Why the Dems Oppose the Surge
Because they are venal liars who can't be trusted with responsibility.
When Bush was holding troop levels flat, they complained that too few troops were in place (other than those who more honestly, but less responsibly just advocated cut and run). Now that they get the additional troops they claimed were needed, they oppose the move. Objecting to any move Bush makes is not a policy, its a playground tactic. Apparently this is what Pelosi means when she talks of government for the children.
Sunday, January 21, 2007
Friday, January 12, 2007
Senator McCaskill:
The Democrats are worried about an open-ended commitment in Iraq. Where the United States had made open-ended commitments, such as Korea, Taiwan, Greece, and Turkey - open ended commitments made by Harry Truman - these countries have advoided domination by hostile, totalitarian powers, and made a slow transition to democracy. The first two or three decades for each of these countries (with some exception for Turkey) were not democratic, but the American commitment and presence helped those countries build democracies. Sustained commitment since then helped solidify democracy in these places. The current generation has the same duties in Iraq, Afghanistan, and places yet undetermined. What would Truman do? What would John Kennedy do? Are the democrats still willing to "pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty." Or has the Democratic Party and the Missouri Senator entirely embraced the Peace at Any Price policy of McGovern and the New Left, abandoning nascient democracies well before democracy is established and dominant? Where are Wilson, Truman, and Kennedy today? Where will you vote and where will your party vote? Abandon Iraq and condemn freedom's blossom? Or bear any burden to assure the survival and success of liberty in the Middle East?
The Democrats are worried about an open-ended commitment in Iraq. Where the United States had made open-ended commitments, such as Korea, Taiwan, Greece, and Turkey - open ended commitments made by Harry Truman - these countries have advoided domination by hostile, totalitarian powers, and made a slow transition to democracy. The first two or three decades for each of these countries (with some exception for Turkey) were not democratic, but the American commitment and presence helped those countries build democracies. Sustained commitment since then helped solidify democracy in these places. The current generation has the same duties in Iraq, Afghanistan, and places yet undetermined. What would Truman do? What would John Kennedy do? Are the democrats still willing to "pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty." Or has the Democratic Party and the Missouri Senator entirely embraced the Peace at Any Price policy of McGovern and the New Left, abandoning nascient democracies well before democracy is established and dominant? Where are Wilson, Truman, and Kennedy today? Where will you vote and where will your party vote? Abandon Iraq and condemn freedom's blossom? Or bear any burden to assure the survival and success of liberty in the Middle East?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)