Yes, but will the Administration keep this up. Just one or two frontal attacks and the dems are knocked completely off balance. Just imagine what would happen if the attacks came on a regular basis.
In my opinion, when the subject is national security, even the Iraq War, the dems lose everytime, well, at least when they are actively engaged on the issue. The President, understandably, concluded that since Iraq was THE issue during election 2004, it was settled. Thus, he thought he could turn the topic to something else. He was wrong and the only reason, the sole reason the dems have gained any traction to bash Bush over Iraq is because the Administration stopped fighting the issue.
Now the dems put themselves out on the national security limb. It is high time the President sawed it off.
There are those who say Rockefeller should face censure....I say a firing squad is more like it. Lets call what he does by the right name as has been said here....TREASON!
"Now the dems put themselves out on the national security
limb. It is high time the President sawed it off."
There is an element of truth in what you are saying. However, there's another side to it. In fact, the president's current strategy in Iraq is not moving fast enough toward control by the Iraqi military of most Iraqi cities.
The goal of getting Iraq to be "relatively quiet" before the Iraqi army takes over is, in my opinion, a false one. Equally false is the goal of bringing the Iraqi army into the relatively same functionality as the American army.
Rather, what we need to do is push the media out of Iraq, provide heavier armament to the Iraqi army (M1 tanks, artillery, A-10s), and let the Iraqi army start to take over significant areas of Iraq---handling it anyway, they need to do it. I realize this is unrealistic, because it would result in civilian casualties. However, it would solve the problem, and the Iraqis would not be doing anything worse than what any of the other Arab governments do.
Once the US forces got out of the central part of the country, away from most of the Iraqi civilians, and away from almost all sources of US casualties, I believe the US forces would be able to stay indefinitely on the periphery of Iraq sealing the borders and preventing invasion from the outside.
If we drift on this current way, I am afraid that things will be much the same three years from now, Hillary will become president, and the US will pull out of Iraq, completely and abruptly. In that case, I believe, a government hostile to the United States, not democratic at all, and sympathetic to terrorism is sure to take over.
From this perspective, I welcome the recent Senate resolution.