Defeatist Dem rhetoric on Iraq, part 2

Earlier this week, we read about a revealing quote from House Majority Whip James Clyburn in which he stated that a good report from General Petraeus in September on how the surge was going in Iraq would present “problems” for him and other anti-war Congressional Democrats who think we should cut and run.

Don Surber has the details on another such revealing quote, this time from Senator Carl Levin, as well as poll numbers that reflect worse on Congress than they do the President on the issue of Iraq.

D stands for DeceptionThe anti-war Democrats have for years strongly rejected the accusation that they are defeatist, and don’t care about winning in Iraq, thinking that their actions would be ignored and that they’d be able to fool everyone based on their words. But, like a snake shedding its skin, the masks they donned in order to win the 2006 elections are starting to chip away, day by day. And if polls are any indication, the American people are not liking what they are seeing.

Cal Thomas on the Democrats and their negative attitudes towards Iraq:

Most Democrats seem so invested in defeat in Iraq that they apparently have no “Plan B,” which would be success.

Like the character Billy Bigelow in the musical “Carousel,” who is dumbstruck when he realizes he has not thought about the possibility that his pregnant wife might actually deliver a girl, instead of the son he wants, Democrats appear unable to conceive of victory, or at least stability in Iraq.

So cynical have our politics become that a spokesman for Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Democratic leaders are “not willing to concede there are positive things to point to” in Iraq. And House Majority Whip James E. Clyburn said that a favorable report from Gen. Petraeus could lead 47 moderate to conservative “Blue Dog” Democrats to oppose a withdrawal timetable, making it virtually impossible for the liberal leadership to pass withdrawal legislation. “(It would be) a real problem for us,” said Clyburn.

Is that what the Iraq war has become? Instead of viewing it as a generational war that will determine the future of civilization (because, if we lose, Iraq will become a launching pad for terrorist acts around the world and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis would surely die), is it now just another tool in the Democrat’s quest for the White House? Where are the statesmen who put their country and its interests before personal and political interests? Was Harry Truman right when he observed, “A statesman is a politician who has been dead for 10 or 15 years”? Aren’t we Americans before we are Republicans or Democrats? And don’t we all lose if one political “side” wins and it costs others their freedom and puts America in greater peril?

Asked and answered already, I’m afraid.

Comments are closed.