HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Jan. 11, 2007 In mid-December, 2006 Senator Harry Reid openly supported an increase in the level of troops in Iraq, ostensibly if it resulted in the withdrawal of troops from the troubled nation within the year. Of course, the qualification is somewhat of an empty one in that any action undertaken in Iraq can certainly be interpreted as being with the intention of leading to ultimate resolution of the problems and withdrawal of U.S. forces. Now, Reid and virtually all of his Democrat peers have come out resolutely against any further troop buildup, regardless of ultimate withdrawal strategy. The Democrats plan on holding a symbolic vote against the president's measure to demonstrate just how much they are against it. When it comes to grandstanding, the Democratic party cannot be beat. While President Bush struggles with the real-world, attempting to win in a very difficult situation, his political opponents (and there are a lot of them these days) resort to platitudes and rhetoric. In fact, the only Democrat to develop a viable strategy for attempting to win in Iraq is Senator Carl Levin of Michigan; and his plan has attracted little support from his side of the aisle. Bush is president and he does not enjoy the luxury of sitting back and waiting to see what happens before making his feelings publicly known. Further, he cannot afford to change his mind as the wind blows on issues that impact this nation and the entire world, as his enemies have done for years. The Democrats essentially ran on an Iraq pullout platform in this last election. Now that they have control, all they can come up with is empty gestures which show just how much they care. Those who support this party and its modern day agenda need to ask just how much these politicians care. If the Democrats truly believed in their cause, that this war was unjustified from the beginning and is now not winnable, they would vote to de-fund the Iraq War, forcing the withdrawal of U.S. forces. If this is the answer, the solution everyone is looking for in this conflict, then why is it not being given more serious consideration? Are they concerned with political fallout from not supporting the troops? If ending this war is the morally correct thing to do, why does that matter?. Like him or not, President Bush has been a man of action since he has been in office. He has stood up for what he believes is right and continues to do so. His plan to increase Iraqi troop levels in the face of enormous pressure to do just the opposite demonstrates his commitment. He has not been afraid to take action on his principles from the time he has been in power. Isn't it time the Democrats showed that same resolve? Why do people vote for this party, when it demonstrates an unwillingness to back up its words if the political cost might be too high? Instead of true action by these "leaders," we get a measure to increase the nation's mandatory minimum wage almost immediately after they take power; this is an action, by the way, that is likely to cause as many problems as it solves. Regardless, is there anyone out there who really believes the current minimum wage level is more important than other issues facing this nation or the world? Is it more vital than something like, oh, Social Security solvency? If soldiers are needlessly dying in Iraq, if the cause is unjust, if the future is nothing but bleak, then bring them home now. Let's worry about how much the 19 year old clerk at your local dry cleaners is making after a concrete plan for Iraq is in place. The Democrats carped for years about Bush's strategy in Iraq not working, demanding that a different direction be taken. They called him stubborn and inflexible for the "stay the course" mantra. They whined and moaned about how they were tricked into voting for the war, looking foolish in their quest to divorce themselves from what had become a political nightmare. They asked for Donald Rumsfeld's scalp, claiming that he was the culprit for the stagnating progress, and they ultimately got it on a silver platter. Now, Bush has finally formulated a new direction, not just an increase in troop levels, but a new strategy as well as a hardened tone for the Iraq leadership, one which will demand accountability from the fledgling government. And we still get whining from the naysayers. There is little doubt in my mind that, if Bush ordered an immediate or phased withdrawal from Iraq, the Democrats would rail against that as well, claiming it to be irresponsible. So, it seems the Democrats do not want us to be in Iraq but they don't want us to pull out either; they don't want to "stay the course," but don't want the president's alternative either, and they refuse to put forward their own plan. President Bush is trying to win this war while the Democrats are playing politics. They will oppose Bush regardless what he offers up. Bush is thinking about our children's future and the opportunity to grow up in a safer world; the Democrats are concerned with 2008. ------------ About the author: Ed Abraham is a concerned citizen living in flyover country, U.S.A., who happens to be truly disgusted by the loss of common sense in our society and is doing all he can to try to reinstall it. Email: eabra@myway.com Comment on this article here! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com. Please link to this article rather than copying and pasting it onto your site (which would be unauthorized and illegal). |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
