DEMS' IRAQ POLICY: WHAT WE KNOW. WHAT WE DON'T KNOW

Tim Walz, the freshman congressman from MN-1, has given us a quote that tells us what the Democrats’ plan for Iraq is. Here’s Walz’s quote:

Walz said he expects lots of “voices and debate” on how the new majority in Congress will withdraw from Iraq. He said Democrats have “no set solution, just the ability to thin through it logically to try to find a solution.”

This adds to what we know about the Democrats’ Iraq policy. Here’s a roundup of other things we know about their ‘plan’:

• We know that Harry Reid “would look at everything to wind down the war effort, short of cutting off support for troops already there.”
• We know that John Murtha advocates a God-forsaken ‘immediate redeployment’ policy.
• We know that Barack Obama doesn’t have a plan for victory.
• We know that Obama appeared this morning on NBC’s “Today” Show, saying “We’re not going to baby sit a civil war.”

What we don’t know is why Democrats think that leaving Iraq is a viable option. We’ve heard them say we need to leave. We just haven’t heard anyone explain how we’d benefit from that strategy. They certainly haven’t told us both sides of this strategy.

• Just once, I’d like to hear Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Hillary or Barack Obama tell us that leaving Iraq now wouldn’t endanger us in the future.
• Just once, I’d like to hear Tim Walz, Amy Klobuchar or Keith Ellison explain why terrorists wouldn’t turn Iraq into a breeding ground for future 9/11’s aimed at America and elsewhere.

You won’t hear it because they know that they’d be crucified politically if they ever took a real stand based on losing leaving before winning.

This begs another question: If they know that losing isn’t an option in Iraq, why aren’t they making specific proposals for winning in Iraq? Why aren’t they interested in stabilizing Iraq while making America safer?

The answer is found in Dingy Harry’s flip-flop on a troop surge. Here’s what Dingy Harry said before Christmas:

“If the commanders on the ground said this is just for a short period of time, we’ll go along with that,” said Reid.

Here’s what Dingy Harry’s saying now:

“Surging forces is a strategy that you have already tried and that has already failed…Adding more combat troops will endanger more Americans and stretch our military capability to the breaking point for no strategic gain.”

I’m reminded of John Kerry’s infamous statement that “I actually voted for it before I voted against it” when I read Harry’s polar opposite statements. Here’s the rough translation of Dingy Harry’s statement:

I was ok with a troop surge until the Democratic leadership met. I was ok with a troop surge until Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama set me straight on what our political strategy should be on this. Now that they’ve shown me the focus group results showing that opposing a troop surge isn’t popular with our base, I’m abandoning my prior statement.

There’s something else that’s worth noting. Nancy Pelosi was for a troop surge before she was against it. Here’s the proof:

Thus former House minority leader, now Speaker Nancy Pelosi, citing General Shinseki in May 2004, on “Meet the Press”: “What I’m saying to you, [is] that we need more troops on the ground.” Thus, too, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, just four weeks ago: “If it’s for a surge–that is, for two or three months–and it’s part of a program to get us out of there as indicated by this time next year, then, sure, I’ll go along with it.”

Now we know what’s driving the Democratic policy on Iraq: They’re for anything that President Bush is against and they’re against anything that President Bush is for. Democrats aren’t the loyal opposition, they’re just the opposition.

JFK, FDR and Harry Truman would be ashamed to associate with such a spineless, fickle bunch.