America in the Balance

MESSAGE OF THE CONGRESSIONAL

DEMOCRATIC RESOLUTION ON THE WAR

TO OSAMA—HANG IN THERE, WE’RE

DOING THE BEST WE CAN TO HELP YOU!

by

Ken Eliasberg

Before adjourning for Easter recess, the Senate passed a resolution calling for a deadline for our withdrawal from Iraq, thus joining their bretheren in House in this despicable act of political theatre. It must be difficult to be a member of a party that hungers for your own country’s defeat in a war—that so clearly places partisan politics above principle (in this case national security). And make no mistake, whatever drivel a lefty spouts in defense of this latest abomination by the Democrats, this Resolution, in derogation of the safety and well being of our troops, is a declaration of surrender. A declaration that cannot—and, I assure you, will not - be overlooked by our enemies. This Congressional statement by the Democrats (and a couple of thoroughly worthless Republicans) is already being triumphantly beamed across the Arab world as a clear sign of America’s weakness and lack of resolve. And please, also spare me any drivel about the patriotism of Democrats; it’s all about politics with these guys. Getting the White House back in 2008 is their only concern—national security be damned. And what would they do with it when, and if, they get it—less than they did before, when their dereliction allowed Islamic terrorism to go unpunished and emboldened our backward barbarian enemies to visit 9/11 on us. If you think the Clinton White House of 1992-2000 was bad, you ain’t seen nothing yet: A Hillary Clinton White House would be a defining moment in the declining fortunes of Western Civilization.

Back to this resolution, and the words of the only Democrat in Congress with any degree of integrity, Joe Lieberman. In a Washington Post column, entitled Setting a deadline for withdrawal would guarantee defeat in Iraq, Senator Lieberman put it as follows:

“Two months ago, the Senate voted unanimously to confirm one of

our most decorated generals, David Petraeus, to take command in Iraq. Gen.

Petraeus promised a fundamental overhaul of U.S. strategy—with a new plan that would at last correct the many mistakes we have made in this long and difficult war.

Since taking command, Gen Petraeus has been true to his word. The result? Sectarian violence is down in Baghdad. The radical cleric Muqtada al

Sadr has fled. The Mahdi Army, which terrorized Baghdad last year, appears to be splintering. And the Iraqi government—its spine stiffened thanks to our renewed support—is taking the critical steps for political reconciliation.

Amazingly, however, just at the moment things are at last beginning to look up in Iraq, a narrow majority in Congress has decided that it’s time to force our military to retreat. Rather than supporting Gen. Petraeus, they are threatening to strip of of the troops he says he needs and sabotage strategy.

This is outrageous [indeed, it is].

The deadline for retreat that Congress wants to impose is both arbitrary and inflexible. American troops would be forced to begin withdrawing regardless of conditions in Iraq, regardless of the recommendations of our military commanders, and regardless of what impact a hasty retreat would have on America’s security and credibility—in short, regardless of reality.

Åll of us want to bring our troops home as quickly as possible. But decisions in war should be made by our military commanders based on facts on the battlefield, not by politicians in Washington watching the polls.

There is, of course, no guarantee that General Petraeus and his new strategy will succeed, but a deadline for withdrawal is a guarantee of defeat.

There is a better way. Gen. Petraeus says we should have a clear sense whether progress is occurring by the end of the summer. So let us declare a truce in the Washington political war over Iraq until then. Rather than imposing a deadline that ensures our failure. Congress should reserve judgment for now and give Gen Petraeus and his troops a chance to succeed.”

I could not have stated the case for the defeat of this Congressional proposal any better. Quite simply, this Resolution is an act of treachery so base as to be without historical parallel; it even humanizes Neville Chamberlain’s gesture to Hitler; at least Chamberlain hoped that he might be on the right track—today’s Democrats on the other hand, are merely playing politics. Of course, it is a gamble; they are banking on our losing in Iraq (and doing everything that they can to make sure that we do). If their gamble proves wrong, they may pay a terrible electoral price. This dastardly effort is little more than pandering to their anti-war base, a group of mindless kids, kooks, and commies (for more on their composition I refer the reader to

Discoverthenetwork.org/guideDesc.asp?catid=9&type=group, a David Horowitz website—again, if you really want to find out what’s going on in the world, go David Horowitz’s main website, frontpagemag.com; it is far and away the best website going).

Let’s clear up some basics—no one likes war. War is not a political line of demarcation, separating Republicans from Democrats. Those are Republican men and women in Iraq as well as Democrats. The question is not whether war is good or bad, or even desirable or undesirable. The question is it necessary? Have other means of resolution been exhausted? The President believed that they were, and, for reasons detailed at great length in my previous columns, so did I. And, until Bush actually embarked on the war, so did every prominent Democrat. That said, as a citizen, you have the choice, of course, not to agree; however, in my opinion, you do not have the choice to engage in obstruction. There is no doubt in my mind that FDR, Wilson, and Lincoln—three of our more renowned presidents, would have thrown these jerks in jail for seriously interfering with the war effort. We would have no trouble with these radical islamicists if this country were united. But alas, the Dems want us to lose; they may come to regret that decision down the road.

And stop with the deaths already; we lost 25% more men in 24 hours at Normandy. We lost 6 and 7 times as many in several battles during the Civil War. War, as Sherman observed, is hell; people die. Less people will die in the long run if we fight this war in a vigorous and determined way; enough of this political correctness crap and phony concern for collateral damage. As Shakespear noted, if it be done, best be done quickly.

Moreovere, in this case, the shameless abandonment of national security concerns in favor of the quest for political power is made even more shameless by the effort to commercialize the resolution with 2 tons of pork. From a purely partisan perspective I think this larding on the pork was a beautiful demonstration of the true nature of the tax-and-spend Democrat, but, in a measure of such a vital nature—have they no shame???

In conclusion, who, but our enemies, can possibly benefit from this idiotic resolution - NO ONE. Not only will they simply wait us out, but they will do so in an emboldened state in view of this demonstration of our diminished reolve. In short, a measure of this nature does 4 things “