So, what do veterans say about the Surrender in Iraq legislation?
(CNSNews.com) – As the likelihood increases that Congress will approve a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, veterans' groups on Wednesday had a message for the commander in chief: Veto any measure that in their minds would lead to defeat.
"You don't have to be a military strategist to understand the advantage a withdrawal date gives to the enemy," said Paul Morin, national commander of the American Legion in a news release. "Congress authorized Operation Iraqi Freedom, and now, it needs to let the troops finish the job.
"The American Legion supports the troops," he added. "You cannot support the troops if you want them to cut and run."
Well, the Defeatocrats think that supporting the troops mean cutting their mission and bringing them how, of course.
Morin pointed out that Congress cut off funding in Vietnam, even though the troops won every military battle. "Let's not repeat the mistakes of the past," he stated. "The American people need to support the troops and their commander in chief, even if Congress won't."
Gary Kurpius, commander in chief of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S., expressed a similar opinion in a statement of his own on Wednesday.
"The war on terrorism is a long-term war that requires a long-term focus," Kurpius said. "The funding bill Congress forwards to the president must be stripped of unrealistic troop withdrawal language and unrelated expenses.
"The time to debate the war is not with the funding package that keeps our troops in the field alive," he noted.
So, two leaders of the largest veterans groups say it is a bad deal. A "blueprint for disaster and a recipe for surrender." Will John Kerry call them stupid?
But, guess what? Even the liberal anti-Operation Iraqi Freedom veterans do not like the legislation
However, Kelly Dougherty, executive director for Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW), told Cybercast News Service that because the Senate timetable is non-binding, "it's even more meaningless than the bill the House voted on because that one was binding."
The IVAW head also criticized the Democrats for "putting forth the image that they're trying to end the war" but instead using their opposition as "a stalling tactic to put them in place to do well in the 2008 elections by continuing to make the administration look back without actually ending the war."
In other words, the Democrats do not even have the cajones to follow through on what they said they would do if elected to the majority in the mid terms.
