What Mandate?

I was actually reading Frank Rich this morning, which is a clear indicator of the depths to which my morale has sunk, and I stumbled across this claim that the election was a mandate for the cut and run crowd:

Unlike Vietnam, Iraq is not in the past: the war escalates even as all this finger-pointing continues. Very little has changed between the fourth anniversary of “Mission Accomplished” this year and the last. Back then, President Bush cheered an Iraqi “turning point” precipitated by “the emergence of a unity government.” Since then, what’s emerged is more Iraqi disunity and a major leap in the death toll. That’s why Americans voted in November to get out.

This claim that the November election result was a call to disarm has been made elsewhere - I noticed it in a recent Times story and heard it at a recent dinner party, but I can't find links to either one.

But not so fast!  Back before the ballots were cast, the Dem leadership was quite clear in their strategy - their pre-election plan was to refrain from offering a plan on Iraq, so that voters could focus on Bush's incompetence rather than Dem disunity and fecklessness.  This was a perfectly sensible strategy akin to offering the American public an opportunity to deliver a No Confidence vote.  However, a vote for new leadership is not necessarily the same as a vote for surrender.

For example, in September 2006 Nancy Pelosi presented her 100 Hours of Power as her bold agenda for new House leadership.  But there was no mention of Iraq (the nutroots speak!).

Earlier, Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid had offered a New Direction for America, which essentially ducked the Iraq question, although USA Today tried to flush them out:

In an interview Tuesday with USA TODAY, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi previewed the "New Direction for America" platform hammered out by Democratic members of Congress, mayors and governors. She and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid plan to formally unveil the plan today.

...She said Democratic candidates will be "independent representatives for their districts," a nod to the differing views within the party on issues such as abortion, gun control and Iraq. They are points on which Pelosi of California and Reid of Nevada haven't always agreed.

Michael Kinsley poked through the New Directions and came away laughing:

Competence, of course, brings us back to Iraq. Apparently and unfortunately, President Bush is right that the Democrats have no "plan for victory." (Neither does he, of course. Nor, for that matter, do I. But I don't claim to have one. And I didn't start it.) For national security in general, the Democrats' plan is so according-to-type that you cringe with embarrassment: It's mostly about new cash benefits for veterans. Regarding Iraq specifically, the Democrats' plan has two parts. First, they want Iraqis to take on "primary responsibility for securing and governing their country." Then they want "responsible redeployment" (great euphemism) of American forces.

Here is the Iraq segment of the New Direction playbook:

IRAQ

To Honor the Sacrifice of Our Troops, we will:

Ensure 2006 is a year of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with the Iraqis assuming primary responsibility for securing and governing their country and with the responsible redeployment of U.S. forces. 

Insist that Iraqis make the political compromises necessary to unite their country and defeat the insurgency; promote regional diplomacy; and strongly encourage our allies and other nations to play a constructive role.

Hold the Bush Administration accountable for its manipulated pre-war intelligence, poor planning and contracting abuses that have placed our troops at greater risk and wasted billions of taxpayer dollars.

Deadlines, timelines, withdrawals, funding cuts?  Where are they?  And since the new Congress would not take power until Jan 2007, how were the Dems planning to assure that 2006 would be a year of significant transition to fill Iraqi sovereignty?  Just asking.

Or from yet another tack, the Times was filled with pre-election stories  (1, 2, 3) about the Purple Democrats, moderates running against Bush.  Try and ferret out the Iraq position in those stories!

I have no problem with the Dem election strategy of concealing their cards and framing the election as a no confidence vote on the current leadership.  But please don't tell me after the fact that the election was an endorsement of a specific vision held by Frank Rich.

Comments

[clarice]

Rich forgets that we don't have to rely on hoarded yellowed clippings to document what was said at the time.
And you've returned to your old piss and vinegar style , TM. Bravo.

[Other Tom]

You're on dangerous ground when you start taking that simple-minded ex-film critic seriously.

[Jane]

Thank you. Every time I hear some moonbat talking about how the election was about ending the war I want to throw up.

[Daddy]

TM,
I recommend a good hard drunk. What say you head on down to The Strand used book store on I think Broadway and 12th, and pick up a well thumbed paperback on the history of beer. With that in hand, leave the Sunday Times and Frank Rich with the Kiosk hawker's and instead mosie on down to McSorley's 150 year old bar, and then start slamming home made brewsky's on that saw dust covered floor with off duty firemen til the cows come home. Guaranteed to do you a world of good. Cheers.

[TerryeL]

I know that the Democrat who won in my district said cut and run was a bad bad thing and he was going to get the price of gas down.

Well the gas prices are higher now than they were then and Ellsworth has turned into just another Democrat weenie when it comes to the war.

[clarice]

Sarkosy just won big and in his first speech pledged his support of the US and friendship between France and the US..but does he have a mandate?

[clarice]

Sarkozy just won big and in his first speech pledged his support of the US and friendship between France and the US..but does he have a mandate?

[SMGalbraith]

Boy, TM's doing his Miriano Rivera (2007 version) on this one.

No chance, Tom. Put this one in the "L" column because you can link until your fingers bleed before the MSM acknowledges that the Democrats had absolutely no Iraq policy pre-November elections.

They didn't. You're right.

You still blow the save.

(Okay, so the metaphor was completely mangled and makes no sense).

SMG

[clarice]

Canada's Martin attacked Bush and the US and was ousted by Harper. Shroeder bashed the US and was replaced by Merkel. Chirac screwed us over every chance he got and now is replaced by Sarko.

I blame Bush.

[Barry]

It is interesting how the Bush haters lose elections and the supporters usually win. It is peculiar considering the polls in these countries regarding the USA and Bush. Perhaps the polls are, heaven forbid, rigged?

[manys]

So wait, it's okay for Congress to "micromanage" and "substitute their ideas for those of the Generals on the ground in Iraq," but only when it's election season and the party heading into a defeat wants them to? Or is it not specifically Congress who should do these things when asked, but merely Democrats? I'm trying to unwrap the logic here.

[Forbes]

And all along, I thought Pelosi and the Dems were offering a nude erection playbook. They really are stuck between Iraq and a hard place.
/snark off.

[fschmieg]

Unfortunately, Spain elected that socialist weenie Zapatero and Italy chose Prodi. You can't win them all. In France, it was less about supporting or hating us and more about who looked like they could actually do something about the awful situation there economically and their growing muslim youth problem. Royal's desparate appeals to voting for her because she is a woman and her disgusting threat that France would erupt in flames (what else is new) if she were not elected iced her defeat.

[clarice]

Actually, I read more into the French election than you do. As I recall Villepin wanted Chirac's party's endorsement and he was the quintessential US basher and back stabber. It is sub rosa, but I do believe that the majority of French appreciate that the Franco-Arab alliance against the US was going to end in disaster for the French , not for us.

[TerryeL]

I think the French just want to try something different. Can't blame them for that.

But the Democrats did make a point of being vague about Iraq before the midterms. They bitched a lot but did not say anything about micromanaging the war etc. and timelines and all that.

The whole thing is absurd anyway, if Bush could set timelines and pull the troops out without the place going to hell I am sure he would. He has nothing to gain politically by keeping this going. But if you ask people, do you want to see the troops come home soon or by a certain date, of course lots of people will say yes.

I want to win the powerball too. Want in one hand....you know the rest.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Terrye, is that you?

[TerryeL]

Tis me. I had to make some changes when JOM went to typekey.

[Syl]

Thank you Thank you Thank you, Tom, for this. The 'end the iraq war mandate' business has been making me nuts. Thanks for the research and links!!!!!!

And, oh, can I admit now that there are things about France and the French I really really like? Like their movies and lovers and accent? :)

[manys]

I don't know if I'd go as far to say that Sarkosky supporters are Bush supporters. He is to the right of the socialist candidate, true, but both of those are to the left of someone like Dennis Kucinich. The US could never support a European spectrum of politics, so the left/right axes rarely line up.

[centralcal]

Happy Sunday evening all, and thanks, Tom, for this post. I agree with Syl - the "mandate" business has become the Dem's/MSM's latest urban legend.

And, on another subject, Europe (or some of Europe) is beginning to lean back to the conservative side, because their very future existence is hanging in the balance. France has big problems. Let us all hope that they can be remedied.

[MikeS]

Of course the election that the Dems and the MSN claim happened in November didn’t happen that way at all. Much of what they claim happened before and since that didn’t happen either. What bothers me is that they are more persistent at making stuff up than we are at ‘debunking’ them.

[Section9]

One of the grand designs of the Democrats is to make surrender acceptable to the American people by painting the war as a lie.

Take the subject of Rich's column, Condi. The Democrats are trying to smear her and other administration officials to provide a different Narrative going in to 2008: BushLied! There's nothing to what Waxman is doing here; he's just on another Yellowcake expedition, but it's all part of a tapestry that's being woven (you should see how the Moonbats treat this stuff, though...).

That they do this confirms to me that they've given in to their worst partisan instincts, as we did in 1998. I strongly suspect that history will repeat iteself, as farce, of course, but with a Republican being returned to power in 2008.

[ShoreMark]

"...but does he have a mandate?"

No Clarice, of course not. Only socialists get mandates.

[TheConfusedOne]

Personally, I always like to ask Senator Lamont (D[efeated]-CT) how that anti-war mandate turned out.

[Maybeex]

Wow, and now Newsweek trots out the first of the "they were Republicans, but they are thinking of voting differently this time" articles. Usually we only get these within 6 months of an election.

This article was obviously just begging to be written NOW:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18507722/site/newsweek/>Generational Tensions
The sons and daughters of some iconic Republicans (Ike! T.R.!) are contemplating crossing the aisle.

[BarCodeKing]

I remember last October and early November. The Democrats' message: "The Republicans are corrupt! Mark Foley is a pedophile! Throw the bums out!" It worked. Nary a word about surrender in Iraq, although that was what I predicted they would try to do after the election.

Bottom line: There was about a 40% turnout nationwide in an off-year congressional election, and a little over half went for the Democrats. Some 22% of the eligible voters were the ones who elected the current congress. This is hardly a sweeping mandate for anything, other than more education in civic responsibility for those voters who didn't show up at the polls, especially those Republicans who wanted to "teach them a lesson." It's called "cutting off your nose to spite your face," and it's a bad idea.

[Terry Gain]

Clarice,

With respect, you are wrong about Canada. Harper won because of Liberal corruption, not because of his support for the United States. He in fact, of political necessity, changed his position on whether Canada should have sent troops to Iraq.

Anti-Americanism is very high in Canada, and BDS is the rule rather than the exception. I know. I invariably get "you support Bush" everytime I speak out in favour of the liberation of Iraq.

Canadians have the same attitude toward the mission in Afghanistan as Democrats have to the mission in Iraq. They supported it up to the point where there were significant (according to the MSM) causalties but no further. The return of every single flag draped coffin is solemnly reported on Canadian TV while what is being accomplished is virtually ignored. Trying to sustain support for a war with this kind of media coverage, where losing does not pose an imminent existential threat, is almost impossible.

Even though he supports America I don't think we are going to see Sarkozy agree that French soldiers in Afghanistan should move to where the fighting is taking place.

It's hard to win a war, even with superior weaponry, when the enemy is willing to fight longer than you are. We are now at the tippping point in Iraq. If there isn't undeniable progress in the next six months political support for the war will not be sustainable.

Canadians (and Democrats) don't realize that if America concedes Iraq to al Qaeda, Afghanistan will be lost as well as al Qaeda volunteers, fresh from their victory in Iraq, will come streaming back into Afghanistan.

Nobody wants to acknowledge that Iraq and Afghanistan are two fronts in the same war.

[TerryeL]

Terry:

I think that depends on what part of Canada you are talking about. I know Canadians who are more conservative than I am and they are not at all antiAmerican. In fact when it comes to western Canada, it is hard to know where one country begins and the other one ends.

[reliapundit - the astute blogger]

subtract FOLEYFATE and MACCACA and ther GOP holds Congress.

THEREFORE: there is NO EFFIN "anti-war" mandate.

ALSO: Burns broke his promise not to seek re-election and was tied to Abramoff.

REPEAT: construing some kind of "anti-war" mandate from the 2006 mid-terms is a LIE.

it is "anti-war" propaganda.

SURE: the polls are not great for the Iraq War - but that's a momentary reflection of daily headlines.

if and when the MSM dcides to report the good news - and the bad in PERSPECTIVE, then the polls will rebound.

I AM SURE THIS WILL HAPPEN AFTER HILLARY IS INAUGURATED!

[Terry Gain]

Terrye,

Unfortunately I'm talking about the majority overall and the majority in central Canada - which elects the government. The general election is usually decided before the votes in western Canada are counted.

[Terry Gain]

AJ Strata has links to several articles about the war which are interesting. None of his links are attributed -a common blog practice which I find annoying.

Yes you can go to the link to see who wrote the article that the Blogsite deems worthy of a big cut and paste job, by why not give credit up front? I often don't go to the linked original but today I did and discovered Spero News.

It's been in existence for two years and this well informed person just heard of it. Fancy that.

From now on I follow the link. Let's all agitate to convince bloggers to give credit for the articles they quote, often in detail.

[reliapundit - the astute blogger]

i first blogged on this here:

http://www.blogger.com/email-post.g?blogID=8475986&postID=5080656506116231332

Thursday, April 26, 2007

THE BIG LIE: "DEMS TOOK CONGRESS BECAUSE OF IRAQ"

THIS IS THE BIG LIE THE DEMOCRATS ARE USING IN ORDER TO RATIONALIZE THEIR DISPICABLE AND COWARDLY EFFORT TO DESERT IRAQ AND ABANDON IT TO IRAN AND AL QAEDA.

Why did the Democrats really win Congress?

EASY: They took the Senate because of two things:

1 - Senator Conrad of Montana renegged on a term limit promise, and was too close to Abramoff.

2 - Senator Allen made a big gaffe calling a Webb operative a maccaca.
Additonal proof that the "anti-war" sentiment did not carry the Dems into power is the fact that Lieberman won re-election over an anti-war Dem.

The Dems won the House because of two things: pork and a pedophile.

The Dems did not win the House or Senate because the public wanted to abandon of Iraq to Iran and al Qaeda.

If a pollster were to ask: "DO YOU WANT TO LEAVE IRAQ ON AN ARBITRARY TIMETABLE AND ABANDON IT TO IRAN, AL QAEDA AND GENOCIDE?" then the public would overwhelmingly answer "NO!".

Those who favor abandoning Iraq are idiots who think that by feed Iraq to the jihado-crocodiles they will avoid being eaten. They will just be eaten last.

And it's not just me and the rightwing hawks saying it; it's what the Iraqi government, and the NYTIMES Baghdad Bureau Chief John Burns, and CNN's Phillips and Ware say, too!

Thinking we are better off leaving on an arbitrary timetable is DELUSIONAL.

Permalink - Posted by Reliapundit @ 10:14 PMThursday, April 26, 2007

[Terry Gain]

Reliapundit

I agree that the correct word is delusional. Thinking we can fight al Qaeda only where and for how long we want to fight them - and still win - is delusional.

[TexasToast]

Tom

I, for one, as a Democrat, agreed that it was "dangerous" to leave precipitously. The problem is, we don't seem to be making any progress toward leaving at all. ISTM that staying in Iraq (for the next "next six months") hoping for a fifth down hail mary pass to "win" is now the more dangerous of two very unappealing options.

[Terry Gain]

25 of 31 Sunni tribes now fighting al Qaeda and a sharp decline in sectarian violence isn't making progress?

al Sadr fleeing the country to Iran isn't progress?

How is it dangerous to stay for six months?

Why wouldn't you give Petraeus the six months he asked for before drawing any conclusions? Do you know more than him?

If you measure progress only according to the numbers of innocents al Qaeda is able to kill rather than the rate at which al Qaeda is being attrited, then yes I agree there is no progress.

ISTM TT you need a more rational set of metrics.

[cathyf]

The problem is, we don't seem to be making any progress toward leaving at all.

Why are you fixated on leaving? Last time I looked, we still have bases in Germany, Japan, Korea, Bosnia, Kosovo, as well as troops and airmen all over Europe.

They've been there a hell of a lot longer than the troops in Iraq -- what's the hurry in moving the Iraq troops back to Germany/Japan/etc? If we don't make any more progress towards leaving Germany and Japan, does that mean that we haven't yet won WWII?

[Looking_For_a_Way_out]

Hey TM,

Never take an old media columnist seriously, just lampoon them, when they prove to be full of it.

Also, buck up buttercup! You're a contributor to the brand new media, and the old media columnists are running scared, (Did you see Chait's lame ass article?). Just because the facts currently have a liberal bias doesn't mean they always will. Remember there is only one truth, but there are plenty of stories. Critical Thinking is the key to the future. Once you guys get beyond the current crop of Republican yahoos that create BS, see through, marketing stories to justify bad policies and get back to dealing with facts your side will get back into the game. Americans don't like giving one party too much power for too long, which is also a good thing.