Democrats cave in on Iraq funding

Despite all the talk of standing up to President Bush, despite all the bravado about taking control of Congress, despite their so-called mandate to change direction, Democrats caved in on the Iraq War funding bill.

It wasn't long ago that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid were taunting the president with Democratic resolutions setting a surrender date for leaving Iraq.

But Pelosi and Reid blinked. They showed the Democrats true colors. The Democratic Party is the party of surrender. The party of appeasement. It's the party of defeat. It's the party without convictions.

Democrats control both houses of Congress. They claim that the majority of Americans are with them on the Iraq issue, but they waived the white flag on their much-ballyhooed withdrawal date.

President Bush, at the weakest moment of his presidency, still trumped his Democratic rivals, getting the $100 billion in war funding he requested without accepting a timetable for leaving Iraq.

The Democrats, trying to put a spin on their complete failure to stand up to the president, said they'll try again in the fall. Good luck with that.

There's a reason Democrats have trouble convincing American voters they can lead this country during the global struggle against Islamic Fascism. That's because they can't. They lack a key ingredient: Backbone.

The inability of the Democratic-controlled Congress to get its way on war funding will dog the party through the 2008 election.

And how will Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama explain to voters that they voted against funding 165,000 U.S. troops in Iraq? In an obvious attempt to cater to the far left, Clinton and Obama voted against the funding bill.

Clinton and Obama have chosen to use the John Kerry "Flip-Flop" strategy that worked so well for the Massachusetts liberal in his 2004 presidential run. Both Democratic front-runners began their campaign for the White House criticizing a deadline for a troop withdrawal. Now, Clinton and Obama are in favor of a surrender timetable. They were among the 14 Senators who voted against the war funding bill. But 80 Senators, including the majority of Democrats, backed the war spending bill.

While the far left will be pleased to have Clinton and Obama in its back pocket, mainstream Democrats have to wonder what their front-runners are willing to say or do to get elected.

That's always been the problem for Democrats. They don't stand for anything. They are the party of appeasement, whether it be to the left-wing fringe of their own party (George Soros, Jane Fonda, Rosie O'Donnell, Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore, Sean Penn) or America's enemies.

Joining Clinton and Obama, Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, also running for president, voted against the legislation, The only candidate from the Senate who supported the war funding bill was Delaware Sen. Joe Biden.

"This bold stand by three of the four presidential candidates in the Senate won't soon be forgotten," according to Eli Pariser, executive director of MoveOn.org's political action committee, which has forced Democratic candidates to veer far left to gain support of the party's small, but well-funded left-wing fringe.

Not that anybody cares, but several other Democratic candidates who don't have a chance of winning — John "The Haircut" Edwards of North Carolina and New Mexico Gov. Bill "Really, I'm Spanish" Richardson — also favor surrender in Iraq.

Democrats have a real problem on their hands. They decided to stand toe-to-toe with the president on Iraq funding, but blinked. They have the votes, but have not the conviction.

American voters don't want a president who will surrender at the first sign of trouble. That's why it's going to be hard for Democrats to prove they can lead this country in a time of war.