Obviously 93 To 6 Is Not Enough Of A Message For The Democrats
After 149 House Democrats voted in favor of defeat last week, joined by six of their Senate associates when John Kerry's amendment came up, the Democrats have decided to push this issue again this week as the Boston Globe reports today:
Congressional Democrats, seizing on public discontent over the war in Iraq, will offer legislation this week calling for a phased withdrawal of troops from Iraq and a shifting of forces to other nations, where supporters say American soldiers will be less likely to come under attack.
The resolution, crafted by Democratic Senators Jack Reed of Rhode Island and Carl Levin of Michigan, will headline a second week of debate in Congress over the state of the war. It is the first real debate Congress has held on the war since the US invasion in early 2003.
Senate Democrats, many of whom voted to authorize force in Iraq but have become critics of the war, will unveil a resolution today demanding that President Bush begin phasing out US troop presence in Iraq this year.
The resolution, expected to come to the floor as early as tomorrow, also would call on Bush to provide a plan to redeploy remaining troops after 2006, but it does not specify where troops should be moved and how many might come home.
Under the proposal, a small contingent of American troops would be kept in Iraq to train local forces so they can take control of their own country.
It does not specify where they would be moved to because the Democrats have no clue where they are going to put them. There has been no talks with Kuwait or Qatar regarding the housing of our troops. And it is a smoke-screen anyway as they simply want the troops out. They want us to abandon the Iraqis. To them, too much blood has been spilled over there. They have their hard Left base screaming at them, and those are the only people they seem to be listening to. They are obviously not listening to their base--their core base--which does not believe in retreat. We stay until the job is done, but between the Kos Kids and the rest of the unhinged Left, the Democrat leaders choose to listen to the strongest and loudest voices right now.
And that is a shame. Withdrawal and redeployment is not an option. And if I were in the Republicans in the Senate I would stand fast and tell the Democrats that if they want the troops out of Iraq, then they can cut the funding. I am sick of watching this Mickey Mouse merry-go-round in the Congress with these fools. They pander, twist, and spin to suit their needs and think that the nation is no smarter while we watch them do it. (Now, for some in this nation I will grant them that ... How long has Ted Kennedy, Bob Byrd, and Barbara Boxer been in the Senate?)
But when this issue comes up, the Democrats whine that our side is mischaracterizing their idea. It is not "withdrawal;" it is "redeployment." Give me a break. That is what redeployment is. Our troops will redeploy to a place outside of Iraq (Lord knows where) in an "over-the-horizon" protective stance for the Iraqis while few troops will be left in Iraq to train the military and security forces. But, what happens if the Iraqis do need more than just a few instructors? Will the Democrats let our troops go back in? Or, will this be a similar replay of the opening scenes of "Black Hawk Down" where our troops could not engage the thugs shooting into a crowd, and stealing the food supply from the UN's humanitarian organization?
The simple fact remains that they cannot be trusted to stay the course and hold the line. They will, briefly (for about three weeks) and then it is nothing but whining and complaining. The president cannot seem to do a single thing right, or so our former soldiers in the Democrat party state. John Kerry and John Murtha are preaching that there should be a withdrawal. Not surprising as both men served in Vietnam. Kerry ran away shortly after his three purple band-aids. (At least Murtha stayed in and retired in 1990.) Ted Kennedy, that stellar combat veteran who "protected" NATO HQ in Paris during Korea, has the audacity to lambaste Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and President Bush yet the hardest call he had to make then was when he wanted his martini lunch.
I am taking swipes at these people because they do not have--between every Democrat who ever served--enough collective intelligence to run this war. The president has surrounded himself with capable individuals, and they are getting the job done. That is more than I can say for the cut-and-run party whihc has tried to constrain our troops or the administration. We have members of our own party who have tried this sort of thing (John McCain on torture and Arlen Specter with the NSA surveillance program), but not to the extent of the Democrats. Our side has not called for "redeployment." We have stood solid on this issue.
And for the Democrats, they may want to consider this little tidbit. If we do not win this war, what will happen to the United States? Hmm? If they think that all will be well under their banner, thiunk again. Retreat from the battlefield now will only invite more terrorism. Since we ran from Somalia, the remainder of the decade of the nineties we dealt with attack after attack. Khobar Towers, the bombings in Riyadh, and the USS Cole culminated the presidency of Bill Clinton as one where cut-and-run was themodus operandi of the day. These Democrats are only trying to live up to the man they admire, and they seem to be doing a good job of it.
But they are failing on the accomplishments. And that is because the administration will not stand for leaving the field of battle until the mission is complete. And if they choose to run on this platform--to campaign on a withdrawal from Iraq--then, to quote Mr. Hewitt, we will beat them like bongo drums. And that is because America still backs her troops. We still stand behind them and give them the support they need. We should be giving them what they deserve, but we do not control the purse strings in Congress. They do. (Believe me when I say that were we in charge things would be a little different.) But the troops deserve our support, and that is what we are giving them. They believe in the mission. So do we. So until it is done, I think the Democrats need to pipe down about leaving Iraq. It will only bring them defeat in November in the end.
Marcie
After 149 House Democrats voted in favor of defeat last week, joined by six of their Senate associates when John Kerry's amendment came up, the Democrats have decided to push this issue again this week as the Boston Globe reports today:
Congressional Democrats, seizing on public discontent over the war in Iraq, will offer legislation this week calling for a phased withdrawal of troops from Iraq and a shifting of forces to other nations, where supporters say American soldiers will be less likely to come under attack.
The resolution, crafted by Democratic Senators Jack Reed of Rhode Island and Carl Levin of Michigan, will headline a second week of debate in Congress over the state of the war. It is the first real debate Congress has held on the war since the US invasion in early 2003.
Senate Democrats, many of whom voted to authorize force in Iraq but have become critics of the war, will unveil a resolution today demanding that President Bush begin phasing out US troop presence in Iraq this year.
The resolution, expected to come to the floor as early as tomorrow, also would call on Bush to provide a plan to redeploy remaining troops after 2006, but it does not specify where troops should be moved and how many might come home.
Under the proposal, a small contingent of American troops would be kept in Iraq to train local forces so they can take control of their own country.
It does not specify where they would be moved to because the Democrats have no clue where they are going to put them. There has been no talks with Kuwait or Qatar regarding the housing of our troops. And it is a smoke-screen anyway as they simply want the troops out. They want us to abandon the Iraqis. To them, too much blood has been spilled over there. They have their hard Left base screaming at them, and those are the only people they seem to be listening to. They are obviously not listening to their base--their core base--which does not believe in retreat. We stay until the job is done, but between the Kos Kids and the rest of the unhinged Left, the Democrat leaders choose to listen to the strongest and loudest voices right now.
And that is a shame. Withdrawal and redeployment is not an option. And if I were in the Republicans in the Senate I would stand fast and tell the Democrats that if they want the troops out of Iraq, then they can cut the funding. I am sick of watching this Mickey Mouse merry-go-round in the Congress with these fools. They pander, twist, and spin to suit their needs and think that the nation is no smarter while we watch them do it. (Now, for some in this nation I will grant them that ... How long has Ted Kennedy, Bob Byrd, and Barbara Boxer been in the Senate?)
But when this issue comes up, the Democrats whine that our side is mischaracterizing their idea. It is not "withdrawal;" it is "redeployment." Give me a break. That is what redeployment is. Our troops will redeploy to a place outside of Iraq (Lord knows where) in an "over-the-horizon" protective stance for the Iraqis while few troops will be left in Iraq to train the military and security forces. But, what happens if the Iraqis do need more than just a few instructors? Will the Democrats let our troops go back in? Or, will this be a similar replay of the opening scenes of "Black Hawk Down" where our troops could not engage the thugs shooting into a crowd, and stealing the food supply from the UN's humanitarian organization?
The simple fact remains that they cannot be trusted to stay the course and hold the line. They will, briefly (for about three weeks) and then it is nothing but whining and complaining. The president cannot seem to do a single thing right, or so our former soldiers in the Democrat party state. John Kerry and John Murtha are preaching that there should be a withdrawal. Not surprising as both men served in Vietnam. Kerry ran away shortly after his three purple band-aids. (At least Murtha stayed in and retired in 1990.) Ted Kennedy, that stellar combat veteran who "protected" NATO HQ in Paris during Korea, has the audacity to lambaste Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and President Bush yet the hardest call he had to make then was when he wanted his martini lunch.
I am taking swipes at these people because they do not have--between every Democrat who ever served--enough collective intelligence to run this war. The president has surrounded himself with capable individuals, and they are getting the job done. That is more than I can say for the cut-and-run party whihc has tried to constrain our troops or the administration. We have members of our own party who have tried this sort of thing (John McCain on torture and Arlen Specter with the NSA surveillance program), but not to the extent of the Democrats. Our side has not called for "redeployment." We have stood solid on this issue.
And for the Democrats, they may want to consider this little tidbit. If we do not win this war, what will happen to the United States? Hmm? If they think that all will be well under their banner, thiunk again. Retreat from the battlefield now will only invite more terrorism. Since we ran from Somalia, the remainder of the decade of the nineties we dealt with attack after attack. Khobar Towers, the bombings in Riyadh, and the USS Cole culminated the presidency of Bill Clinton as one where cut-and-run was themodus operandi of the day. These Democrats are only trying to live up to the man they admire, and they seem to be doing a good job of it.
But they are failing on the accomplishments. And that is because the administration will not stand for leaving the field of battle until the mission is complete. And if they choose to run on this platform--to campaign on a withdrawal from Iraq--then, to quote Mr. Hewitt, we will beat them like bongo drums. And that is because America still backs her troops. We still stand behind them and give them the support they need. We should be giving them what they deserve, but we do not control the purse strings in Congress. They do. (Believe me when I say that were we in charge things would be a little different.) But the troops deserve our support, and that is what we are giving them. They believe in the mission. So do we. So until it is done, I think the Democrats need to pipe down about leaving Iraq. It will only bring them defeat in November in the end.
Marcie
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 11:41 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home