HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Jan. 26, 2007 The article was: “Senators walk fine line on Iraq plan - Lawmakers try to balance opposition to Bush ‘surge’ with support for troops” - by Alex Johnson, Reporter, MSNBC, Updated: 9:39 p.m. ET Jan. 25, 2007” which began: “As more U.S. forces head to Iraq , senators across the political spectrum denounced President Bush’s plan for a troop “surge” Thursday but were waging a behind-the-scenes battle over how strongly they could afford to confront him.” The President of the United States used the term “Victory” several times during his annual State of the Union address and there were many Senators and Congresspersons who determinately sat on their hands in a display of distain against the goals of America out of a deep-seated bitterness toward the only man seemingly just as determined to defeat Islamic radicalism. Senators have to work “behind the scenes” to undermine the President’s war efforts. To come right out and show one’s self in opposition to victory is to display one’s true aversion to the United States ’ military and their mission. Quoting the article: “Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., told NBC News that Democratic and Republican senators were reacting with “anguish” to the dilemma in which they found themselves: how to rebuke Bush for the lack of progress on stemming violence in Iraq without weakening the commander-in-chief in a time of war. A lot of senators, he said, “don’t know how to react.” Senators want to openly “rebuke” the President for not being able to control the actions of radical Islamists when, at every turn they have actively battled against the idea of victory. They see the defeat of any American enemy as a major political victory. They do not look at the war against terrorism as something that benefits the country, only as something that benefits the Republican Party. With such a convoluted view of the matter they “react with anguish” when the President says his goal is the destruction of American enemies and a stable democracy in Iraq . The senators “don’t know how to react” because they are invested in the defeat of America and the furtherance of their own personal political careers “picking up the pieces”. More from the article: “The question is not whether the Senate can muster a majority to take Bush to task over the war. The question is how strongly they can word the resolution and still overcome a likely filibuster by supporters of the president and some wavering Republicans, who argue that Congress should take no action that could be seen as abandoning U.S. troops in the field.” So this is a real struggle for Democrat and liberal Republican lawmakers. They really want to make the President out to be a foolish man that will not listen to anyone who believes they might know better; but these men who believe they can retreat from adversity without consequence are facing a possible filibuster that may fully expose them for the cowards and slackers they are. They want to abandon the only supporter of the “troops in the field” (the President) and blame the resultant lack of support for the “troops” on the President they are trying to force from that field! More from the article: ““Well, that’s the difficulty. A resolution that says we’re against this escalation is easy,” said Sen. Charles Schumer of New York , a member of the Democratic leadership. “The next step is how do you put further pressure on the administration against the escalation while still supporting the troops who are there right now. “And that’s what we’re figuring out,” Schumer said in an interview on NBC’s TODAY show. “But this will not be the end. There will be other resolutions with more teeth in them, and my bet [is] they’ll get a majority of support with significant Republican support.” “Against this escalation…while still supporting the troops…” is a logic only a liberal democrat could ascribe to. Liberals are trying to “figure out” how to support troops without giving them what they need. This will eventually lead to a democrat-led de-funding of the war and an abandonment of Iraqis who are expecting America to remain true to a promise to bring peace to the region. Schumer knows that Republican support is necessary for the complete abandonment of the troops and the mission and he and his liberal ilk are going full-bore to find the right resolutions to affect the full defeat, not of America ’s enemies, but of America . The article continued: “Senate leaders in essence have to thread the needle. One on side of the equation are liberal Democrats who strongly oppose the war, such as Russ Feingold, D-Wis… On the other [side] are moderate Democrats and Republicans eager to prove they heard the message of antiwar voters in November while not leaving the troops in the lurch, such as John McCain, R-Ariz…” It is difficult to understand why anyone is opposed to defeating nations and peoples who have repeatedly killed Americans and destroyed American interests over the whole of the world. Iran stands and threatens the destruction of America and the reaction is that Bush isn’t doing enough diplomatically to appease the Iranians. The Venezuelan President tells America to “Go to Hell.” And there is absolutely no reaction from these same men who are vilifying President Bush for wanting to protect America . Where is the condemnation of the Iranian and Venezuelan governments for their unconscionable statements and actions? More from Alex Johnson’s article: “The Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 12-9 Wednesday for a non-binding resolution opposing Bush’s plan to increase the U.S. commitment in Iraq by as many as 21,500 troops. That resolution…would “disagree” with a buildup of U.S. troops while urging Bush to revisit the findings of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group. That option would give undecided senators the chance to chart a middle course, said Larry Sabato, a presidential scholar at the University of Virginia .” Ronald Reagan won the cold war by ignoring the critics of “Peace through strength.” Regan understood that the enemies could not compete with a strong and determined America that continued to build up its defensive capabilities. President Bush appears to understand this concept. A sustained build-up in the face of an enemy that is praying for our retreat would lend itself to the demoralization of the enemy. Any show of weakness in the resolve of America would have the opposite effect. Our enemies would count that as victory and American skyscrapers would again be in jeopardy. There is no “middle course”. It is victory or retreat and defeat. More from the article: “Members of the Foreign Relations Committee who supported the anti-surge resolution said they were confident that they would persuade enough senators to oppose the president’s plan…But supporters of the president said that while they understood that lawmakers would want to go on the record criticizing the war, passing a non-binding resolution was the lazy way out. “One of my main disappointments with the resolution we debated in committee yesterday is it’s not a plan,” said Sen. David Vitter, R-La., a member of the Foreign Relations Committee…“Everybody ... has a right to oppose a plan — to oppose the president’s plan — if that’s what they decide,” Vitter said in an interview…“But I also think everybody has a responsibility to be for some plan going forward.” And that is the whole point. Where is the liberal plan for victory? There is none. The liberal plan is for defeat. Surrender and defeat is not the option. Emboldening America ’s enemies seems to be the one qualifying forte of the liberals opposing the President’s plan. The comments of the White House press secretary are telling: “White House press secretary Tony Snow pointed to remarks Thursday by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki as proof that the troop commitment had emboldened the Iraqi government. Al-Maliki told Parliament that he was beginning a crackdown that would leave militants with “no safe haven — no school, no home, no [Sunni] mosque or Shiite mosque.” He continued: ““It is clear that a sign of American determination not only builds confidence but also activism on the part of the Iraqi government,” Snow told reporters aboard Air Force One…“And we continue to believe that it’s important to make it clear to the Iraqis that our job is to help them build capability, and we’ll do it.” So the President is taking a firm stand on behalf of America and Iraq . He is determined that the radical Islamists will not win the day against the fledgling Iraqi government. He has determined to support the troops in the field with every possible advantage, including additional troops. He has rejected the plans of liberals that call for negotiation with terrorist Syria and Iran as laid out in the “Iraq Study Group” appeasement plan. The senate is about to cross their “fine line”. They want to quit. They want to leave Iraq to the insurgency and take a chance that the terrorists will be greatly pleased and appeased into leaving America alone. That’s not going to happen and that is not a prediction. Sadly, it is a radical Islamic reality. ------------ About the Author: Michael John McCrae has contributed over 700 articles to Useless-Knowledge.com. Email: macswordV@hotmail.com Comment on this article here! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com and are not allowed to be posted on other websites. ARTICLE THIEVES WILL BE PROSECUTED! |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
