to “escalating the war.” As I wrote here, the American people want President Bush to stay in Iraq until they can defend themselves:

9. I support finishing the job in Iraq, that is, keeping the troops there until the Iraqi government can maintain control and provide security for its people.
[Somewhat or Strongly Agree] 57%
[Somewhat or Strongly Disagree]41%

The only thing that Manley gets right in this quote is that the American people did demand “a change of course in Iraq.” The change of course that they’re demanding is that we show progress towards defeating the terrorists.

They weren’t demanding unilateral defeat. They were demanding undeniable victory.

Don’t be surprised if this comes back to bite them in the backside in 2008. As I said here, Democrats are overplaying their hand. In fact, I’d revise that and say that they’re overplaying their hand badly.

Technorati Tags: Harry Reid, AUMF, al Qaeda, Defeatocrats, Commander In Chief, Constitution

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

1. [...] Cross-posted at California Conservative Categories: The Constitution, Military, Iraq, President Bush, Harry Reid, Anti-War Activists, Appeasement, Election 2008, Defeatocrats | [...]

   Pingback by Let Freedom Ring » Blog Archive » Dems Ignoring Constitution — February 23, 2007 @ 10:13 pm

2. [...] Original post by Gary Gross and software by Elliott Back [...]

   Pingback by Dems Ignoring Constitution at Conservative Times--Republican GOP news source. — February 23, 2007 @ 10:59 pm

1. Interesting that the Senate resolution should come on Washington’s birthday. It would do well for the Senate to recall Congressional meddling damned near lost us the revolution in the winter of 1777/78.
   In that terrible winter, while General Howe settled himself comfortably in a whirl of social activity in docile and comlacent Philadelphia, Washington went to Valley Forge. And Congress? It hightailed itself to York, Pa. falling into the hands of intrigue and sectional politics, to the point of deciding who should be appointed leftenants, overruling Washington, mis-managing the commissary, delaying shipments of food and supplies, and worse, plotting to replace Washington with Gates.

   Washington watched the intrigue against him in silence until they overplayed their hand and crushed it by a quick exposure. He then turned away in contempt mentioning only “Their own artless zeal to advance their views has destroyed them”.

   Comment by T. A. Gray — February 24, 2007 @ 1:07 am

2. Liberals tried to get America to lose, because they were pacifists. However, they are still here and living off the hard fought soldiers of the Revolution.

   Comment by dadeeba — February 25, 2007 @ 6:03 pm