jerrypomeroy

In a startling turnaround, the Senate Majority Leader hinted even he has noticed a positive change in Iraq. Interviewed on Jim Lehrer's Newsmaker program December 21, Democratic Senator Harry Reid grudgingly acknowledged "the surge certainly hasn't hurt. It's helped. I recognize that." Faint praise to be sure, but nonetheless quite an adjustment from his declaration eight months ago "that this war is lost." Perhaps there is now reason to hope both political parties will work for victory in Iraq.

In fact, although much was made of Reid's admission, little has changed in the Democrat's position on the war. During the same interview, Reid emphasized the need to "bring our troops home" not once, but four times. Defying the obvious evidence that increasing our combat presence in Iraq is a major contributing factor in our recent gains, Reid's call to reduce troop levels can only be viewed as a thinly veiled attempt to promote his long-standing defeat-at-any-cost policy. If the surge is working because of increased boots on the ground, why not keep them there? Why not send more? Assuming, of course, one wants to win the war.

Further revealing the Senator's tortured logic was his insistence "We have taken our eyes of the prize in Afghanistan. The Taliban is resurgent," proffered as a reason to "bring the troops home." But if the Senator is correct about Afghanistan, wouldn't it be necessary to redeploy at least some military personnel from Iraq to Afghanistan? And, does anyone this side of Howdy Doody land believe Reid would support such a move? Consistency has again lost to expediency as Democrats relentlessly pursue justifications for undermining America's effort in Iraq.

All this points out why Democrats cannot be trusted to conduct the war in Iraq, or the wider war on terror. Heavily invested in America's defeat and President Bush's humiliation, the three main Democratic Presidential hopefuls would have few options available in conducting war policy in Iraq in 2009 and beyond. Edwards and Obama have been opposed to the war from day one, voting against the use of force, claiming the war has been mishandled, and consistently urging the quick withdrawal of American combat forces. Having made such beds, they can only sleep in them, something their campaign websites confirm.

This is from today's Obama'08 website: "Obama has a plan to immediately begin withdrawing our troops engaged in combat operations at a pace of one or two brigades every month, to be completed by the end of next year." Not to be outdone, Senator Edwards proposes even faster draw-downs, as viewed today on his campaign website: "We must show the Iraqis that we are serious about leaving by actually starting to leave, with an immediate withdrawal of 40,000-50,000 troops and a complete withdrawal within nine to ten months." Such precipitous withdrawals would create a power vacuum quickly filled by the very forces we currently have on the run, discard the hard-won gains of recent months, embolden our enemies and demoralize our friends. Obama and Edwards would indeed snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Hillary is in a much more flexible position, having been on all sides of the Iraq issue. Space permits only a single sampling of Mrs. Clinton’s gamesmanship. As Ronald Kessler has reported, "On Sept.15, 2002, she said on 'Meet the Press’: 'I can support the president, I can support an action against Saddam Hussein because I think it's in the long term interests of our national security..." But, in a presidential debate on August 19th of this year, Hillary claimed she thought she was voting to support more diplomatic efforts, even though she voted against an amendment introduced in 2002 by Sen. Carl Levin that would have required more diplomacy. The woman has moves like Muhammad Ali. Hillary is currently aligned with Obama and Edwards as her website declares "The most important part of Hillary's plan is the first: to end our military engagement in Iraq's civil war and immediately start bringing our troops home." Leaving aside the civil-war-that-never-was nonsense, Mrs. Clinton has an advantage over her Democratic rivals, retaining the ability to change rhetoric and policy at a moments notice. That's not a compliment, but the strongest reason of all to keep her out of the White House.

Correctly conducting the war in Iraq requires a Commander-in-Chief operating from a base of core values. Since 9/11, President Bush has remained steadfastly on the right path precisely because, through thick and thin, he has remained true to twin strategies laid out as the dust was settling around ground zero. In three speeches, the first delivered on September 20, 2001, the President set forth his rationale for America’s response to terrorism. "For much of the last century, America's defense relied on the cold war doctrines of deterrence and containment. In some cases, those strategies still apply. But new threats also require new thinking. Deterrence -- the promise of massive retaliation against nations -- means nothing against shadowy terrorist networks with no nation or citizens to defend." Moreover, the President recognized the need for new formulas to deal with rogue nations. "Containment is not possible when unbalanced dictators with weapons of mass destruction can deliver those weapons or missiles or secretly provide them to terrorist allies." From these assessments emerged two pillars of the new Bush Doctrine: the military strategy of preemption and the political strategy of democratization. Neither reversals on the field of battle, unforeseen or unexpected responses from enemies, nor vitriolic opposition at home dissuaded President Bush, whose fortitude is now being vindicated as Iraq moves toward stable democracy and al Qaeda is everywhere on the run.

Clarity of vision, strength of conviction, tenacity, toughness, the guts to do the hard but right thing -- these are components of character rooted in President Bush and lacking in today's Democratic politicians. Obama and Edwards do not understand the threat to America or its required response, and Hillary cannot find the right way forward by bending to every changing breeze. Having invested in defeat, Democrats cannot be trusted to lead America in victory.

jerrypomeroy

It would be easier to interact with you if you would address the points in the post under discussion. I came to the conclusion Dems cannot lead in victory because of their own position statements, and because victory is now, at long last, attainable in Iraq. (Victory being defined as leaving Iraq a stable, self-secured country.) If you think the Dems are capable of victorious leadership in Iraq or elsewhere, tell me why and we'll debate the issue. Using well-worn words like "quagmire," besides being incorrect (even Harry Reid has acknowledged the progress being made) doesn't help further the debate.

Charleston Patriot

Statements like Harry Reid's "Weve lost the war in Iraq" highlite his and his party's desire to undermine the Bush adminstration. I'm not saying Bush is perfect, but Reid, Pelosi, Clinton, Kennedy and others like them would wipe their asses with the constitution if they thought they could get Bush blammed for it.