Congress thus faces a choice in the weeks and months ahead. Will we allow our actions to be driven by the changing conditions on the ground in Iraq--or by the unchanging political and ideological positions long ago staked out in Washington? What ultimately matters more to us: the real fight over there, or the political fight over here?
Were you to ask the Dem leadership the last question above, and were they to answer honestly as demonstrated by their behavior, they are more concerned with their political butts and stance here than the goin's on in Iraq. But those words will never pass their deceitful lips.
I admit, I've always had a soft spot in my heart for Lieberman. While I see our differences on domestic issues, Lieberman is more reflective of the old time JFK Dems, and not the new socialist left driven party we see today.
But Joe's not a man to compromise on his beliefs. And since 911, he's held firm that doing nothing to prevent the strengthening of radical Islam terrorist both overseas and at home is the wrong course - and the chosen course of his own party.
And he said so - often and loudly. His departure from the anti-war rhetoric of his peers resulted in the the Dems booting him out as their CT party nominee. So Joe - along with his "pro war" stance - went Independent and cleaned the clock of their chosen replacement who fell in line with Pelosi and ilk. Not exactly the proclaimed mandate for leaving Iraq, eh. Did the Dems get the message from that, and the win of other moderate Dems? But noooooo.
But enuf of my words. You must take some time to read Joe's. A few more stellar bits, but more than worthy of a read in it's entirety.
If we stopped the legislative maneuvering and looked to Baghdad, we would see what the new security strategy actually entails and how dramatically it differs from previous efforts. For the first time in the Iraqi capital, the focus of the U.S. military is not just training indigenous forces or chasing down insurgents, but ensuring basic security--meaning an end, at last, to the large-scale sectarian slaughter and ethnic cleansing that has paralyzed Iraq for the past year.
But the fact is that we are in a different place in Iraq today from even just a month ago--with a new strategy, a new commander, and more troops on the ground. We are now in a stronger position to ensure basic security--and with that, we are in a stronger position to marginalize the extremists and strengthen the moderates; a stronger position to foster the economic activity that will drain the insurgency and militias of public support; and a stronger position to press the Iraqi government to make the tough decisions that everyone acknowledges are necessary for progress.
Unfortunately, for many congressional opponents of the war, none of this seems to matter. As the battle of Baghdad just gets underway, they have already made up their minds about America's cause in Iraq, declaring their intention to put an end to the mission before we have had the time to see whether our new plan will work.
In fact, halting the current security operation at midpoint, as virtually all of the congressional proposals seek to do, would have devastating consequences. It would put thousands of American troops already deployed in the heart of Baghdad in even greater danger--forced to choose between trying to hold their position without the required reinforcements or, more likely, abandoning them outright. A precipitous pullout would leave a gaping security vacuum in its wake, which terrorists, insurgents, militias and Iran would rush to fill--probably resulting in a spiral of ethnic cleansing and slaughter on a scale as yet unseen in Iraq.
I appeal to my colleagues in Congress to step back and think carefully about what to do next. Instead of undermining Gen. Petraeus before he has been in Iraq for even a month, let us give him and his troops the time and support they need to succeed.
read all at link above