stephanie
01-20-2007, 12:44 AM
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted 1/19/2007
Politics: Is it unfair to accuse Democrats of being all about surrender and petty political gain? Back in power just two weeks, the party is living up to that caricature.
The Democrats who now make up the majority in Congress know they cannot succeed in cutting off funding for the war in Iraq. They also know that they cannot persuade President Bush to agree to any kind of graceful retreat; he wants to win.
So why pass resolutions in the Senate and House declaring the president's troop surge in Iraq is "not in the national interest of the United States"? The inescapable conclusion is that those measures, planned for the week of the president's State of the Union address, have one main goal: to embarrass the commander in chief in the eyes of the world as America wages a global war on terror.:(
Instead of disagreeing with the White House about how to win effectively, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is upset the administration doesn't want to lose. Speaking at the National Press Club last week, she said that "ending the war in Iraq" was "one of the great moral challenges facing our nation" — not winning the war there, not defeating terrorists and their enablers worldwide.She wants to get the losing of this war over with.
"It's a tragedy," Pelosi charged. "It's a stark blunder." In truth, what it is will depend on how it ends. And Democratic leaders make it clear their priority is for it to end as a humiliation for George W. Bush — "the national interest of the United States" be damned.
Similar talk was heard before the House Foreign Affairs Committee from liberal Democrat elder statesman Lee Hamilton, co-author of the now discredited Iraq Study Group report. The Isg "solution" was talks with the terrorist state of Iran and its client Syria so they can help us withdraw our troops. Hamilton provided the panel with his main complaint against the president's revised strategy: "You delay the date of departure of U.S. troops."
Like Pelosi, for Hamilton the object is getting our forces out, so we can get on with the business of blaming President Bush for defeat.
With Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., grumbled about "President Bush's recent saber rattling toward Iran" and issuing a warning: "I'd like to be clear: the President does not have the authority to launch military action in Iran without first seeking congressional authorization. The current use of force resolution for Iraq does not give him such authorization."
We don't recall Reid complaining that Bill Clinton should have asked Congress permission before he launched a cruise missile strike against a Sudanese drug factory in August of 1998. Clinton, who ordered the Sudan attack three days after admitting to his affair with Monica Lewinsky, falsely claimed the factory made nerve gas and was linked to Osama bin Laden.
Moreover, decisions by presidents Clinton and George H.W. Bush to use the U.S. military everywhere from Haiti to Kosovo to Iraq's no-fly zone took place with little if any congressional approval or consultation. All of those posed less threat to the U.S. and our allies than allowing Iran's Islamofascist regime to get nuclear weapons. As commander in chief, Bush doesn't need Reid's OK.
Cut through Pelosi and Reid's disingenuous talk of bipartisanship and the reality becomes clear: The Democrats as a party are incapable of competently handling national security.
http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=254102811212841
That last paragraph sums it all up....
Posted 1/19/2007
Politics: Is it unfair to accuse Democrats of being all about surrender and petty political gain? Back in power just two weeks, the party is living up to that caricature.
The Democrats who now make up the majority in Congress know they cannot succeed in cutting off funding for the war in Iraq. They also know that they cannot persuade President Bush to agree to any kind of graceful retreat; he wants to win.
So why pass resolutions in the Senate and House declaring the president's troop surge in Iraq is "not in the national interest of the United States"? The inescapable conclusion is that those measures, planned for the week of the president's State of the Union address, have one main goal: to embarrass the commander in chief in the eyes of the world as America wages a global war on terror.:(
Instead of disagreeing with the White House about how to win effectively, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is upset the administration doesn't want to lose. Speaking at the National Press Club last week, she said that "ending the war in Iraq" was "one of the great moral challenges facing our nation" — not winning the war there, not defeating terrorists and their enablers worldwide.She wants to get the losing of this war over with.
"It's a tragedy," Pelosi charged. "It's a stark blunder." In truth, what it is will depend on how it ends. And Democratic leaders make it clear their priority is for it to end as a humiliation for George W. Bush — "the national interest of the United States" be damned.
Similar talk was heard before the House Foreign Affairs Committee from liberal Democrat elder statesman Lee Hamilton, co-author of the now discredited Iraq Study Group report. The Isg "solution" was talks with the terrorist state of Iran and its client Syria so they can help us withdraw our troops. Hamilton provided the panel with his main complaint against the president's revised strategy: "You delay the date of departure of U.S. troops."
Like Pelosi, for Hamilton the object is getting our forces out, so we can get on with the business of blaming President Bush for defeat.
With Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., grumbled about "President Bush's recent saber rattling toward Iran" and issuing a warning: "I'd like to be clear: the President does not have the authority to launch military action in Iran without first seeking congressional authorization. The current use of force resolution for Iraq does not give him such authorization."
We don't recall Reid complaining that Bill Clinton should have asked Congress permission before he launched a cruise missile strike against a Sudanese drug factory in August of 1998. Clinton, who ordered the Sudan attack three days after admitting to his affair with Monica Lewinsky, falsely claimed the factory made nerve gas and was linked to Osama bin Laden.
Moreover, decisions by presidents Clinton and George H.W. Bush to use the U.S. military everywhere from Haiti to Kosovo to Iraq's no-fly zone took place with little if any congressional approval or consultation. All of those posed less threat to the U.S. and our allies than allowing Iran's Islamofascist regime to get nuclear weapons. As commander in chief, Bush doesn't need Reid's OK.
Cut through Pelosi and Reid's disingenuous talk of bipartisanship and the reality becomes clear: The Democrats as a party are incapable of competently handling national security.
http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=254102811212841
That last paragraph sums it all up....