Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: HamiltonJay
The Washington Times, no fan of McCain, mentioned this in today's op-ed:
In Washington, nothing comes easier to some political pundits than mindless cynicism. But some politicians advocate certain policies because they believe them to be the right thing for the country, even if they don't play tremendously well with the focus groups. In his address yesterday to cadets at the Virginia Military Institute, Sen. John McCain demonstrated that kind of genuine statesmanship -- a willingness to tell unpleasant truths regardless of the political consequences.

In many ways, Mr. McCain delivered the speech on the war that President Bush should have given months ago, challenging congressional Democrats to do the right thing and approve adequate funding for the war effort without imposing conditions that will likely result in an American defeat. "Responsible political leaders, statesmen, do not add to the burden our troops carry. That is what Democrats, intentionally or not, have done by failing to provide them with the resources necessary to succeed in their mission," Mr. McCain said. "Every day that passes without the necessary funds appropriated to sustain our troops, our chances of success in Iraq dwindle and our military readiness declines further."

Mr. McCain also said: "What struck me upon my [recent] return from Baghdad is the enormous gulf between the harsh but hopeful realities in Iraq, where politics is for many a matter of life and death, and the fanciful and self-interested debates about Iraq that substitute ... for statesmanship in Washington. In Iraq, American and Iraqi soldiers risk everything to hold the country together, to prevent it from becoming a terrorist sanctuary and the region from descending into the dangerous chaos of a widening war."

The senator watched with regret last month when the House "voted to deny our troops the support necessary to carry out their new mission" in Iraq. He noted that "Democratic leaders smiled and cheered as the last votes were counted. What were they celebrating? Defeat? Surrender?" Politicians of both parties have the responsibility to offer support "when the right strategy is proposed and the right commanders take the field to implement it, or at the least to offer an alternative strategy that has some relationship to reality." But instead of working with Mr. Bush to develop a winning strategy, the Democrats insist on debating whether Iraq is a "sideshow" or part of the "real war on terror," Mr. McCain said. But "whether or not al Qaeda terrorists were a present danger in Iraq before the war, there is no disputing they are there now and their leaders recognize Iraq as the main battleground in the war on terror."

Any voters who think that preventing defeat in Iraq should be a central concern should give Mr. McCain's brave, defiant and wise VMI speech a careful reading.


18 posted on 04/12/2007 6:51:33 AM PDT by COBOL2Java (The most dangerous place in the world is between Hillary and the Oval Office)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: COBOL2Java
Excerpts from the speech below are not nearly as important as what McCain has to say, but.....

It's now been 64 days since I have requested that Congress pass emergency funding for these troops.... And instead of proving [sic] that vital funding, the Democrat leadership in Congress has spent the past 64 days pushing legislation that would undercut our troops, just as we're beginning to make progress in Baghdad. In both the House and the Senate, majorities have passed bills that substitute the judgment of politicians in Washington for the judgment of our commanders on the ground. They set arbitrary deadlines for withdrawal from Iraq, and they spend billions of dollars on pork barrel projects and spending that are completely unrelated to this war.

Now, the Democrats who pass these bills know that I'll veto them, and they know that this veto will be sustained. Yet they continue to pursue the legislation. And as they do, the clock is ticking for our troops in the field. In other words, there are consequences for delaying this money.
[snip]
The bottom line is this: Congress's failure to fund our troops will mean that some of our military families could wait longer for their loved ones to return from the front lines. Others could see their loved ones headed back to war sooner than anticipated. This is unacceptable. It's unacceptable to me, it's unacceptable to our veterans, it's unacceptable to our military families, and it's unacceptable to many in this country.

The United States Senate has come back from its spring recess today. The House will return next week. When it comes to funding our troops, we have no time to waste. It's time for them to get the job done.
[snip]
The Democrat leaders in -- Democratic leaders in Congress are bent on using a bill that funds our troops to make a political statement about the war. They need to do it quickly and get it to my desk so I can veto it, and then Congress can get down to the business of funding our troops without strings and without further delay.

We are at war. It is irresponsible for the Democratic leadership in Congress to delay for months on end while our troops in combat are waiting for the funds they need to succeed.

Full text here!

99 posted on 04/12/2007 8:11:31 AM PDT by Just A Nobody (PISSANT for President '08 - NEVER AGAIN...Support our Troops! Beware the ENEMEDIA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson