From a Washington Times editorial
"There’s simply no evidence that the escalation is working. Conditions are deteriorating…Waiting until September is not the answer. Holding out blind hope — blind trust that progress will appear out of thin air, that is not the answer." — Sen. Harry Reid, in a Wednesday floor speech.
"It has absolutely not failed… And the first and foremost thing we have to do is to knock down al Qaeda. And with them alienating so many Iraqis, they’re [al Qaeda] almost doing it for us. It takes military might to finally wipe them out of Baqubah, but it’s working. I sense that the surge is working. Reid is just wrong." — excerpts of remarks made by former U.S. Special Forces soldier Michael Yon, currently embedded with U.S. military forces in Iraq, in an interview with radio talk-show host Hugh Hewitt on Thursday.
Sadly, these statements only illustrate the surreal, nonsensical direction congressional debate over the Iraq war has taken. Legislators of both parties are preoccupied with focus groups and public-opinion polls showing what is natural and obvious, that the public is frustrated with war. The public is always frustrated with war; it’s one of the strengths of a democracy. Every wartime president since George Washington learned that. But as evidence of genuine progress mounts, politicians of both parties compete with one another to see who can come up with the most imaginative surrender plan, always leaving themselves wiggle room to deny they ever said it if a precipitous retreat of American troops from Iraq reprises Rwanda in 1994 or Cambodia in 1975.
Put yourself in the place of a jihadist with access to the Internet and/or satellite television, constantly probing for signs of weakness and opportunities to undermine the American war effort. How could a jihadist be anything but emboldened by the misbehavior of Congress? ………
War is not pretty. It is not fun. And very few actually want to be fighting one, or have their country fighting one. We do not want our troops being harmed and dying. But, to lose would be worse. Much worse. Which, of course, would lead lefties to bring up the old "we shouldn’t have deposed a murderous, brutal dictator. Sanctions should have been given more time. No WMD. YAAARRRRGGGG!"
We are there. Why do some, including some weak knee’d Republicans, not want to win? Why can they not talk about winning, rather then taking a tact that is guaranteed to cause a loss? Getting into whether Iraq is part of the war on terror is an old arguement. I typically just ask liberals if they want to win. You can guess that I never actually get a legitimate on-point answer.
Defeatist congressmen and surrender-happy media elites have conspired to mislead, intentionally or not, public opinion about the changing reality on the ground in Iraq. That’s important to keep in mind when debate on the pander-lympics of surrender resumes on Capitol Hill.
Now that is the way to turn a phrase! Maybe the Surrendercrats will listen.
Do you have an interesting post? Well, go ahead and leave a trackback, with a reciprical link back to me. Others offering open trackbacks are over in the right sidebar, near bottom.