Rusted Sky

Iraqi spokesman criticizes Senate vote - Yahoo! News

BAGHDAD - An Iraqi government spokesman criticized the U.S. Senate vote to begin withdrawing U.S. troops by Oct. 1.
ADVERTISEMENT

"We see some negative signs in the decision because it sends wrong signals to some sides that might think of alternatives to the political process," Ali al-Dabbagh told The Associated Press.

The question I've got, for anyone who cares to answer it, is do the Democrats REALLY think they're helping the situation in Iraq? Or does Iraq even factor into the situation, and they're seeing this as simply a way to hamstring Bush with the effect on the Iraqi people not even to be thought about?

I mean, Obama's damn near gleeful about surrendering in Iraq.

Obama Statement on Supplemental Bill that Sets a Target Redeployment Date | U.S. Senator Barack Obama

WASHINGTON, DC -- U.S. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) today released the following statement after the Senate approved the supplemental funding bill that sets a target date to remove U.S. combat troops from Iraq:

“We are one signature away from ending the Iraq War. President Bush must listen to the will of the American people and sign this bill so that our troops can come home.”

You ain't talking about MY will, bub. I'm for actually winning this war, something you can't seem to comprehend. When you've got your enemy's attention and efforts focused in one area, it's a whole lot easier to defeat them THERE than break off the fight - which is what you're proposing - and pull out our troops - which is what you're proposing - in the name of some mythical more efficient fight elsewhere on the WoT.

That looks a hell of a lot like a retreat, like a surrender, like a LOSS to me. We'd lose the WoT, and that's apparent to those who want to do us harm.

Of course, it's all simple political posturing for the home crowd, right? I meant it's not likely that there will be a positive effect on the morale of the insurgents - THEY don't pay attention to American politics, after all!

Right?

The Dems need to decide what's more important - their party or their country. They may have disagreements on how the WoT needs to be fought, but if they've got any viable plans they've kept pretty quiet about them. (And no, diplomatic posturing isn't a plan. It simply delays the inevitable.) From my point of view, it seems like they've decided that all they're going for is political power, and the effects of their maneuverings don't matter one bit. At this point in the Presidential horse race, the only Democrat I'd vote for is Lieberman, and maybe Zell Miller if he ran for President. But neither of those are going to be allowed near sniffing distance of a run for the Presidency - because they'll put the country first if elected, and that's just not good Democratic policy.

Their desire is power. All else, even the survival of the emerging state of Iraq, the high probability of terrorist encouragement worldwide, losing the WoT, is irrelevant.

J.