As the political wind changes...

I’ve been saying it for years. Politicians from both sides of the isle are approaching the War on Terror as a political opportunity. They twist it, spin it, distort it, misrepresent it…all to garner votes.

Since a Republican is in the White House, the politics of war are much more prevalent from the Democrats. But, many spineless Republicans are guilty as well. These politicians put their re-elections ahead of intellectual honesty. And, who suffers for their screwed-up priorities? The troops in harm’s way.

Case in point, John Kerry’s now infamous statement:

“I actually did vote for the 87 billion dollars before I voted against it.”

Obviously, this represents a serious commitment issue on Senator Kerry’s part. But, it highlights the fact that Democrats’ opinions will change with the political winds. They are not dedicated to winning this war. They are dedicated to re-election. Plain and simple.

The most recent debate on the Iraq War solidifies this point. President Bush is proposing a “surge” of troops to re-gain control of many violent areas in Iraq. He is proposing to send 21,500 more troops overseas.

Is this a good idea? I don’t know. I’m not a military expert. I’ll leave that to the Generals on the ground.

There are also a lot of Democrats who can’t decide if it’s a good idea or not. When they are the ones to propose it, they support it whole-heatedly. This is the best idea anyone could propose! This is the ONLY option.

But, let President Bush (their arch enemy) jump on board with them, and propose the exact same idea…the proposal becomes unthinkable.

I introduce to you, the new Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Congressman Silvestre Reyes. Here is Congressman Reyes on December 5, 2006:

"We're not going to have stability in Iraq until we eliminate those militias, those private armies. We have to consider the need for additional troops to be in Iraq, to take out the militias and stabilize Iraq. I would say 20,000 to 30,000 for the specific purpose of making sure those militias are dismantled."

Now, let’s take a look at Congressman Reyes 1 month later, after President Bush proposed the exact same increase in troop levels:

"We don't have the capability to escalate even to this minimum level. The president has not changed direction, but is simply changing tactics."

Now, the illustrious Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. In an interview with Tim Russert on May 30, 2004:

RUSSERT: Would you send more American troops in order to stabilize the situation?


Now that Bush proposes the exact same thing? Pelosi writes in a letter to the President:

"We do not believe that adding more U.S. combat troops contributes to success...Adding more combat troops will only endanger more Americans and stretch our military to the breaking point for no strategic gain."

Two years ago, Pelosi was in favor of a strategy that she now says is a recipe for failure. One month ago, Reyes proposed the "change in direction" that he now says isn't a "change in direction" at all.

Essentially, the Democrats are adopting the philosophy,

“If Bush is FOR it, we are AGAINST it, and vice-versa…no matter the issue.”

With Bush’s approval ratings in the tank, this may, in fact, be the best way to win political points.

But, like I said, political points are all that concern them…winning be damned.


Post a Comment

<< Home