News and Commentary on Politics, Media and Culture

Suddenly stay the course appears to be the Democrats’ new plan for winning the war in Iraq. What else could it be in lieu of any tangible alternative they are proposing outside the realm of opposing any and every new idea presented by the Bush administration?

The New York Times has unwittingly captured this sentiment in their coverage of Hillary Clinton’s latest media blitz that whisked her straight from Iraq to the doorstep of NBC, CBS and NPR. (pay attention to passage in bold)

WASHINGTON, Jan. 17 — Fresh from a weekend trip to Iraq, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton this morning intensified her opposition to President Bush’s new plan to send more than 20,000 additional troops to Baghdad, calling it “a losing strategy” and a “very bad mission” and proposing new limits and conditions on the overall war effort.

In laying out her latest set of positions and talking points on Iraq during appearances on the NBC and CBS morning shows, and on National Public Radio, Mrs. Clinton — a likely candidate for president in 2008 — did not call for a fixed deadline for withdrawing all American forces, saying only that the troops should leave Iraq “eventually.” Nor did she endorse blocking money for the new troop deployment. Those two positions are favored by many antiwar Democrats who are expected to be a force in the presidential primaries, and by at least one likely rival in 2008, former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina.

Outside of the possibility of a fixed deadline it appears that Democrats have some reason to leave everything exactly as it is. No new funding, no new ideas, just stay the course until we can pull the carpet out from under them and retreat in defeat. Is this what American’s really want?

If the elusive Hillary Clinton is any sort of barometer then the answer is both yes and then no, or perhaps maybe.

Instead, Mrs. Clinton called for capping the number of American forces in Iraq to the total number there on Jan. 1 — before Mr. Bush proposed adding forces. That total is roughly 140,000. She also proposed making a new threat to Iraqi government leaders to force their cooperation: the loss of American funds to train and equip Iraqi forces, rebuild the economy, and, to make the pressure more acute, to provide security for the leaders themselves. - Senator Clinton Calls Bush Plan ‘a Losing Strategy’

Let’s look at Senator Clinton’s proposals more closely.

• Cap the number of troops to present levels - obviously we now have enough troops when we previously didn’t.
• Make a new threat to Iraqi government leaders to force their cooperation - something President Bush already did in his speech last week.

Senator Clinton also said that the United States government is abdicating its responsibility. Apparently that only applies to Republicans despite the following words of wisdom from the nations next hopeful leader.

“They’re waiting us out,” she said on NBC’s “Today” show. “They intend to do everything they can to impose a particular brand of dominance over the Sunnis, and there’s no reason for the Sunni insurgency therefore to stop.”

Senator Clinton also said on NBC that Congress had limited ability to block the president’s troop plan outright.

Talk about abdicating responsibility. Do you mean to tell me that Democrat obstructionists who are now in the majority suddenly don’t have the ability to do anything about the President plan? I have an idea, propose a better one, anything will do. But they won’t. The Democrats can’t put themselves in a position that would necessitate having a stake in winning the war. It’s better to be an opposer than a doer. (BTW - who gave the terrorists the idea that they could just wait us out?)

It doesn’t matter how you slice it and dice it, the Democrats do not want to win this war in Iraq. They would rather have an election year issue; one that comes with the cost of more American blood as well as that of Iraqi’s who we are supposed to be helping. This is a disgrace. America needs real leaders and I have yet to see anyone step up to the plate.

It would be fine to oppose the war on the merits of the Bush administrations bungling. Everything is open game as long as an alternative is suggested. To date I haven’t heard one alternative being proposed by the Democrats that ends in the words “America Wins, Terrorists Lose“. Those words are reserved for fictional dramatizations like 24 that are considered to be “Neocon Sex Fantasies” by the clueless mouthpieces in the mainstream media.

Others: The Political Pit Bull

 Send this post a Friend  

Trackback URI | Comments RSS