The Journal takes Democrats to task ...
The editors of the Wall Street Journal pull no punches in their latest op-ed regarding Nancy Pelosi and the "Kung Pao Democrats" in Congress:
Speaker Nancy Pelosi has demonstrated she can pile on enough pork to bribe enough Democrats to cobble together a bare, partisan majority to "send a message" that has no chance of becoming law. Congratulations.
"Today is an historic day," Ms. Pelosi said on the House floor. "The new Congress will vote to end the war in Iraq." But of course the bill does nothing of the sort. If she truly wanted to end the war, the Speaker and her fellow Democrats could simply have used their power of the purse to refuse to fund it. But that would have meant taking some responsibility for what happens in Iraq, which is the last thing Democrats want to do. So they have passed a bill that funds the war while claiming it ends the war.
The bill's "benchmarks" and deadlines certainly have nothing to do with achieving victory in Iraq, or assisting General David Petraeus's campaign to secure Baghdad. They are all about the war inside the Democratic Caucus. On the one hand, they appease the antiwar left by pretending to declare the war illegal if certain goals aren't met by Iraqis or U.S. forces. But on the other, they allow "moderates" from swing districts to claim they are nonetheless "supporting the troops." Acts of Congress don't get much more cynical than that.
Cynical, or schizophrenic? The editors are correct in stating that this bill basically allows the Democrats to straddle the fence. On one hand, they set a timetable claiming that the war is going badly (it isn't, thanks to the strategy outlined by General Petreus), and on the other, they can still stand there and proclaim that they're still funding the thing. That's not cynical. It reminds me of Janus, the two-faced god that represented change, yet the Democrats haven't changed. They're still against this war.
But they're definitely two-faced in their approach to this war. The simple fact remains, not mater how much they deny it, that if we leave right now, we'l be making three key mistakes. First, our departure will embolden our enemy. They'll take our retreat as a sign of weakness, and an invitation to keep striking at this nation, our allies, and interests abroad.
Two, we would condemn the people of Iraq to a slaughter very much like those from the past when nations have retreated from battle. We saw it in Vietnam and Cambodia. We witnessed Mao's violent rise to power in China, Stalin's in Russia, and even Lenin before him. Removing ourselves from Iraq, and likely Afghanistan as well, will abandon the civilians there; they'l be at the mercy of a merciless enemy.
Third, our standing in the world will drop like a rock. We are the beacon of freedom in the world. When we were hit on 11 September, we went to war. We didn't hold back in our efforts to destroy al Qaeda and their enablers around the world. Great Britain came on board as an ally, but they wouldn't have taken the lead. Look at the recent incident involving the sailors seized by Iran, and ask yourselves where the British are today on that matter. Yeah, they're protesting the capture of those sailors, but they're doing little else. And word came down today that Iran will put them on trial for espionage.
The Democrats here in Congress are as clueless as they could be, and are more willing to bow to their antiwar activist fringe base rather than doing what's right, which is finishing the job this nation started. Until they learn this lesson, they'll never be trusted with power again. In a little over a year, we're going back to the ballot box again, and we're not just choosing a new president. Congress will get a chance to face the wrath of the nation. With any luck, enough people wil be ticked, and toss these fools out the door.
Publius II
Speaker Nancy Pelosi has demonstrated she can pile on enough pork to bribe enough Democrats to cobble together a bare, partisan majority to "send a message" that has no chance of becoming law. Congratulations.
"Today is an historic day," Ms. Pelosi said on the House floor. "The new Congress will vote to end the war in Iraq." But of course the bill does nothing of the sort. If she truly wanted to end the war, the Speaker and her fellow Democrats could simply have used their power of the purse to refuse to fund it. But that would have meant taking some responsibility for what happens in Iraq, which is the last thing Democrats want to do. So they have passed a bill that funds the war while claiming it ends the war.
The bill's "benchmarks" and deadlines certainly have nothing to do with achieving victory in Iraq, or assisting General David Petraeus's campaign to secure Baghdad. They are all about the war inside the Democratic Caucus. On the one hand, they appease the antiwar left by pretending to declare the war illegal if certain goals aren't met by Iraqis or U.S. forces. But on the other, they allow "moderates" from swing districts to claim they are nonetheless "supporting the troops." Acts of Congress don't get much more cynical than that.
Cynical, or schizophrenic? The editors are correct in stating that this bill basically allows the Democrats to straddle the fence. On one hand, they set a timetable claiming that the war is going badly (it isn't, thanks to the strategy outlined by General Petreus), and on the other, they can still stand there and proclaim that they're still funding the thing. That's not cynical. It reminds me of Janus, the two-faced god that represented change, yet the Democrats haven't changed. They're still against this war.
But they're definitely two-faced in their approach to this war. The simple fact remains, not mater how much they deny it, that if we leave right now, we'l be making three key mistakes. First, our departure will embolden our enemy. They'll take our retreat as a sign of weakness, and an invitation to keep striking at this nation, our allies, and interests abroad.
Two, we would condemn the people of Iraq to a slaughter very much like those from the past when nations have retreated from battle. We saw it in Vietnam and Cambodia. We witnessed Mao's violent rise to power in China, Stalin's in Russia, and even Lenin before him. Removing ourselves from Iraq, and likely Afghanistan as well, will abandon the civilians there; they'l be at the mercy of a merciless enemy.
Third, our standing in the world will drop like a rock. We are the beacon of freedom in the world. When we were hit on 11 September, we went to war. We didn't hold back in our efforts to destroy al Qaeda and their enablers around the world. Great Britain came on board as an ally, but they wouldn't have taken the lead. Look at the recent incident involving the sailors seized by Iran, and ask yourselves where the British are today on that matter. Yeah, they're protesting the capture of those sailors, but they're doing little else. And word came down today that Iran will put them on trial for espionage.
The Democrats here in Congress are as clueless as they could be, and are more willing to bow to their antiwar activist fringe base rather than doing what's right, which is finishing the job this nation started. Until they learn this lesson, they'll never be trusted with power again. In a little over a year, we're going back to the ballot box again, and we're not just choosing a new president. Congress will get a chance to face the wrath of the nation. With any luck, enough people wil be ticked, and toss these fools out the door.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 1:02 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home