I've moved — check out my new blog at cassyfiano.com!

Redirecting in 10 seconds...

Friday, November 16, 2007

Dems wave that white flag higher and higher

What do you do when you've staked your political career on a loss in Iraq? You're pandered to the crazies at Code Pink, you've promised your voters you'll pull out, and you've tried multiple times to bring about a loss.

But surprisingly enough for you, we're winning. Violence is dropping. The surge is working. The Iraqi Army is becoming more functional and independent every day. There are stories of Muslims and Christians working together, Iraqi citizens helping our troops, forming groups to help weed out Al Qaeda and other terrorists, and an Iraq victory is now no longer a probability -- it's simply a matter of time.

But you've invested yourself in defeat. You've made proclamations about how horrible this is going to be. You extol how "troops are dying!" and that Iraq will be a "quagmire!". You proclaim that the war is lost and you try to cut the funding to our heroes fighting in the sandbox.

So now what do you do?

If we aren't going to actually lose in Iraq, you try to undermine the effort. You try to sabotage our troops by cutting off funding and supplies. You try to bring about a loss any way you can, no matter what it may mean for our national security, for Iraq and the Middle East, and for the War on Terror.

Welcome to the Democratic Party, folks.
House Democrats pushed through a $50 billion bill for the Iraq war Wednesday night that would require President Bush to start bringing troops home in coming weeks with a goal of ending combat by December 2008.

The legislation, passed 218-203, was largely a symbolic jab at Bush, who already has begun reducing force levels but opposes a congressionally mandated timetable on the war. And while the measure was unlikely to pass in the Senate — let alone overcome a presidential veto — Democrats said they wanted voters to know they weren’t giving up.

“The fact is, we can no longer sustain the military deployment in Iraq,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. “Staying there in the manner that we are there is no longer an option.”

The President promised a veto, and the bill rolled forward to the Senate.

Unfortunately for the defeat-at-any-cost Dems, Republicans kept their promises about backing the President and filibustered.
The Senate on Friday blocked a Democratic proposal that would have paid for the Iraq war but required that troops start coming home.
The 53-45 vote was seven votes short of the 60 needed to advance. It came minutes after the Senate rejected a Republican proposal to pay for the Iraq war with no strings attached.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said the only way to get troops the money was to approve the restrictions outlined by Democrats.

"Our troops continue to fight and die valiantly. And our Treasury continues to be depleted rapidly, for a peace that we seem far more interested in achieving than Iraq's own political leaders," Reid said.

Republicans said Democrats were being irresponsible.

"We need to get our troops everything they need," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. "We need to get it to them right now."

Four Republicans joined Democrats in voting for the measure: Sens. Gordon Smith of Oregon, Olympia Snowe of Maine, Susan Collins of Maine and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska.

Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., was the lone Democrat opposing it because he said it did not go far enough to end the war.

At some point, would it be possible at all for this 11% approval rated Congress to do the right thing? Of course not, because they've simply got too much invested in defeat and loss. They don't feel any loyalty to the United States (it's a global order now, they answer to the U.N.), so they certainly aren't concerned with preserving our national security. They need us to lose, regardless of the cost. Once upon a time, what they're doing would have been called "treason". But of course, not anymore.

Just remember, don't question their patriotism.

Ready to start stocking up on white feathers?


Anonymous said...

Sedition, yes, but treason, no. The Constitution is very specific in the definition of what constitutes treason. Without going into all of the issues, suffice it to say that absent a declaration of war, no act can be considered treasonous unless it consists of overt actions to bring down the government of the US. Merely voting to lose is not an overt act, and since the GWOT is a "war" in name only (Congress has never declared war), even if it were, it is not treasonous. SCOTUS has affirmed the principle that one would have to actively take up arms against the US to be overt.