The Dems for Defeat in Iraq (John Murtha, Nancy Pelosi, Russ Feingold, Hillary Clinton, bascially everyone besides Joe Lieberman) are going ahead with their plans to rip President Bush's powers as Commander-in-Chief out from under him.
Politically opportunistic Republicans are acting as accomplices.
From The Washington Post:
Thwarted in their attempt to formally rebuke President Bush, Senate Democrats yesterday shifted their focus to narrowing the U.S. military mission in Iraq.
Meanwhile, an influential Republican urged the president to reach out to Democratic leaders in Congress and seek bipartisan legislation on Iraq, citing as a possible road map President Ronald Reagan's compromise with Democrats on Social Security in 1983.
"My guess is that the president might make headway, and he would be well served by having a bipartisan policy which does pass . . . the House and the Senate, as really, a stamp of the American people at a time in which they see the urgency of Iraq," Richard G. Lugar (Ind.), the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said on CBS's "Face the Nation."
A day after seven GOP senators joined Democrats in unsuccessfully attempting to condemn Bush's current Iraq policy, the White House offered no sign of compromise.
...Democrats revised their aims after failing Saturday to gather enough votes in the Senate to permit debate on a symbolic resolution criticizing Bush's decision to send more troops to Iraq for a crackdown on growing sectarian violence. The House passed such a resolution Friday.
Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) rejected calls from some within his party to push next for legislation cutting off funds for U.S. troops in Iraq.
Instead, he and Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) discussed yesterday substantially narrowing U.S. troops' mission in Iraq by changing Congress's war authorization made in 2002.
"That was a wide-open authorization, which allowed [Bush] to do just about anything," Levin said on "Fox News Sunday." "We, I think, will be looking at a modification of that authorization in order to limit the mission of American troops to a support mission, instead of a combat mission."
Levin said he believes such a bill would be a constitutional way to bring change in Iraq without trampling on the president's war powers and would be more politically palatable than cutting off war funding, as some liberals have advocated.
Blah, blah, blah.
They're tripping all over themselves to surrender Iraq to Iran and hand a defeat to the UNITED STATES.
They aren't doing what's best for our country. They aren't doing what's best for Iraq. They aren't doing what's best for the world.
They're focused on doing what's best for themselves in the short term.
Why do they want to ensure a humanitarian disaster in Iraq and the wider Middle East?
Have they no conscience?
It's frightening when you think about it.
It's like a coup within our government -- anything to destroy Bush.
Whenever I hear about the plans to secure defeat in Iraq, I think about this story.
I came across it last June while scanning deep down the back pages of AP stories. The article was about National Guard members returning home from Iraq.
One told a story that I can't get out of my mind.
Children looking for handouts of candy would often approach 1st Lt. Anselm T.W. Richards and the men in his platoon. The soldiers would oblige them, then ask for information.
Sometimes, the children would tell them who made bombs and dealt in weapons. Everybody in town seemed to know the answer.
One day, Richards says, the parents of a 12-year-old boy told him their son had been beheaded by insurgents because he accepted a soccer ball as a gift from soldiers.
"We said to the parents, 'You tell us who did it and we will get them.' They said if we talk to you, they'll kill us as well,'" says Richards, a hedge fund broker from Philadelphia.
"That's the fear in which these people live. That's probably the biggest hindrance to them moving forward."
This is such an awful story that it's almost too horrific to believe, just as flying planes into the World Trade Center towers seemed unfathomable.
What sort of animal BEHEADS A 12-YEAR-OLD BOY because he accepted a soccer ball from American soldiers?
Who cares about this boy?
Certainly, NOT Hillary "Start withdrawing troops in 90 days" Clinton.
Certainly, NOT Russ "Power of the purse" Feingold.
Certainly, NOT Nancy "Today we have had an historic victory for the American people" Pelosi.
Certainly, NOT John "Redeploy to Okinawa" Murtha.
And certainly, NOT Chuck "Withhold Iraq funds" Hagel.
Would the story of the Iraqi boy and the soccer ball give them pause?
Do they think of the consequences of surrender?
The answer is NO.
It has to be NO, or they wouldn't propose what they're proposing.
They wouldn't vote for resolutions meant to secure defeat for the Iraqis and for us.
They act as if there's no price to pay for their recklessness.
Are they that blind?
Are they that selfish?
The answer is YES.
No comments:
Post a Comment