The big news of last week was President Bush's announcement of a small increase of troops sent to Iraq with a new mission of controlling the violence in the remaining areas that have yet to meet the conditions for VICTORY laid out by the President. Post on that announcement is here.
No matter that President Bush again admitted making mistakes, as every leader does, in the conduct of this war, the Democrats pounced all over this latest announcement with Al Queda-like zeal and insisted again on a "redeployment" which amounts to surrender.
In his radio address on Saturday, President Bush again outlined his plan and said of his critics: "[T]hose who refuse to give this plan a chance to work have an obligation to offer an alternative that has a better chance for success. To oppose everything while proposing nothing is irresponsible."
Meanwhile, Amir Taheri spoke to residents in one of the most violence plagued areas of Baghdad and got their reactions to the President's announcement: "A sigh of relief! ..."Maybe the Americans aren't running away after all," said one resident, a Sunni Arab, over the phone moments after President Bush unveiled his new plan.
And still the drumbeat of defeat and total lack of any practical, effective alternative leaves many wondering:
Do Democrats Want Us to Win?
We've already pointed out the inconsistency of Democrats who have spent much of the preceding months and years calling for more troops (Mike's America post here, SF Chronicle story here, good wrap up at Wizbang here.) all of a sudden turning on a dime and now opposing sending more troops. It reminds us of when Democrats insisted that weapons of mass destruction in Iraq were a threat only to change their tune later when the political winds shifted.
So we ask do they want us to win? One of the paid flaks for the Democrat Party which you often see popping up on TV talk shows piped up that "Democrats want to win in Iraq." Really? Which ones? Apart from Senator Joe Lieberman I'd be hard pressed to come up with a list. After all, we had Democrat Party head Howard Dean insisting that the "idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong," and Nancy Pelosi hissing that Iraq is not a "war to win."
During the fall election campaign we did hear Senator Chuck Schumer claim that "Democrats want to win the war, which is why we want to change the strategy." President Bush has offered a change in strategy and acceded to previous Democrat demands to send more troops to carry out that plan. And again, the response from the Democrats is a near universal negative.
I worked very hard to find more examples like Senator Schumer claiming Democrats want to win in Iraq. However, when I googled various combinations of "Democrats want to win in Iraq" the results had more to do with Democrats winning power in the elections, not the war in Iraq.
Democrat's Own Sectarian Strife
When Cindy Sheehan, the Democrat's anointed "absolute moral authority" and her band of hippie throwbacks interrupted Democrat Congressman Rahm Emanuel on Capitol Hill and claimed "We are the ones that put them in power" so they'd better do things OUR way or else, it was a warning to the slim Democrat majority, much of which came from more conservative congressional districts, that the Democrats problem with trying to have it both ways was in trouble.
Dick Morris echoed that thought by suggesting that what is coming is a Democrat Party Civil War. A "surge" of leftist anger may soon overwhelm that slender new majority if the spoiled and deluded children of the hard left fail to get their way. Morris warns Democrats that the split may become so profound that the crazy left may just consider itself a new political party.
Meanwhile, wouldn't you love to see the press ask Democrats whether they want to win and if so how with the same tenacity they dogged President Bush about "mistakes?"
No comments:
Post a Comment