Senators Clinton, Obama and Dodd (otherwise known as the Democrat presidential candidates) gave a stunning performance when they voted against the new bill submitted to President Bush to fund our troops currently in Iraq and Afghanistan.
All of them seem to have made a decision - that catering to MoveOn and the party's Angry Left constituency for their personal ambitions was more important than voting to support our troops in the field without a set-in-cement pullout date.
I might have had a tad more respect for them if all of them hadn't made pretentious statements about how the previous bill was the right idea, and how this was about needing a `new strategy' rather than `not supporting the troops'. Somehow, I fail to realize how telegraphing our exact pull out date to our enemies constitutes `strategy', or voting against basic funding for men and women we already have in the field constitutes `supporting the troops'.
Can't have it both ways.
As you know, I have my own problems with the way the war in Iraq has been mismanaged, and I especially don't think much of the corrupt pro-Iran Shiite government we're propping up, but I also see the inherent idiocy in a premature pullout that our enemies know all about in advance.
It's important to remember,come election time, that these senators were willing to put their personal ambitions ahead of what was good for the country, to remember what their notions of `strategy' in the War Against Jihad are and to take a lesson from it in how they would perform as Commander in Chief.
No comments:
Post a Comment