Democrats vote to run away
I've mentioned before that I think the majority of the Democrats in Washington are true politicians: cowards and opportunists. Here's more proof: Senate Panel Passes Resolution Opposing Troop Escalation in Iraq.
The measure "is designed to let the president know that there are many in both parties, Democrats and Republicans, that believe a change in our mission to go into Baghdad — in the midst of a civil war — as well as a surge in ground troops ... is the wrong way to go, and I believe it will have the opposite — I repeat — opposite effect the president intends," Biden said.
At the last minute, Biden changed one of the more controversial parts of the resolution — changing the word "escalating" to "increasing" — to reduce criticism that the measure is too partisan.
The primary statement in the resolution now reads: "[I]t is not in the national interest of the United States to deepen its military involvement in Iraq, particularly by increasing the United States military force presence in Iraq."
Democrats hold 11 seats on the committee, while Republicans hold 10.
So, they oppose the Iraq War and troop escalations, but support our troops, right?
The truth is they are playing politics with the security and the future of this nation. Just like the MSM, they have done everything possible to undermine this president, our troops and the war effort. From Murtha's rantings, to Kerry's "botched joke" to Kennedy's "Bush's Vietnam" nonsense, they have presented a position of divisiveness and weakness to our enemies that will ultimately hurt every American.
Most of them supported and voted for the Iraq invasion. Many of them have demanded troops surges along the way, as recently as a few months ago. But now they are against the war, against more troops, against more money for Iraq and against everything else that the president wants.
Why? Power. Politics. Votes. Money. Oh, and the big seat in 2008.
utThe truth is that these Democrats don't care about anything but winning the next election and furthering the stash of cash in their freezers.
They voted for a "non-binding" resolution against more troops, and some Republicans even joined in, even though they have no power whatever to effect same. It's called politics. Now, if we lose in Iraq, they say they were against it. If we win, they always "supported" our troops. But if they really had the courage of their convictions, why not push for something other then "non-binding"? Why not stop funding for the war? If you believe so strongly that this endeavor is wrong, aren't you sworn, as a member of Congress, to stop it? But they won't do that because they're afraid of the fall-out that the lack of support for our troops might bring. They're afraid that they might be blamed for a loss in Iraq, rather than the Republicans.
It's not about what's best for America, but rather what's best for the Democrats who want the power of "leading" this nation. Or maybe "controlling" is a better word.
They'll tell you that the last election was "all about Iraq". About how it proves that the majority of Americans are "against" this war. And a lot of their money came from the "left" and those with an "anti-war/anti-Bush" agenda. But still the Democrats have no viable option for Iraq. It's not their "job" to set the agenda there, they say, but the president's. It's only their job to criticize and demoralize, apparently.
Ask them what will happen if we leave Iraq and see how quickly they change the subject. And them what will happen to the Middle-East, to our allies, to America, if we pulled out today, and see what kind of response you get. A bug-eyed, open-mouthed vacant stare will be your only answer. Because the truth of leaving Iraq before our mission is complete is horrifying.
I don't agree with everything that the president has done in Iraq. And I certainly don't want our wonderful troops dying in a futile effort. But I respect their willingness to step forward and do what needs to be done for this nation. I admire their courage and tenacity and dedication. As should we all.
When I think of the Middle-East with a stable, democratic and U.S. supported government in Iraq, my mind does somersaults. How would Syria and Iran fare then? Wouldn't their influence and support be diminished? Wouldn't their ability to use terrorism against us in our own country be lessened? Wouldn't their dream of a devastated and destroyed Israel and America be thwarted? Or at least minimized? Wouldn't Syria reconsider their support of terrorism? Wouldn't Iran then be forced to abandon their nuke program? What kind of message would North Korea get?
That's what our troops are fighting for. Our lives. Our very future. And that of our children.
But now, conversely, think of the other option. What would happen if we pulled out today? Civil war, probably. Mass murder of every Kurd, Sunni or Shiite who helped or supported us. The Middle East in turmoil with Iran and Syria claiming to have beaten the once-mighty U.S. A victory for terrorists everywhere. Iran and North Korea steaming ahead with their nukes. A new nuclear arms race with many new countries jumping into the mix. Allies who would never again support us or back us when we needed them. And a greatly-increased threat of terrorism in our own country.
Granted that there are no easy solutions here, which option sounds better?
We have to support our president and our troops because we must win in Iraq. There is no other option. No "plan B", especially if you consider that surrender and retreat are not "viable options".
As Maj. Pain at One Marine's View puts it, If you don't back us, feel free to get in front of us.
Indeed.
More great reading:
Recent Comments