Posted on 07/19/2007 2:36:36 PM PDT by jazusamo
After yesterday's all-night Iraq war "defeatathon," as radio talk-show host Laura Ingraham described it, House and Senate Democrats continue to illustrate why Americans so distrust them when it comes to national security. Antiwar lawmakers have been losing momentum of late, to such an extent that U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon and representatives of liberal humanitarian organizations like the International Crisis Group found it necessary to warn that a precipitous troop withdrawal could trigger a humanitarian catastrophe for Iraqis. So yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid staged an overnight session where senators debated abandoning Iraq. Mr. Reid came up eight votes short in his effort to obtain cloture on an amendment to the defense authorization bill offered by Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin and Sen. Jack Reed, which decreed that the secretary of defense shall "commence the reduction of the number of United States forces in Iraq not later than 120 days after the enactment of this act."
After the amendment (the specifics of which Mr. Levin had difficulty explaining to reporters) went down to defeat, Mr. Reid petulantly pulled the defense bill from the floor. The failure to pass this bill means there will be no funding for modernization of soldiers' equipment, including Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected trucks for soldiers fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan; a 3.5 percent raise for American men and women in the military; and funding to assist wounded veterans. Perhaps it's not the best way for Mr. Reid and Co. to illustrate how Democrats "support the troops."
Mr. Levin didn't exactly help the Democratic cause when he tried to brush off reporters' questions about how his own amendment would affect our ability to conduct anti-terror operations inside Iraq. When asked how many troops would be needed to conduct "targeted" operations, Mr. Levin protested...
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
As this article proves, as did Reid’s refusal to answer the “what happens after we leave question” and Biden’s ducking of, “why should we leave a civil war some say we created, but send troops into a civil war that has nothing to do with us, and is not linked to our national security?”, that the Democrats do not have a plan for Iraq, they have a plan for votes “to pick up seats in both houses.”
Despite the lacking popularity of this war, I maintain that the Democrats stupidity and lack of a plan and total bending over to the moonbat left makes this issue, if rightly framed, a winning issue for the GOP.
The GOP doesn’t have to speak about the issue at all, just continue to replay what Dems have said from Haitha Murtha to Kerry’s prediction of no loss of life post-withdrawal. They have no plan (i.e. pull back to Japan ala Murtha) for Iraq, they only have plans for votes, and if America heard, as often as they heard about the bomb blasts, what these idiots are saying and how detached from reality they are, they would not side with the enemy.
Freepers, let’s get a list going of claims vs. reality.
1. Dems say Iraq is not a part of thw war on terror. The terrorists do.
2. Dems say Bush has no plan for Iraq, yet they won’t give his plan time to be measured, and they won’t address any questions pertaining to their own plan (like how many troops stay, what do they do, how do they do it with less when more isn’t working according to them, what happens to the Iraqis when we leave).
3. If it’s a civil war, why do they say the troops are the agitators and claim once we leave all will be fine?
continue and compile....
Well said and this is the question that Reid wouldn't answer when confronted with it. It's a very important question, IMO.
mark
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.