DFW Editors (Just Like Democrats) Oblivious To Effects Of Cowardly Resolutions

As I read the editorials in the Fish Wrapper, one thing that always strikes me is the difference between what the editors try to convey and what they actually do convey. What they try to convey is they they are putting out these thoughtful, well-reasoned articles, but what they display is how their liberal bias governs everything they write and do.

Today's demonstration of this tendency is Saturday's editorial about the recent and upcoming votes on U.S. House and Senate resolutions against President Bush's proposal to send an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq.

They start out with the usual Democrat talking points.

In some ways, it feels as if the Iraq war votes should be easy, given the administration's poor planning for the war, the current state of violence in Iraq and the mood of the American public. But it's not easy to stand up and say no to a military strategy that directly affects thousands of young Americans standing in dangerous places on the far side of the world.

There are two problems in this paragraph. First of all, the mood of the American public isn't - and shouldn't be - taken into consideration in making war plans. Bill Clinton tried governing by opinion poll, and he failed miserably. At least we have a President that has the guts to do the right thing, even when it isn't the most posular. Plus, when the public is fed information by the liberal MSM, how could you expect them to have anything other than a poor opinion of President Bush?

Second, the troops aren't asking us to take care of them. In just about every quote I've heard from troops on the ground, they don't ask us to take care of them (contrary to what morons like William Arkin say); they just ask us to support them, turn them loose, and let them do their jobs. After the Gulf War, it seemed like we had learned that lesson from Vietnam, but now it seems like the Democrats are back to their old cowardly ways.

Does a resolution of disapproval send a demoralizing message to U.S. troops? Does it embolden enemies? Does it create greater dangers for Americans and their allies in the region?

We pray that everybody who cast a vote in the House of Representatives Friday, and who cast one in the Senate today, ponders these questions. Even though the resolutions are nonbinding, without the force of law, the underlying meaning of the votes is enormously significant.

First of all, the editors praying to anything other than the gods of liberalism is laughable, but that's another story.

Yes, the impact is enourmously significant, and the most significant place is on our soldiers. As documented on ABC News this past Tuesday (2/13/07)

Army First Sergeant Louis Barnum: “It makes me sick. I was born and raised a Democrat, but when I see that it just kind of makes me sad.”

Sergeant Brian Orzechoski: “I don’t want to bad-mouth the President at all. I mean, to me it’s treason.”

From Rep. Sam Johnson, a Vietnam veteran, speaking on the effect the anti-war effort had on soldiers in Vietnam:

"Words can't fully describe the unspeakable damage of the anti-American efforts against the war back home to the guys on the ground. When they pulled the funds for Vietnam, we were still POW's and we thought we were going to be there forever.”

And from General William Caldwell, a senior military spokesman in Iraq (emphasis mine):

Everybody here is listening to the debate in Washington. People ask us, how is the debate affecting moral over here? I tell people that our troops know what's at stake in Iraq and they also know that the American people supports their efforts here. They're doing their mission, doing what they've been asked to do by our government. And the thing that our troops need most is is the continued support of the American people -- that's really key. That's a part that the American people can play -- to continue to support these men and women and the civilians that are over here working, and to ensure also that the resources needed to accomplish this mission are available to them."

So I would say, yes, these votes are very significant, wouldn't you?

In the end Friday, the House of Representatives sent the correct message on the narrow issues framed by the concurrent resolution. The resolution says Congress will "continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or have served bravely and honorably in Iraq" but Congress "disapproves" of President Bush's decision, announced Jan. 10, to send 21,500 additional troops into the country.

This vote simply reflects reality. Congress has kept its hands off the wheel since authorizing the invasion of Iraq four years ago. After American voters made it clear in November that they are deeply unhappy with the course of the war in Iraq, the people they placed in leadership in Congress were obliged to express that dissatisfaction. They did so in the gentle form of the non-binding resolutions in each chamber.

This is one Democrat talking point that has no basis in fact yet continues to be used all te time: The November elections did not indicate that the American people were unhappy with the war. Last I checked, the President is the Commander In Chief, and not Congress. And those Democrats that were elected were not elected by a landslide by any means (just ask Jim Webb in Virigina, for example). In fact, if you bother to go back and do a little research, you will find out that it is normal for a President's party to lose seats in the mid term elections in his second term. So no, that's not what the elections were about at all, even though the lefties try to spin it that way all the time.

The word "gentle" is so laughable in this case. Having one of the most visible governing bodies in the world go so far as to draft a resolution telling a President they don't like his idea to actually win the war is not gentle; cowardly is more like it. If they had the guts to actually try to de-fund the war, that would be one thing, but because they are spineless, they'll just start with a tiny step like this and do it behind the scenes so the public doesn't really know how treasonous they are.

The trouble is, nobody on either side can point to a certain path through the morass that is Iraq. Even Gen. George Casey, the new Army chief of staff, disagrees with the president about how many additional brigades might be needed to secure Baghdad. There are many possible courses between the president's troop increase and complete withdrawal. It's not clear which will do the greatest good or the least damage.

Note the highlighted part; Casey doesn't disagree that more troops are needed, just how many. Isn't that different than what the resolutions are about, since they don't want to send more troops at all?

However, it's facetious to argue, as some do, that a vote against the president's troop increase is a vote for defeat, or prevents giving the president's plan a chance to work. The fact is, the president has had four years to develop and execute a plan that might work in Iraq, yet he has failed to do so. At this late stage, he has lost the confidence of Congress and the American public, not to mention much of the government of Iraq.

The editors show their arrogance here. They sit back here in their nice comfy offices and disparage the President about not having a plan that works. How many wars do they know of that went exactly according to plan? What makes a good soldier (or athlete, or any other occupation, for that matter) is that you can adjust to changing or unexpected conditions and adapt your plan to address them, and that's exactly what Bush is doing.

But of course, if you're President Bush (or even just a conservative) it's impossible to make liberals happy. When we first went into Iraq, the liberals complained because we didn't send enough troops but now that he wants to send in more, that's wrong, too.

And as for the government of Iraq, the Fish Wrapper gets it wrong again. It's actually been the Iraqi government that has been sitting on its collective butt. If you go back and look, it wasn't until someone started making noise about reducing troops that the Iraqis actually started to get in gear.

And now that that has happened, and the combined militaries are starting to crack down in Baghdad, good things are starting to happen (but don't expect the MSM outlets, such as the Oregonian, to be reporting on it).

It would be unconscionable to extend further blessings to a policy that has failed. Not while young men and women from Oregon, Washington, Idaho and every other U.S. state and territory are targets for their enemies in Iraq.

Failed? I guess that depends on who you are talking to. If you're talking to a bleeding heart liberal who thinks that America is evil and that peace can only be achieved by everyone sitting in a room and holding hands while singing "Kumbaya", then yes, it has been a failure. But why don't you ask the Iraqis if it has been a failure? Why don't you ask the families of the hundreds of thousands of people that Saddam Hussein slaughtered? Why don't you ask the soldiers who are actually on the ground in Iraq and actually know first hand the good that has been accomplished? Ask them if it's been a failure and see what they tell you.

The only way this becomes a failure is if the cowardly liberals win and we end up pulling out of Iraq before the job is done. But if we realize that it will be long and hard, and are willing to do whatever is necessary to win, we will not fail.

 

 

 

User login







Syndicate

Syndicate content