DEMOCRATS REGROUPING ON IRAQ - THE SUNDAY COMMENTARY
Just prior to the beginning of the August Congressional break, ( reprieve for we who tire of the liberal mantra), Democrats made it painfully clear that even with the prospects of the report that is due in mid September by General Patraeus on Iraq, the Democrat policy would follow the usual cut and run, surrender stance that they have followed for more that three years.
In fact many prominent Democrats like Harry Reid were already beginning the usual rhetoric concerning pulling the troops , the failure of the surge and the incompetence of our military and its commanders, especially the Commander in Chief.
Now as we approach the return of Congress after the Labor Day weekend, Congressional Democrats and especially the upper tier of Democrat Presidential candidates seem to be singing a different tune. While still not jumping on the stay until the mission is completed policy that has been that of President Bush and the GOP since we first went into Iraq, many are actually admitting that the surge is working and the outlook on Iraq is much better than it was even at the beginning of the summer.
Hillary, (the Hildabeast), Clinton expressed best this new , "vision, " that Democrats are adopting concerning Iraq when she stated that the surge is working but it is ,"to late to win the war." Stupid ? Yes, but it does have the advantage for liberals concerning the war, at least from a voting stand point to somewhat appease the liberal base while opening the door to reach the more moderate voter. A fence post stance the she is famous for.
The other direction that Democrats seem to be taking is backing off of the pull out, (surrender), rhetoric and piling on to the Maliki government to the point that many are calling for the removal of Maliki as Iraq's Prime Minister. Faced with a growing support for staying in Iraq until the job is completed here at home and success that is so evident that even the usual liberal lies and the MSM's biased coverage cannot hide, Democrats are moving to their next strategy which consists of admitting that the military aspect is working while condemning the political side.
It has long been known that Maliki was a weak Prime Minister at best but Democrats have basically ignored Maliki and opted instead to attack the troops, the commanders, the strategy of the war, especially the surge, which they condemned as a failure before it even started and of course the President. They are now discovering that all of this is not only failing for them as a strategy but as popularity increases at home it is hurting their chances in 2008 and combined with a lack luster job performance since January in Congress giving them the lowest poll ratings of any Congress in history.
So now many Democrats are calling for the removal of Prime Minister Maliki and the reconstruction of the Iraqi Parliament and government. While this may play well for them in the press for the time being, my question is, "what gives them or anyone besides the Iraqi people the right to call for a new PM and a new government ?"
While Maliki is not the best of leaders and the government has been struggling, it is still the duly elected government of the people of Iraq and until they as a sovereign nation of free people choose to change that government no one, even elitists Democrats has the right to demand or expect otherwise.
Even elitist Democrats would cry foul if another nations political leaders were demanding the removal of our President. Democrats would be among the first to tell that foreign government it has no right to demand anything of our governmental structure even if that President were not popular at all among Democrats. In fact I believe that it would be one of the only times that Democrats would step forward and even defend President Bush.
Yet these same elitist Democrats are demanding that the leader of another sovereign nation be removed and replaced in accordance to who and what THEY believe should lead that government. Maliki may be failing, he may be weak and he may not be able to turn things around politically in Iraq, but he was elected by the people and his ouster is their choice and their choice alone.
Our only position should be, while disagreeing with his ability to govern, supporting the right of the Iraqi people to make their governmental decisions and as such supporting them as an ally and a sovereign nation that is in need of our help. That does not mean staying indefinitely in Iraq but it does mean that we respect the people of Iraq enough to let them decide who runs their country.
We expect nothing less for ourselves as a nation and should not demand anything less for nation in whom we respect as an ally. I do not hear Democrats calling for the ouster of Iran's President and he has threatened our nation, our allies and our very existence. Yet Democrats recognize Iran's sovereignty in governing, despite our disagreements and their status as an enemy of America.
Iraq deserves that same respect and even more so since they are allies and are a new fledgling government that needs our guidance and not our condemnation. Democrats will soon see that this strategy will fail as their surrender strategy has. In fact I will go on the record as saying that come mid-September when the Patraeus report is made public that Democrats will once again twist the successful findings into yet another round of accusations of failure, demands for troop, "re-deployment, " and pull out, (surrender), and condemnation of the President , the commanders, the troops AND the Maliki government.
This time though the majority of American people have grown wise to Democrats and their maneuvering concerning the war. They see the hypocrisy and their motivation behind their actions. They understand that winning the war is essential for America and that Democrats advocate losing only for political advantage regardless of the cost to the troops and the country. This time the Democrat strategy of surrender and appeasement will fail even before it begins.
Ken Taylor
In fact many prominent Democrats like Harry Reid were already beginning the usual rhetoric concerning pulling the troops , the failure of the surge and the incompetence of our military and its commanders, especially the Commander in Chief.
Now as we approach the return of Congress after the Labor Day weekend, Congressional Democrats and especially the upper tier of Democrat Presidential candidates seem to be singing a different tune. While still not jumping on the stay until the mission is completed policy that has been that of President Bush and the GOP since we first went into Iraq, many are actually admitting that the surge is working and the outlook on Iraq is much better than it was even at the beginning of the summer.
Hillary, (the Hildabeast), Clinton expressed best this new , "vision, " that Democrats are adopting concerning Iraq when she stated that the surge is working but it is ,"to late to win the war." Stupid ? Yes, but it does have the advantage for liberals concerning the war, at least from a voting stand point to somewhat appease the liberal base while opening the door to reach the more moderate voter. A fence post stance the she is famous for.
The other direction that Democrats seem to be taking is backing off of the pull out, (surrender), rhetoric and piling on to the Maliki government to the point that many are calling for the removal of Maliki as Iraq's Prime Minister. Faced with a growing support for staying in Iraq until the job is completed here at home and success that is so evident that even the usual liberal lies and the MSM's biased coverage cannot hide, Democrats are moving to their next strategy which consists of admitting that the military aspect is working while condemning the political side.
It has long been known that Maliki was a weak Prime Minister at best but Democrats have basically ignored Maliki and opted instead to attack the troops, the commanders, the strategy of the war, especially the surge, which they condemned as a failure before it even started and of course the President. They are now discovering that all of this is not only failing for them as a strategy but as popularity increases at home it is hurting their chances in 2008 and combined with a lack luster job performance since January in Congress giving them the lowest poll ratings of any Congress in history.
So now many Democrats are calling for the removal of Prime Minister Maliki and the reconstruction of the Iraqi Parliament and government. While this may play well for them in the press for the time being, my question is, "what gives them or anyone besides the Iraqi people the right to call for a new PM and a new government ?"
While Maliki is not the best of leaders and the government has been struggling, it is still the duly elected government of the people of Iraq and until they as a sovereign nation of free people choose to change that government no one, even elitists Democrats has the right to demand or expect otherwise.
Even elitist Democrats would cry foul if another nations political leaders were demanding the removal of our President. Democrats would be among the first to tell that foreign government it has no right to demand anything of our governmental structure even if that President were not popular at all among Democrats. In fact I believe that it would be one of the only times that Democrats would step forward and even defend President Bush.
Yet these same elitist Democrats are demanding that the leader of another sovereign nation be removed and replaced in accordance to who and what THEY believe should lead that government. Maliki may be failing, he may be weak and he may not be able to turn things around politically in Iraq, but he was elected by the people and his ouster is their choice and their choice alone.
Our only position should be, while disagreeing with his ability to govern, supporting the right of the Iraqi people to make their governmental decisions and as such supporting them as an ally and a sovereign nation that is in need of our help. That does not mean staying indefinitely in Iraq but it does mean that we respect the people of Iraq enough to let them decide who runs their country.
We expect nothing less for ourselves as a nation and should not demand anything less for nation in whom we respect as an ally. I do not hear Democrats calling for the ouster of Iran's President and he has threatened our nation, our allies and our very existence. Yet Democrats recognize Iran's sovereignty in governing, despite our disagreements and their status as an enemy of America.
Iraq deserves that same respect and even more so since they are allies and are a new fledgling government that needs our guidance and not our condemnation. Democrats will soon see that this strategy will fail as their surrender strategy has. In fact I will go on the record as saying that come mid-September when the Patraeus report is made public that Democrats will once again twist the successful findings into yet another round of accusations of failure, demands for troop, "re-deployment, " and pull out, (surrender), and condemnation of the President , the commanders, the troops AND the Maliki government.
This time though the majority of American people have grown wise to Democrats and their maneuvering concerning the war. They see the hypocrisy and their motivation behind their actions. They understand that winning the war is essential for America and that Democrats advocate losing only for political advantage regardless of the cost to the troops and the country. This time the Democrat strategy of surrender and appeasement will fail even before it begins.
Ken Taylor
posted by The Liberal Lie The Conservative Truth | 11:08 AM
5 Comments:
Extremely well-written, Ken, and I honestly hope you are right about people seeing through the Democrats hypocrisy. They may do so now, but we also know that many American's have very short memories and there's still a year to go. Will they remember all of this that long? I sure hope so!
"Even elitist Democrats would cry foul if another nations political leaders were demanding the removal of our President."
I don't know about that one Ken. In fact, plenty of Dems have been kissing the red ring of Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez, who would like nothing better, like most of those elitist Dems, to get rid of Bush.
It's funny to watch the Dems trip all over themselves and try and recalibrate their talking points.
I noticed Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island was on Fox News Sunday (I thought Fox only had right wingers? Guess not). Anyway, Reed is now falling back on "the surge must end in April 2008" because we don't have the ability to support 160,000 troops any longer than that.
Rubbish! If that's true, then perhaps we need to hold hearings to find out why our military is so depleted? Ooops... no need. That Clinton reductions in the 1990's was never corrected and no doubt Reed voted against any effort to overturn it.
I agree with Gayle, it was extremely well written. I think right now the democrats are grasping at straws, trying to figure out the best way to save face, and attacking Maliki, is one way of doing so. We easily see through it and we can only hope that others do as well!
I also thought about the same thing as Mike did while I was reading your article. Mike's right... we've got an overabundance of people agreeing with our enemies who constantly deride Bush and call America the Evil Empire. Those types have no loyalty to either America or our president whatsoever.
Very well written, and right on-point.
The present Democrat majority in Congress has already shown the nation that it has no proactive agendas, while at the same time having provoked the normally silent majority of the American People to intervene in its attempts at far left legislation.
In many ways, this is akin to the boss having to take time out from his already busy schedule to make a special trip to see if one is doing ones routine job properly. Almost inevitably, the boss would eventually replace one with someone he had confidence in to do the job without constant supervision.
At this juncture, they're at a loss -- they don't know what the Petraeus report is going to say and therefore how the public will react. Some are gambling by going great guns on the cut-n-run side, the rest are adopting semi-conservative "viewpoints" for the time being, hunkering down.
Democrat politicians change their "points of view" more often than they change their unmentionables.
Post a Comment
<< Home