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.

BUSH'S SPEECH

So the president gave his speech last night, laying out a roadmap to what he believes will be victory in Iraq. Will it work? Who knows...but to the terrorist appeasers on Capitol Hill, it just wasn't good enough. Surrender is the only plan they'll support. Winning isn't in the cards for them and it never was.

There's no doubt about it .. things in Iraq are a mess. It was an understatement when George Bush said last night that mistakes were made. Not enough troops to begin with. Not preserving elements of the Iraqi Army and its leadership. Not taking back Fallujah. Too little shock and awe. It's a war! Do you think wars follow a script or a business plan?

If we listen to Nancy Pelosi and take a walk, the results would be disastrous. The new Iraqi government would immediately collapse and roving bands of thugs would take power. Sunnis and Shiites would start a civil war that would last until the end of time. Iraq would almost certainly become a hotbed of terrorist activity and planning. Other nations in the Middle East would see America tuck its tail and run, and know that they had to make peace with the Islamic fascists because there would be nobody around to help them if they didn't. Our legacy? Three thousand American deaths ... for what?

The Democrats are going to have a couple of demonstration votes ... all for show .. and they're going to beat their chests a bit. But President Bush will send the troops, and the Congress will fund them. I truly believe that there are Democrats who want anything but a victory in Iraq. A victory would make Bush look good. A victory would make Democrat defeatism look bad. Job one for Democrats is most certainly not trying to salvage Iraq. Job one for Democrats most certainly is laying the groundwork for increasing the Democrat majority in in Congress, and electing Hillary in 2008.

So the only thing we can do now is try to win, I suppose. Let's just hope it isn't too late.

Giving a green light to Iraqi and American troops to enter the neighborhoods that have, up until now, been refuges for terrorists should make a difference.

There is this to consider. Almost anywhere in the world where you see violence .. where you see one identifiable group of people trying to kill another .. you will find that they are Muslims. I'm not sure just how many shooting wars or conflicts, large and small, there are around the world. I think that the number is somewhere between 120 and 130. In all but about four you will find Muslims involved. Everywhere you look .. Muslims killing people; and we're supposed to believe that this is a peaceful religion? Muslim organization beat their gums all they want about the wonderful, peaceful nature of the serene religion of Islam .. but just look around on your own a bit and you find all the evidence you need to see that this concept of loving, peaceful Islam is simply not true.

Now there are areas of the Middle East that are both Muslim and relatively peaceful. Turkey stands out, and you also have the United Arab Emirates. The UAE is even a tourist destination for non-Muslims around the world! Is there any reason to believe that this could be the future of Iraq? Well .. if you rely solely on the American media for your image of Iraq, that would seem doubtful. The mainstream American media has made almost no effort at all to bring us images of Iraq outside of the areas of Islamic violence. The Kurdish areas of Iraq, for instance, are almost idyllic compared to Baghdad. I've seen videos of Kurdish families enjoying picnics and festivals along a riverside while their friends water-ski and play with jet skis. I've also seen videos of commercial areas of Baghdad and other Iraqi cities that are flourishing and vibrant.

The problem is, people have to send these videos to me. I just can't seem to find them on any newscast on any mainstream news program. Why not? is there a concern that these images might actually convince the American people that some progress is being made? That there might actually be a chance to tame this country and introduce freedom and economic liberty into the heart of the Middle East?