Democrats Want Summit on Iraq

A summit? For what reason exactly?

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Triumphant U.S. congressional Democratic leaders began to flex their new political muscle on Wednesday by urging President George W. Bush to host a bipartisan summit on the Iraq war and find common ground with them on such domestic issues as education and health care.

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid said the American people voted for change in Tuesday's elections.

"I hope that he (Bush) will listen," Pelosi said at a news news conference after receiving a congratulatory telephone call from Bush, who also called Reid.

"I told him (Bush) what I said last night -- that I looked forward to working in a bipartisan way with him, that the success of the president is always good for the country and I hoped that we could work together for the American people," Pelosi said.

Yeah, yeah, the usual pledge, by both sides, for bipartisanship. We all know what that will get you. Neither side will actually be bipartisan and will no doubt blame the other for any issue.

I want to know what the "summit" is for. Frankly, it appears to me that the Dems gaining control of congress makes them believe they can now dictate what will happen in Iraq. They can do that, through the power of the purse controlling the funding to Iraq. I don't see that the commander in chief portion of the executive branch should be anything more than giving them a chance to voice their opinions. How far they expect this summit to go in changing Iraq policy would be interesting to know.

Pelosi has been giving me the willies with all her interviews. I tried to find a transcript of her interview with Foxnews, but came up blank. I'll paraphrase the one statement that made me really wince. She stated "The point is this isn't a war to win. It's a situation to be solved." And on she went. I still don't understand what that meant. First thought was that she really doesn't get it, and probably never will. The US is in a low-intensity war, which is another way of describing an insurgency. If it's not a war in Iraq, it certainly has the appearance of being pretty much the same thing.

Here's a PBS interview with Pelosi.

MARGARET WARNER: Now, the president said today also he wanted to work in a bipartisan way on Iraq. But then he repeatedly defined the goal as "victory." And he said at one point, you know, speaking of the troops, "I want them home, too, but I want them home in victory, not leaving behind an Iraq that's a safe haven for al-Qaida." And he said repeatedly that victory was leaving an Iraq that was self-sustaining and could defend itself

Now, can Democrats work with him and embrace that as the goal?

REP. NANCY PELOSI: I mean, the point is, is that our presence in Iraq, as viewed by the Iraqis and by others in the region, as an occupation is not making America safer. We are not even honoring our commitment to our troops who are there, and we are not bringing stability to the region.

So what is being accomplished by our being there? A responsible redeployment outside of Iraq, at the same time disarming the militia, amending the constitution, so that more people feel a part of the new government, and, again, building diplomatic relationships in the area to bring stability and reconstruction to Iraq is really a path we have to go down.

The president -- victory is elusive. Victory is subjective. What does he mean by "victory"?

MARGARET WARNER: So are you saying that, as far as the Democrats are concerned, and certainly many members of your caucus have called for a rather quick withdrawal, that you would not accept the kind of open-ended commitment to achieving some end-state for the Iraqi government before American troops left?

REP. NANCY PELOSI: What I'm saying is, is that the president of the United States, in pursuing a course of "stay the course," has limited any good options for us. So let's at least say that, if we have a new direction, it will include talking in a bipartisan way to the Iraqi government about what the responsibilities are for their own governance and also for their own security.

Geez, Warner tosses her a softball, and she whiffed it. After that interview, I'm even more nervous about what will be happening in Iraq in the next two years. I see the Vietnam failure scenario coming again to this theater. Not that I'm known for my pessimism, but this really isn't starting out well. Hopefully there are other more moderate Dems that will restrain this tact.

UPDATE:

I found the Pelosi "Situation" quote over at Wizbang, but again, no link. (I corrected my quote which was a little off.)