But Reid began the Senate Democrat's response by citing:
The American people are hungry for leadership and a frank appraisal of how we're doing. And just recently, on a bipartisan basis, the United States, 79 senators in agreement, asked for such a plan, a coherent, detailed plan.
Today's speech I don't believe was such a plan. I was disappointed.
Again, the president failed to answer the questions that all Americans are asking: 'How do we know if progress is being made there? How do we measure success? How much longer should America expect to be in Iraq?'
Senator, next time you might want to actually listen to the President before you begin reading the talking points your staff has written. President Bush went into exhaustive detail on how well the Iraqis are doing in defending themselves and winning this war. The accompanying 35 page document "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq " goes into even greater detail.
Reid continues:
"I think the president also failed to provide real insight into the possibility of Iraq's transformation to a democratic oasis in the Middle East. That is a very long-term process at best, and I think the president has to be much more specific."
How much more specific can President Bush be? Iraq has moved faster towards a sovereign constitutional democracy than any nation in the history of the world. Ballots are replacing bullets and we have another election coming up in less than two weeks. If you think this miracle of freedom hasn't already paid dividends in the Middle East, perhaps you have another explanation for the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon, The outpouring of support for the war in Jordan, the change in heart by Libya's Gaddafi regarding his WMD program?
Reid closes his portion of the presentation with this:
"The question is, 'What is the president's plan to stabilize Iraq, to do so in a way which we could be confident that that plan will succeed in a reasonable time and with the resources that are required to accomplish that plan?' "
Senator: You keep asking the same question over and over and you are never satisfied with the answer. Have you and your fellow Democrats put forward a plan with MORE specifics, MORE attainable goals, MORE measures for success?
You folks have outright dismissed every accomplishment in this war.. Our success never seems to be good enough for you. You always make some vague allusion as to how we might do it better if only you were in charge. Yeah, right! We tried it your way for eight years under Clinton and look where that got us.
And now, it was John Kerry's turn:
He starts off with a snarky line: "It's interesting that whenever the president or the vice president or other officials speak about Iraq or the war on terror, they do so mostly in front of troops."
Have you ever wondered why Democrats don't do speeches in front of troops? Because they would be BOOED OFF THE STAGE as Hillary Clinton was by Firefighters in New York after September 11th.
Kerry drones on in his patronizing speech tone: "And the best way to protect the troops, the best way to stand up for the troops, is to provide the best policy for success in Iraq."
Yes Senator, we've done that so many times I have lost count. And while rational, mature individuals are busy crafting and implementing that policy, you and yours are working overtime to dismiss and undermine it.
More Skerry: "this debate is note about an artificial date for withdrawal" and then in the next paragraph: "The United States Senate had a vote [on] a Democrat resolution [to] set an estimated timetable for success which will permit the withdrawal of our troops."
So you're denying that you wanted a timetable for withdrawal, you call it a "timetable for success." Still struggling with the meaning of the word "is" Senator?
As the press conference opened up for questions, the first came regarding Jack Murtha's (D-PA) call for immediate withdrawal. You can read how Kerry and Reid waffled on that in the full transcript here .
Nancy Pelosi Endorses Murtha Withdrawal
Have you ever noticed how Democrats always seem to sing from the same song book when it comes to their talking points? House MINORITY Leader Nancy Pelosi in her response to President Bush's speech had the same snarky, yapping Yorkie quality as did Kerry and Reid:The 'Plan for Victory' backdrop against which the President appeared at the Naval Academy today was no more accurate than the 'Mission Accomplished' backdrop he used over two and a half years ago on the USS Abraham Lincoln.
The President did not have a plan for victory when he went into his war of choice in Iraq, and he did not have a plan for victory today.
The American people expected that the President would do more today than just put a new cover and 35 pages of rhetoric on old sound bites.
But Pelosi fell off the "timetable for success" reservation when she endorsed the Murtha defeat proposal: "We should follow the lead of Congressman John Murtha, who has put forth a plan to make America safer, to make our military stronger, and to make Iraq more stable. That is what the American people and our troops deserve."
Our troops, who have given so very much for Victory deserve a cut and run strategy? Try winning an election where you are honest about that!
Democrats who were FOR the war before they were AGAINST it just can't seem to express anything like a positive coherent plan for VICTORY. They crank out defeatist talking points faster than France can surrender. Wouldn't it be nice for a change if they spent some of the time and energy they have devoted to blind opposition to our VICTORY policy in the war and actually did something constructive to help win it?
No comments:
Post a Comment