That should be the media's headlines over the weekend after hearing the President make his 8th primetime television speech about Iraq to the American people.
While I'm not a supporter of John Edwards, he said it best tonight during his paid for commercial that was aired not long after the President spoke. "In January, after years of evidence that military actions cannot force a political solution, the president announced a military surge to force a political solution. In May, he vetoed a plan to end the war, demanded more time to show the surge could work, and Congress gave it to him. Now, after General Petraeus reports the surge has produced no progress toward a political solution, what does the president want? More time for the surge to work, when all of us know it won't."
The President informed the nation tonight that he expects to leave a U.S. presence in Iraq way beyond his presidency. He said Iraqi leaders "have asked for an enduring relationship with America." The mission keeps changing, have you noticed?
What happened to, "Missions Accomplished" Mr. President?
Democrats have once again walked into the GOP Trap, unless they stand up and fight back.
The GOP and Karl Rove put into play,a plan, that started back in late 2006. The key words were, surge and more time. Tell the American people we are going to go on the offensive. We're sending in more troops to get control of the country so the government of Iraq can have time to reconcile their problems.
The President and the GOP knew that the Democrats would balk on that idea and that they would demand a report be given about the progress of that surge at some point in the near future. The President and the GOP gave them that date, the week of the 9/11 anniversary.
Meanwhile all through June, July and August we start hearing the key words of, `more time'. More time might be needed, we are seeing success. September's not the, do or die date, it's just a chance for an update given to us by the General and the Ambassador.
During the presidential campaigns, you hear the candidates demanding a troop withdraw, end this war, they say. All the while refusing to stop the funding for it, out of fear that some soldier would die because they had no armor to wear from lack of funds.
The Democrats also had the problem of not getting enough votes to override any presidential veto to set a time line. All but a few Democrats have been demanding that we start withdrawing now, in small increments. Well guess what? Part B of GOP plan begins. President Bush and the GOP are taking them up on their requests. They are withdrawing troops in small increments between now and July of 2008. Headlines of your local papers will say, "30,000 Troops Withdrawn From Iraq By July".
Other then demanding even more troops to be withdrawn or all troops should be withdrawn, exactly what else can the Democrats say at this stage?
President Bush is doing what the Democrats have been demanding for the past year. He's withdrawing troops. Oh sure, those of us paying close attention, know that the amount of troops he's withdrawing are the exact amount he put in during the surge. We will still have over 130,000 troops in Iraq by this time in 2008.
The fact of how many are left in Iraq won't be in the headlines during the political conventions next year. It's going to be all about the ones that have come home since the first of the year, almost 30,000 troops, they'll say.
Unless the Democrats decide to be brave enough to fight back, they will lose any chance they had to win the White House and possibly lose seats in the Congress.
While they `decide', the rest of us will all stand by and watch hundreds more of our men and women die, while President Bush stands outside the White House, on January 20th, 2008, and says, "We're Not Leaving On My Watch - I don't want the blame".
The only solution for Democrats is, they need to pass a bill that requires a definite deadline for withdraw, even if that deadline is in August 2008. The deadline forces the President to give in. It also forces the GOP into admitting that things aren't so good after all.
If you are concerned about a filibuster being called by the GOP, so be it. Let it happened. Democrats needed to SACRIFICE for the TROOPS. If Republicans won't, they must.
During this filbuster, for each time a soldier is harmed or killed, a Democrat needs to stand up and make the announcement of who the person was, how old they were and if they have family. Other Democrats, meanwhile, should asked to be on talk shows at that moment so they can announce the death or harm of one more soldier while the GOP play politics.
The harm and deaths of our troops should, if the GOP have any hearts, this will cause them to pause and think about what they are doing. I'm sure they wouldn't like being humiliated while filibustering while one more soldier is either dying or has died.
Coonsey's View: http://www.freewebs.com/coonsey/
|
|
|
Permalink :: 0 Comments :: Post a Comment
|
In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.
If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.