The War Debate: Why This Is Integral To The Mid-Terms
From the LA Times (Hat-Tip: Hugh Hewitt):
The Iraq war is the most immediate foreign policy problem besetting the Bush administration. But as a political issue, the White House and top Republican strategists have concluded that the war is a clear winner.
GOP officials intend to base the midterm election campaign partly on talking up the war, using speeches and events to contrast President Bush's policies against growing disagreement among leading Democrats over whether to support immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops. ...
... The Democrats' divisions over Iraq came into clearer focus Tuesday, the same day Bush flew to Baghdad. Addressing a conference of liberal activists in Washington, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) drew boos from some in the audience when she stopped short of calling for a deadline for withdrawing troops.
She was followed by Bush's 2004 challenger, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), who earned rousing applause from the same crowd for comparing the conflict in Iraq to Vietnam and calling for a troop withdrawal this year. He called it a "right and an obligation for Americans to stand up to a president who is wrong today."
Republicans in both chambers of Congress have scheduled events and votes on Iraq all week — the Senate as it debates a defense spending bill, the House as it holds a full day of debate today on a resolution on Iraq.
Officially, the House debate will be the first time the chamber has argued the pros and cons of the invasion and occupation of Iraq since the war began more than three years ago. But Democrats, who have repeatedly called for debate on the war, have denounced this week's events as little more than a political trap to embarrass them and force acquiescence with the administration's policy.
Since when is forcing a party to come out, and be open about their opinions, on the single most important issue the country is facing today a "trap" to "embarrass" the Democrats? It is obvious that there is division within their party as to which way the wind blows when it comes to the war. And they have shown--repeatedly--that they are against this war; at least the Iraq Phase of it. After all, John Kerry has now embraced the antiwar crowd, is calling for withdrawal, has a withdrawal amendment within Senate Bill S2766, and has stated that he would go back and change his vote if he could. (Flip-flop #2610 for the "esteemed" junior senator from Massachusetts, ladies and gentlemen.)
But we need to have this debate. Now, more than ever, the Congress must be united behind the president. With the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawim and the naming of his successor today, we would like to keep our enemy on their heels, and running for the hills. After al-Zarqawi's death we have rounded up or killed almoist 200 more al-Qaeda/insurgents in Iraq; a boon only available through the intelligence we obtained after al-Zarqawi was sent to his eternal damnation.
The Democrats claim this is more of the same political game that has been going on since the invasion of 2003. I wonder what they would say if the Republicans had acted this way towards FDR during World War II. Back then I am sure they would have passed a law making it legal to tar-and-feather any elected official that disagreed with the war strategy then. Now that the roles are essentially reversed (a Republican president with a Republican Congress as opposed to a Democrat president with a Democrat Congress) they do not wish to have any part in this. The key problem for their party is that they do not understand that this war does, indeed, have global consequences.
Anyone who claims that this is not a world war is a nut who has been living in a Taliban cave. Our efforts have been coordinated around the globe with allies and "semi-allies" to root out these animals and bring down their reign of terror. The free world depends on the coalition winning this war If we fail to do so then the future will amount to nothing for freedom. That is the key that the Democrats seem to be missing, and that goes double for the MSM.
If we fail, nothing else matters. 2006? 2008? Who will be running against whom? Judges? Fiscal responsibility? Taxes? Border security? It will all be moot. The peripheral and superficial will not matter to anyone concerned if our enemies succeed in driving us from the battlefield. America will become target number one on our enemy's strike list, and if we thought 9/11 was bad, we have not seen anything yet. Al-Qaeda is still bound and determined to strike us like never before. To do that, they need weapons that can do a great deal of damage to the nation, or a plan that makes 9/11 look like kid's play.
The weapons could be in their hands soon enough, especially with Iran working on their nuclear program. Likewise, a rogue regime like North Korea might be willing to part with a nuclear weapon for the right price. And who can forget nations like Russia and China playing dangerous diplomatic games with nations like Iran that are willing to turn a blind eye to their deadly ambitions. This is the sort of threat that looms over the horizon and can go from the back burner to the front burner in a matter of days should we decide the best solution to the war is a withdrawal.
John Kerry's and John Mutha's proposals that we should maintain an "over-the-horizon" presence is a joke. Over the horizon to where? Who will house us? And will they be willing to ultimately become targets themselves?
Let us have this debate, and let the Democrats whine that this is a trap. It is no such thing. America deserves to know--once and for all--where these weasels stand. Those that stand opposed to us finishing the job need to be exposed. Their words in this debate are to be used against them. We do not need waffling politicians at this time in our history. We need solid elected officials that understand the gravity of the world today, and we need people who will stop jumping on every little issue like it is a political opportunity. Opportunists like that need not be in Congress. We want people there--the right people in the right place at the right time--to ensure that our enemies are defeated, and this nation is kept safe.
If the Democrats do not want to go along with that plan, then I think it is time their constituents take a good long look at them prior to heading to the polls this November. As Samuel L. Jackson stated in Die Hard With a Vengeance: "I don't like you because you're going to get me killed!"
Marcie
From the LA Times (Hat-Tip: Hugh Hewitt):
The Iraq war is the most immediate foreign policy problem besetting the Bush administration. But as a political issue, the White House and top Republican strategists have concluded that the war is a clear winner.
GOP officials intend to base the midterm election campaign partly on talking up the war, using speeches and events to contrast President Bush's policies against growing disagreement among leading Democrats over whether to support immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops. ...
... The Democrats' divisions over Iraq came into clearer focus Tuesday, the same day Bush flew to Baghdad. Addressing a conference of liberal activists in Washington, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) drew boos from some in the audience when she stopped short of calling for a deadline for withdrawing troops.
She was followed by Bush's 2004 challenger, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), who earned rousing applause from the same crowd for comparing the conflict in Iraq to Vietnam and calling for a troop withdrawal this year. He called it a "right and an obligation for Americans to stand up to a president who is wrong today."
Republicans in both chambers of Congress have scheduled events and votes on Iraq all week — the Senate as it debates a defense spending bill, the House as it holds a full day of debate today on a resolution on Iraq.
Officially, the House debate will be the first time the chamber has argued the pros and cons of the invasion and occupation of Iraq since the war began more than three years ago. But Democrats, who have repeatedly called for debate on the war, have denounced this week's events as little more than a political trap to embarrass them and force acquiescence with the administration's policy.
Since when is forcing a party to come out, and be open about their opinions, on the single most important issue the country is facing today a "trap" to "embarrass" the Democrats? It is obvious that there is division within their party as to which way the wind blows when it comes to the war. And they have shown--repeatedly--that they are against this war; at least the Iraq Phase of it. After all, John Kerry has now embraced the antiwar crowd, is calling for withdrawal, has a withdrawal amendment within Senate Bill S2766, and has stated that he would go back and change his vote if he could. (Flip-flop #2610 for the "esteemed" junior senator from Massachusetts, ladies and gentlemen.)
But we need to have this debate. Now, more than ever, the Congress must be united behind the president. With the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawim and the naming of his successor today, we would like to keep our enemy on their heels, and running for the hills. After al-Zarqawi's death we have rounded up or killed almoist 200 more al-Qaeda/insurgents in Iraq; a boon only available through the intelligence we obtained after al-Zarqawi was sent to his eternal damnation.
The Democrats claim this is more of the same political game that has been going on since the invasion of 2003. I wonder what they would say if the Republicans had acted this way towards FDR during World War II. Back then I am sure they would have passed a law making it legal to tar-and-feather any elected official that disagreed with the war strategy then. Now that the roles are essentially reversed (a Republican president with a Republican Congress as opposed to a Democrat president with a Democrat Congress) they do not wish to have any part in this. The key problem for their party is that they do not understand that this war does, indeed, have global consequences.
Anyone who claims that this is not a world war is a nut who has been living in a Taliban cave. Our efforts have been coordinated around the globe with allies and "semi-allies" to root out these animals and bring down their reign of terror. The free world depends on the coalition winning this war If we fail to do so then the future will amount to nothing for freedom. That is the key that the Democrats seem to be missing, and that goes double for the MSM.
If we fail, nothing else matters. 2006? 2008? Who will be running against whom? Judges? Fiscal responsibility? Taxes? Border security? It will all be moot. The peripheral and superficial will not matter to anyone concerned if our enemies succeed in driving us from the battlefield. America will become target number one on our enemy's strike list, and if we thought 9/11 was bad, we have not seen anything yet. Al-Qaeda is still bound and determined to strike us like never before. To do that, they need weapons that can do a great deal of damage to the nation, or a plan that makes 9/11 look like kid's play.
The weapons could be in their hands soon enough, especially with Iran working on their nuclear program. Likewise, a rogue regime like North Korea might be willing to part with a nuclear weapon for the right price. And who can forget nations like Russia and China playing dangerous diplomatic games with nations like Iran that are willing to turn a blind eye to their deadly ambitions. This is the sort of threat that looms over the horizon and can go from the back burner to the front burner in a matter of days should we decide the best solution to the war is a withdrawal.
John Kerry's and John Mutha's proposals that we should maintain an "over-the-horizon" presence is a joke. Over the horizon to where? Who will house us? And will they be willing to ultimately become targets themselves?
Let us have this debate, and let the Democrats whine that this is a trap. It is no such thing. America deserves to know--once and for all--where these weasels stand. Those that stand opposed to us finishing the job need to be exposed. Their words in this debate are to be used against them. We do not need waffling politicians at this time in our history. We need solid elected officials that understand the gravity of the world today, and we need people who will stop jumping on every little issue like it is a political opportunity. Opportunists like that need not be in Congress. We want people there--the right people in the right place at the right time--to ensure that our enemies are defeated, and this nation is kept safe.
If the Democrats do not want to go along with that plan, then I think it is time their constituents take a good long look at them prior to heading to the polls this November. As Samuel L. Jackson stated in Die Hard With a Vengeance: "I don't like you because you're going to get me killed!"
Marcie
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 12:21 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home