But They Support the Troops

Poor Harry. Those mean supporters of the troops just won't get with his program and vote to broadcast all troop withdrawal plans to the world. Maybe creepy voiced Harry didn't notice that troops are all ready beginning to be brought home? Maybe he could grow up a tad and stop attaching 'conditions' to funds for the Pentagon? Poor Harry. He's having another tantrum and pouting today on the Senate floor. Those mean Republicans did the right thing and won't fall for his blackmail. With violence in Iraq noticeably, markedly down and the services to the people of Iraq being administered with renewed fervor, like electricity and water services, and the fractions coming together to work on the politics of the country, well, we'll not have any stinkin' success kind of talk from the surrender monkeys. How will Harry walk back from the famous 'the war is lost' speech from this past spring? Oh yeah, and his approval rating in his home state of Nevada is at 20%. That may get his attention eventually since he is used to approval ratings of 50-60%.

The new Dem leadership in the House and Senate still doesn't get it. They have a majority now because of the moderate Dems that were elected over the previous Republicans who held the offices. The moderate Dems elected in 2006 are not voting to end the war in a specific time frame. Some of the formerly anti war critics of the President are now strongly in favor of letting the surge play out. Like, for example, Rep. Brian Baird of Washington. He was of the Pelosi school of thought before his trip to Iraq and he was able to see with his own eyes the successes of the troops and the plan of General Petraeus. Now he's a believer.

In his recent speech delivered at the Center for Politics and Foreign Relations/Financial Times breakfast at The Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies Senator Joe Lieberman said "Since retaking Congress in November 2006, the top foreign policy priority of the Democratic Party has not been to expand the size of our military for the war on terror or to strengthen our democracy promotion efforts in the Middle East or to prevail in Afghanistan. It has been to pull our troops out of Iraq, to abandon the democratically-elected government there, and to hand a defeat to President Bush."

"Iraq has become the singular litmus test for Democratic candidates. No Democratic presidential primary candidate today speaks of America's moral or strategic responsibility to stand with the Iraqi people against the totalitarian forces of radical Islam, or of the consequences of handing a victory in Iraq to al Qaeda and Iran. And if they did, their campaign would be as unsuccessful as mine was in 2006. Even as evidence has mounted that General Petraeus' new counterinsurgency strategy is succeeding, Democrats have remained emotionally invested in a narrative of defeat and retreat in Iraq, reluctant to acknowledge the progress we are now achieving, or even that that progress has enabled us to begin drawing down our troops there." ....."there is something profoundly wrong-something that should trouble all of us-when we have elected Democratic officials who seem more worried about how the Bush administration might respond to Iran's murder of our troops, than about the fact that Iran is murdering our troops."

"There is likewise something profoundly wrong when we see candidates who are willing to pander to this politically paranoid, hyper-partisan sentiment in the Democratic base--even if it sends a message of weakness and division to the Iranian regime."

Senator Lieberman is a smart man. And he is the very result of the fact that most Americans, while suffering from war fatigue and anxious for the troops to come home, do not want a defeat in Iraq. If defeat was the desired effect, people like his last opponent, Ned LaMont, would have been able to buy his Senate seat. His whole message was anti-war a la George Soros. It didn't square with the voters and Lieberman is now an Independent in the Senate, not a Democrat. What did the Dems accomplish with that?

Secretary Gates says the Department of Defense will have to begin lay offs soon and suspend contracts for projects if the monies aren't forthcoming in the budget. Something in the Committee hearing that came out, much to the chagrin to the Dem questioning General Casey about monies needed, was that due to the gutting of the military, both in the number of personnel and in equipment, the unforeseen global war on terror demands that the military grow, not shrink. General Casey said it was the actions taken in the 90's that brought on the current shortages. The 1990's, huh? Who was in charge then? Oh yeah, it was Mr. and Mrs. Clinton. They were too busy having officers in full dress uniform serve as waitstaff at their dinner functions than be concerned about the man in uniform on a base somewhere.

But, they support the troops.