- The Washington Times - Wednesday, March 21, 2007

House Democratic leaders want to add $24.6 billion to President Bush’s $95 billion request for U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, but not for more weaponry or life-saving armor.

Most of the added money stuffed into the emergency supplemental bill, expected to come up for a vote today, is for the kind of costly, pork barrel, special interest, vote-buying handouts Democrats promised they would end if they won control of Congress.

But less than three months after taking over the House leadership, the Democrats returned to the old logrolling practice of buying votes for a bill whose micromanaging war provisions to ultimately defund our troops has raised deeply troubling doubts in the minds of many of their members.

The bill contains $25 million in subsidies for spinach growers hurt by last year’s E. coli outbreak to persuade Rep. Sam Farr, California Democrat, to hold his nose and vote for it. There’s another $75 million “to ensure proper storage for peanuts” to convince three conservative Democrats from Georgia to do likewise.

Other doubting Democrats were offered $1.48 billion for livestock ranchers, plus $20 million to reclaim damaged farmlands, $500 million for “urgent wildland fire suppression,” and $120 million for shrimp and Atlantic fishing interests.

With so much at stake in the latest attempt to reduce the violence in Iraq and give the Iraqi government time to regain some semblance of control, the spectacle of Democrats using a war funding bill for pure political vote-buying pork was sickening.

“The war supplemental legislation voted out of the Appropriations Committee last week was an exercise in arrogance that demonstrated the utter contempt the majority has for the American people and their hard-earned tax dollars,” said Rep. John Shadegg, Arizona Republican. “We are at war with a ruthless global terrorist network, yet the appropriators allocated hundreds of millions in funds to gratuitous pork projects,” he said.

The opening paragraph on Page 2 of the bill begins this way: “Title I — Supplemental Appropriations for the Global War on Terror — Chapter 1, Department of Agriculture Foreign Agricultural Service.”

“Forget the Marines; send in the meat inspectors,” the Wall Street Journal said in an editorial titled ” ‘Peanuts’ for [David] Patraeus,’ ” the U.S. commander in Iraq.

The political rationale behind the Democrats’ pork barrel gambit was the difficulty of coming up with a 218-vote majority in the House where many in their party were squirming over the prospect of imposing a complicated obstacle course of “benchmarks” that could force a U.S. pullout to begin within 180 days.

But even if Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her antiwar aide-de-camp John Murtha were able to come up with 218 votes, it’s doubtful the bill would pass the Senate, where Democrats have been unable to move any pullout legislation.

Last week, Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid couldn’t even cobble together a simple majority for a bill that would set a deadline for U.S. troop withdrawal that faced a certain veto from President Bush.

All this occurs against some early, anecdotal signs troop reinforcements are having an impact on reducing the violence in Baghdad. And with only the first installment of the additional 21,000 plus combat forces that will be in the Iraqi capital by June.

U.S. officials in both parties sent over by the administration to assess the war have been returning home with a more positive outlook for Mr. Bush’s new strategy there. “I got a sense in Baghdad in particular that with the additional checkpoints… that they’re already seeing a difference on the ground,” said Gov. Janet Napolitano, Arizona Democrat.

The decision by Shi’ite death squads to halt their role in the sectarian violence, at least for the time being, has also greatly helped reduce violence there.

The increasing role of the expanded Iraqi military in the house-to-house searches are also welcome dividends from the past three years of training that has been accelerated under the new plan. They will become a much more lethal force in the months to come, in part due to $3 billion in additional weapons we will sell them.

The commonly voiced complaint by an assortment of pundits and arm chair generals here is that “there are few options left in Iraq.” But I’m not sure that is entirely true.

If the situation on the ground can be improved in the neighborhoods and streets of Baghdad, that will give its government the political breathing room its needs to build its security forces and its governing infrastructure. The stronger the Iraqi government becomes, the less chance insurgents have of making any significant long-term gains to bring down the country’s democratic movement.

Meantime, Congress’ dispirited Democratic leaders are betting that the Iraqis will eventually lose their fight to be free. I’m betting that with our support, they can win.

Donald Lambro, chief political correspondent of The Washington Times, is a nationally syndicated columnist.

Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide