Text 8827, 96 rader
Skriven 2005-02-08 11:51:41 av John Hull (1:379/1.99)
Ärende: Exit Strategy
=====================
The following article appeared on Opinionjournal.com shortly after the Iraqi
election.  The writer nailed it far as I'm concerned.



REVIEW & OUTLOOK

The 'Exit Strategy' Democrats
The only thing they can't imagine is success in Iraq.

Thursday, February 3, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST

Every so often, an American politician takes an unpopular stand for the sake of
what's right: Think of Gerald Ford's pardon of Richard Nixon. Frequently, he
takes an unprincipled stand for the sake of what's popular: Take Richard
Nixon's price controls. Sometimes, even, he does what's right, which also
happens to be popular: Ronald Reagan's bombing of Libya.

Only in the rarest of instances, however, do politicians take positions that
are both unpopular and unprincipled. That is where the Democratic Party
leadership finds itself today on Iraq.

On Sunday, some eight million Iraqi citizens risked their lives to participate
in parliamentary elections--as vivid and moving a demonstration of democratic
ideals in action as we've seen in our lifetimes. Whereupon Senate Democrats
Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry took to the airwaves to explain that it
was no big deal and that it was time to start casting about for an "exit
strategy."

Mr. Kerry: "No one in the United States should try to overhype this
election.... It's hard to say that something is legitimate when a whole portion
of the country can't and doesn't vote."

Mr. Kennedy: "While the elections are a step forward, they are not a cure for
the growing violence and resentment of the perception of American occupation. .
. . The best way to demonstrate to the Iraqi people that we have no long-term
designs on their country is for the Administration to withdraw some troops now
. . ."

Minority Leader Reid: "We need an exit strategy so that we know what victory is
and how we can get there. . . . Iraq is clearly important, but there are so
many bigger threats to our national security . . ."

So what is the Democratic Party's message on this inspiring exercise in Iraqi
self-determination? First, that the election's legitimacy is questionable.
Second, that its effects will be minor. Third, that America's presence in Iraq
is doing more harm than good by generating terrorism and anti-Americanism where
none previously existed. Fourth, that the U.S. has better things to do. Fifth,
that American sacrifices in Iraq are best redeemed not by victory, but by the
earliest feasible departure.

As a matter of policy, this is a manifesto for irresponsibility. Just as the
postponement of elections would have been a gift to the insurgents, a timetable
for withdrawal now would amount to a concession of defeat. The Iraqis certainly
know this, with interim President (and Sunni Arab) Sheik Ghazi al-Yawar saying
Tuesday that it is "complete nonsense to ask the troops to leave in this chaos
and this vacuum of power." The claim that the U.S. has become a force for
occupation only validates the Al-Jazeera hypothesis that the terrorists are
engaging in a legitimate exercise in "resistance."

What is more astonishing, however, is the Democrats' political tone-deafness.
In their indictment of Administration policy, the Senators always take care to
add a few words of tribute to the American soldier. But what's the point of
praising his courage when only a fool would want to be the last man to die for
a mistake?

Today, the Democratic Party has put itself in the awkward position of hoping to
gain political advantage in the 2006 elections as a result of American wartime
reverses, just as some House Republicans did during the war in Kosovo (they
were saved by their Senate betters). This is not a place any political party
should wish to be.

We understand that it is in the nature of the party of opposition to oppose.
But there's no law in politics that says opposition has to be blind. Following
the Iraqi election, Senator Hillary Clinton offered that "we have to salute the
courage and bravery of those who are risking their lives to vote and those
brave Iraqi and American soldiers fighting to protect their right to vote. They
are facing terrorists who have declared war on democracy itself and made voting
a life-and-death process." Last we checked, nobody had accused Mrs. Clinton of
being a Republican.

At the onset of the Cold War, and despite opposition from the isolationist wing
of their party, Arthur Vandenberg and other Republican Senators worked with
Democratic President Harry Truman to forge the containment strategy against
Communism. Where is today's Democratic Vandenberg?

End


John 

America:  First, Last, and Always!
Go to www.madgorilla.us for all your Domain Name Services at the lowest rates.

--- Msged/386 TE 05
 * Origin: We are the Watchmen of our own Liberty! (1:379/1.99)