Redstate

Those who do not study history are free to make it up

By streiff Posted in Democrats — Comments (12) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Watching the antics of the Democrat majority, especially that in the Senate, trying to have the Iraq issue both ways is turning out to be quite amusing. While some of my colleagues believe that the Iraq War, if still going on in 2008, will result in Republicans being punished at the polls I think the issue is immensely more complicated and the Democrats are struggling to find a way to make the issue a winner just as much as many Republicans are trying to keep it from being a loser.

Support for and opposition to the war is very soft. One only has to look a opinion polls over the past 4 years to discover that when things are going well in Iraq (successful elections, Saddam captured, the president taking time out from his busy schedule to talk about it) the numbers break the 50% support line. When things are perceived to be going badly, whatever that may be, then the numbers trend down. The trick for the Democrats is to be able to make the war, as conducted by the president, look bad while leaving themselves the room to claim credit if things turn around. Hence the calls for "change in direction." Above all, much to the chagrin of the nutroots, they have no intention of repeating the Democrat party's own experience of being saddled with the blame for losing the Vietnam war.

Today Carl Levin takes this lack of seriousness to a new level. To hear him tell it, the Senate Democrats aren't feckless opportunists counting on the deaths of a thousand or so more American troops to win a few votes in November 2008. No. Not at all. They are principled statesmen in the mode of Abraham Lincoln.

Read on.

From today's Washington Post:

In his only term in Congress, Abraham Lincoln was an ardent opponent of the Mexican War. He introduced a series of resolutions that challenged President James Polk to show the "spot" of American soil on which Mexicans had spilled American blood, and he voted for an amendment stating that the war was "unnecessarily and unconstitutionally begun by the President."

But when the question of funding for the troops fighting that war came, Lincoln voted their supplies without hesitation.

Sound familiar? President Bush recently vetoed a bill I helped draft because it would have required him to begin reducing U.S. force levels in Iraq within four months. In the wake of that veto, calls from those who want Congress to try to stop funding the war have grown louder

No senator, it really doesn't sound all that familiar.

Let's go back and review the chronology.

The Mexican War began in May 13, 1846. Lincoln was elected to Congress in August 3, 1846 taking his seat on March 4, 1847. Mexico City fell on September 15, 1847. His "Spot Resolutions", a misnomer to modern ears because the "resolutions" were all contained in a single document, were delivered on December 22, 1847. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, ending the war, was signed a mere 42 days later on February 2, 1848.

While no one is doubting Lincoln ran for Congress of opposing the war, it is really questionable how serious his efforts were to interfere with the conduct of the war or to end it. In fact, Lincoln was given the opportunity to vote for a resolution which would have prohibited the US from taking territory from Mexico. One would think a principled opposition to the war would have extended to declining to benefit from its outcome. He declined. I suspect he figured out that most Americans were in favor of taking a huge swath of North America and hopped on that bandwagon with the same fervor as his opposition to the Mexican War.

Let's jump back to Senator Levin's op-ed.

But when the question of funding for the troops fighting that war came, Lincoln voted their supplies without hesitation.

Is that true? According to the Library of Congress only two bills funding the military came before that first session of the 30th Congress. HR 55 was passed on January 12, 1848 and HR 93 was passed on January 19, 1848. Both while the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was being negotiated. It would seem that the only funding vote Lincoln cast concerning the war was after the war was over. Ballsy move, that.

So what comparisons are we to make from this? The obvious ones are that the Democrats, like Lincoln, perceived an electoral advantage in running against a war that was unpopular in some segments of the nation. And once elected did nothing to end the war or mitigate its outcome.

Beyond that, Carl Levin has as much in common with the Great Emancipator as he has with George Washington: he's an older white guy who speaks English.