War, War, Everywhere
Democrats wage war against
America
Theatrics were the norm last week before Congress
headed home for its Thanksgiving break. In the Senate, Democrats
offered a resolution that demanded a timetable for troop withdrawal
in Iraq.
Even though Republicans defeated Senate Minority Leader Harry
Reid’s cut-and-run resolution by a vote of 58 to 40, Reid
managed to give Al-Jazeera --- and Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi --- their
headlines and talking points all in one shot. Reid proclaimed
that the Senate’s action was “a vote of no confidence,”
and defiantly stated that “staying the course will not do.”
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/15/AR2005111500145.html?referrer=email)
Senate Republicans pushed back by passing their own resolution,
79 to 19, which essentially requires the White House to report
to the entire Senate every 90 days, “detailing U.S. policy
and military operations” in Iraq.
Mind you, these are the same Senate Democrats who supposedly
had an informed opinion on Iraq and its WMDs during the Clinton
Administration. It is these same Senate Democrats who voted for
war in 2002 on the basis of intelligence and information that
they actually saw and decided on.
Now, they want real or imagined oversight of a war that they:
- Virtually demanded in the late 1990s, fully backing President
Clinton’s stated goal of “regime change.”
- Supported the decision--and leadership--of President Bush in
2002, even going so far as to demand a debate and vote in regards
to an Iraqi war resolution in order to appear in line with the
Republicans, not to mention the country. But then…
- Cried foul over being supposedly “misled” and “lied
to” when WMDs did not materialize, all the while glossing
over their own factual statements regarding Saddam Hussein and
those ever-elusive WMDs.
Two things come to mind here. The first is that these political
chamber games that Democrats insist on playing can do nothing
but, at best, hurt the morale of our troops and at worst, cost
them their lives.
One hopes our military men and women might see the distinction
between a party that supports their Herculean efforts, and that
of the “other” party that continues to behave as if
it is 1969 all over again.
The second item, now that I mention politics, is all the political
flatulence that seems to emanate from the well of the Senate over
Iraq, specifically from the likes of Senators Kennedy, Reid, Durbin,
and everyone’s favorite anti-war stinker, John Kerry.
Well, the air was just as rank over in the House of Representatives,
where Rep. John Murtha, usually a stand-up guy in regard to the
military, let fly some of the most dishonorable and nonsensical
comments from an otherwise very honorable and sensible man.
In his comments, Murtha said: “The war in Iraq is not going
as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion.”
(http://apnews.myway.com/article/20051118/D8DV51A80.html)
Is this a case of liberal man bites military? Hardly. Murtha
is a 37-year Marine Corps veteran, awarded a Bronze Star and two
Purple Hearts. But it may be a case of normally hawkish Murtha
reverting to party politics and/or fund-raising gimmickry.
We have seen this before, where normally sensible members of
the left side of the aisle become, well, more erratic like their
vociferously liberal colleagues. California Congresswoman Jane
Harman, who is also usually well-grounded in military matters,
had stated the day after London experienced its own version of
9/11 this: “But the notion that we are fighting terrorists
in Iraq so we don't have to fight them in our cities is clearly
false.” (http://www.house.gov/harman/press/releases/2005/0707PR_London_bombings.html)
Again, these types of wild-eyed charges are uncharacteristic,
untrue, and unnecessary. But normally well-respected and looked-to
members of Congress seem to gravitate, after all, into today’s
new and senseless Democratic Party; nothing is out of bounds,
and all is fair game, even at the expense of the men and women
in combat.
For me, the real crime must be the country’s willingness
to put up with such political demagoguery and drive-bys, cloaked
within the well-worn comfort of “Free Speech.”
Such rubbish. If Democrats really had any backbone at all, they
would have mustered up more than the shamefully paltry three votes
they got in support of a GOP yet Democrat-inspired resolution
that simply stated:
“It is the sense of the House of Representatives that the
deployment of U.S. forces in Iraq be terminated immediately.”
(H.Res.571)
John Murtha and Jane Harman, of course, voted “No,”
which only proves the point that insipid rhetorical yammering
beats out principle nearly every time. For confirmation, look
at the old media, who now make it their business to report not
the news, but what they feel passes for it, politically. (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll608.xml)
In 1987, Bill Buckley wrote of Senator Ted Kennedy’s charges
against then-Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork as being “withered
in distortion and malice.” Of course, Buckley was talking
about “The” Ted Kennedy, but he was also commenting
on the general state of politics within the confines of civilized
discourse.
Alas, Buckley found it lacking then, and so it is today. From
the Michael Moores and the test-tube kids down at Air America,
I expect the distortion and malice. But the words that tumble
out of the elected left these past few years can only hurt the
country as a whole, and specifically our armed forces that fight
and die for their “Free Speech” right to say such
un-American filth.
For Democrats, it is not only war in Iraq, but war, war, everywhere;
political or otherwise.
|