Thursday, April 26, 2007

Congress surrenders and our enemies high five each other


Yes, it happened. Congress sent the Iraq pullout bill to President Bush and challenged him to veto it.

In the Senate, the vote was 51-46. Of the 535 members of Congress, it was pretty much a straight party line vote with only 4 Republicans joining the Democrats.

Of course, this is mere grandstanding, since Bush will almost certainly veto this bill and the Democrats lack the votes to override him. So there will be more political games played, most likely bills extending funding for two months or so.

If the Democrats had the courage to simply defund the war and take the political heat for the results, that would be something I could at least respect, even as I disagreed with it.

What's happening now simply a cowardly disgrace, designed to try and make political points while gambling with the lives of our troops.

4 comments:

Jon said...

What a huge waste of time and money by the Democrats. They could have achieved the same result by sending a thoughtful card to the President, rather than crafting a piece of legislation that they know will never get passed. But hey, they can pat themselves on the pack at the end of the day because they tried!

B.Poster said...

The American people want American troops out of Iraq. If the Democrats simply defunded the war and brought the troops back home, there would be no "politcal heat", at least in the short term, that they would have to take. They would be roundly praised all the way around. The American people would love them and the news media would love them.

In the long term, however, there would be severe ramifications. If the US withdraws from Iraq now, then Iran, Al Qaeda, or some combination will gain control of Iraq. This will make defense of the US and the Western world far more difficult and more costly. Besides the US would eventually have to go back into Iraq any way, in much the same way that Israel had to go back into Lebanon after they withdrew.

It seems to me that the Democrats want an American defeat that they do not have to take responsibility for. If they defunded the war and withdrew the troops right now they would bear at least some of the responsibility for the resulting catastorphe. Of course president Bush and his advisors bear much blame for the current situation and any resulting defeat. I'm not trying to minimize their failures.

By the Democrats actions, they indicate that they are not simply "useful idiots." They seem to fully understand how devestating an American defeat would be. As for the American people, most of them have very little understanding of the stakes here. How can they understand? The American media has not been straight with them and the President has done an incredibly poor job of explaining the stakes. Most people simply do not have time to seek out and read alternative sources to the main stream media.

Again, if the Democrats truly feel the war in Iraq is a lost cause, they should immediately defund the war and bring the troops home. At least this way, we would still have some of our military capabilities in tact. These forces could be redeployed to defend the homeland. A good place to use them would be for border security.

Freedom Fighter said...

Hi Jon, B. Poster...

Jon , I think the idea here is for the Dems to disassociate themselves from their votes in favor of the Iraq war and attempt to cast this publicly as `Bush's War' for political gain.

The plan is to make Iraq a true quagmire to run against in `08. And yes, it is despicable.

B. Poster, I agree with most of what you've said with the exception of your statement that there would be `no political heat,at least in the short term that they would have to take' if they defunded the war.

They are very sensitive about being perceived as unpatriotic and weak on defense, and a premature withdrawal from Iraq would be a major club to beat them with politically, IMO..especially given what would likely follow.

The fact is, they want it both ways, especially with a presidential election and a chance to seize power in the offing.They need this to go into `08, no matter how many of our troops have to die.

What they are trying to recreate is the post-Vietnam/Watergate scenario where Iraq becomes such a nightmare that the administration will have to withdraw our troops precipitously. Negotiations with Iran and Syria engineedred bythe Dems will be part of the scenario, along with impeachments of Bush and Cheney, and Nancy Pelosi as an interim president.

B.Poster said...

Freedom Fighter

Thank you for the reply to my post. I think you are one of the best bloggers on the internet. As such, I'm glad you agree with most of what I wrote, however, I stand by what I wrote earlier.

If the Democrats were to simply defund the war and bring the troops home now, there is no political heat that they would have to take, at least in the short term. Any attempt by Republican operatives or anyone else to label them as "unpatriotic" or "weak on defense" would backfire and would give the Democrats a huge short term political benefit. The narrative from the Democrats and their allies in the main stream media would be that it is "patriotic" to pull our troops out of an Iraqi Civil War that does not concern us. It is "strong on defense" to stop the Republicans from further degrading an already "worn and possibly broken American military." The only short term political cost of attempting to label the Democrats as unpatriotic or weak on defense would be to the Republicans or anyone else who attempted such a thing.

Also, after the immediate withdrawl from Iraq, the American people would be treated to pictures of the troops coming home with the American flag waving in the background. We would all see pictures of troops being reunited with their families and with teary family reunions. No reasonable person would be unaffected by such sights. In summary, an immediate withdrawl from Iraq would have a huge short term political benefit to the Democrats or whoever could make this happen.

As I stated this would be a short term politcal benefit, the long term is another matter. The long term is out beyond 2009. In other words, if the Democrats would immediately defund the Iraq war and bring the troops home, they would coast to victory in most national offices. They would gain the White House and they would gain seats in both the House and the Senate. By not bringing forth an immediate withdrawl from Iraq, the Democrats are indicating that at least on some level they understand that the consequences of an immediate withdrawl from Iraq would be devestating to Aemrican national interests, however, there is another possibility.

A premautre withdrawl from Iraq would severly compromise America's position as a major world power. It may not end it entirely as a major world power but America's postion would be severly compromised. If this were to be followed up by negotiations with Iran and Syria, those two countries would be negotiating from positions of strength. The resulting concessions that the US would be making during these negotiations would effectively end the US as a major world power. When the US loses its position as an important world power this will mean a major life style adjustment downward for most American citizens. Also, it will mean that Russia and China will become the world's dominant powers. Russia and China are America's most dangerous enemies. Those two countries already may be the world's dominant powers, however, the resulting one-two punch of a premature withdrawl from Iraq followed by concessions to Iran and Syria will increase Russia and China's lead over the US and will serve to soldify their hold as the world's dominant powers.

Also, when the main stream media says the US should "negotiate" they really mean the US should capitulate to all of the demands of its enemies. When they say the US is acting "unilaterally" what they actually mean is the US is refusing to submit to the demands of French and other countries within "old Europe." The same pardigms apply to Israel. When the press says Israel should "negotiate" they really mean Israel should capitualte to the demands of their enemies.

With all of this said, negotiations with Iran and Syria could be salvaged. This could be done by inviting Israel to participate as an equal partner with the US in the negotiations. Israel could have veto power over any agreements that are reached. After all, we all know that Iran and Syria will demand concessions from Israel. Make Israel an equal partner in the negotiations. This way the interests of our most important ally can be properly considered.

The other possiblity that I mentioned earlier is the Democratic leadership hates George W. Bush and Republicans so much that they have not thought through the long range consequences of the policies they advocte. A pemature withdrawl from Iraq and the sight of Aemrican officials groveling before Iran and Syria would be hugely embarassing to the President. Personally I would not mind seeing George W. Bush humiliated further. I think he is the worst president in American history, however, the policies of premature withdrawl from Iraq followed by groveling before Syria and Iran and making additional concessions to them will probably finish the US as a major power. If the US is finished as a major world power, it will be much more difficult to defend the country against Russia, China, and Islamic terrorists.

Another great enemy that Americans face is complacency. Recently Democrat operative, General Wesley Clark, stated, to roughly paraghrase, "Syria and Iran are not on our level" and "they are incapable of threatening us directly. They are only a threat to our troops." General Clark is wrong. Iran, Syria, and their terrorists proxies can target the American homeland. They could easily kill ten million or more Americans. They can completely destroy major American cities. Also, they would probably have Russia and China behind them. This would make an American military response very problematic. Not only are Syria and Iran very much "on our level" either of those countries pose a far greater threat to the US than Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan ever did or ever could have. Based on these statements I tentatively conclude that General Wesley Clark, like many Americans and Westerners, suffers from complacency. In the case of the average American and the average Western European, this is understandable. Their media elites and their leading politicians have not leveled with them regarding the threat posed by their enemies and most Americans and probably most Western Europeans simply do not have time to seek out alternative sources of information, however, for General Clark to utter such statements is inexcusable. Someone in his position should know better.