Sunday, February 18, 2007

The Democratic Disgrace

As I had the pleasure of noting earlier this week, the surrender-at-all-costs realm of the Democratic Party, led by the fearless, foolish and feckless John Murtha, was busily trying to sabotage the morale and the prospects for success for our combat troops in Iraq. I'm usually busy ripping the mainstream media, but this time the Washington Post sees through the false claims of Murtha and his ilk on "supporting the troops" with a blistering editorial...
Mr. Murtha has a different idea. He would stop the surge by crudely hamstringing the ability of military commanders to deploy troops. In an interview carried Thursday by the Web site, Mr. Murtha said he would attach language to a war funding bill that would prohibit the redeployment of units that have been at home for less than a year, stop the extension of tours beyond 12 months, and prohibit units from shipping out if they do not train with all of their equipment. His aim, he made clear, is not to improve readiness but to "stop the surge." So why not straightforwardly strip the money out of the appropriations bill -- an action Congress is clearly empowered to take -- rather than try to micromanage the Army in a way that may be unconstitutional? Because, Mr. Murtha said, it will deflect accusations that he is trying to do what he is trying to do. "What we are saying will be very hard to find fault with," he said.

Mr. Murtha's cynicism is matched by an alarming ignorance about conditions in Iraq. He continues to insist that Iraq "would be more stable with us out of there," in spite of the consensus of U.S. intelligence agencies that early withdrawal would produce "massive civilian casualties." He says he wants to force the administration to "bulldoze" the Abu Ghraib prison, even though it was emptied of prisoners and turned over to the Iraqi government last year. He wants to "get our troops out of the Green Zone" because "they are living in Saddam Hussein's palace"; could he be unaware that the zone's primary occupants are the Iraqi government and the U.S. Embassy?

It would be nice to believe that Mr. Murtha does not represent the mainstream of the Democratic Party or the thinking of its leadership. Yet when asked about Mr. Murtha's remarks Thursday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) offered her support.
Let it be noted that the Democratic Party of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who once proclaimed that we "have noting to fear but fear itself", now fears actually putting forth the policy it wants to advocate by defunding the troops, and instead seeks to hamstring the troops. John Podhertz sagely noted the following...
Nobody who actually supports the troops says "I support the troops" any longer. The words "I support the troops" are now solely for those who oppose what the troops are doing.
But let's take a look at where the American people, who really do support the troops, stand. Investor's Business Daily's poll results reveal something that might shock Pelosi and Murtha -- the majority of Americans want to win the war in Iraq. To be fair, perhaps the President should also take note of these results and press forward even more vigorously with the prosecution of the war -- for all the proponents of a greater surge, this is proof that there may be public support for such a road. But as IBD's accompanying editorial notes, the Democrats don't seem to want to win...
It's not that the Democrats think we're losing or that the war is unwinnable. They simply don't want to win it. As House Minority Leader John Boehner said of Murtha's proposals: "While American troops are fighting radical Islamic terrorists thousands of miles away, it is unthinkable that the United States Congress would move to discredit their mission, cut off their reinforcements and deny them the resources they need to succeed and return home safely."

At his press conference last week, Bush warned Congress against tying his hands on the war: "I make it very clear to the members of Congress, starting now, that they need to fund our troops and make sure we have the flexibility necessary to get the job done."

Give us the tools and we'll finish the job, said Winston Churchill in the dark days before our official entry into World War II. America delayed its entry into both world wars, but once in, we were committed to win. Hillary thinks that applies only to her campaign, not to the war on terror.

Neville Chamberlain's naivete may have helped bring on World War II, but at least he supported his country when war began. Norway's Vidkun Quisling and France's Vichy government under Marshal Petain may have collaborated with the Nazi enemy, but after their countries' defeats, not before.

We'd have to go back to Benedict Arnold to find Americans as eager as Murtha & Co. to see an American defeat on the battlefield.
I don't know that I'd go that far -- Murtha's not ready to turn over West Point to bin Laden (yet). But perhaps this mentality explains the overeagerness of some folks to compare this war to Vietnam. Or maybe it's as Instapundit noted...
To some people, Vietnam wasn't a defeat, but a victory. To them, the right side won. And lost. Naturally, they're happy to repeat the experience.
I guess these folks are in favor of victory. Their own political victory, at the cost of the troops, national security, and their party's honor. Not much to give up, of course.


Post a Comment

<< Home