Theatrics were the norm last week before Congress headed home for its Thanksgiving break. In the Senate, Democrats offered a resolution that demanded a timetable for troop withdrawal in Iraq.
Even though Republicans defeated Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) cut- and-run resolution by a vote of 58 to 40, Reid managed to give Al-Jazeera--and Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi--their headlines and talking points all in one shot. Reid proclaimed that the Senate’s action was “a vote of no confidence,” and defiantly stated that “staying the course will not do.” (www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/15/AR2005111500145.html?referrer=email)
Senate Republicans pushed back by passing their own resolution, 79 to 19, which essentially requires the White House to report to the entire Senate every 90 days, “detailing U.S. policy and military operations” in Iraq.
Mind you, these are the same Senate Democrats who supposedly had an informed opinion on Iraq and its WMD’s during the Clinton administration. It is these same Senate Democrats who voted for war in 2002 on the basis of intelligence and information that they actually saw and decided on.
Now, they want real or imagined oversight of a war that they:
-Virtually demanded in the late 1990s, fully backing President Clinton’s stated goal of “regime change.”
-Supported the decision--and leadership--of President Bush in 2002, even going so far as to demand a debate and vote in regards to an Iraqi war resolution in order to appear in line with the Republicans, not to mention the country. But then…
-Cried foul over being supposedly “misled” and “lied to” when WMD’s did not materialize, all the while glossing over their own factual statements regarding Saddam Hussein and those ever-elusive WMD’s.
Two things come to mind here. The first is that these political chamber games that Democrats insist on playing can do nothing but, at best, hurt the moral of our troops and at worst, cost them their lives.
One hopes our military men and women might see the distinction between a party that supports their Herculean efforts, and that of the “other” party that continues to behave as if it is 1969 all over again.
The second item, now that I mention politics, is all the political flatulence that seems to emanate from the well of the Senate over Iraq, specifically from the likes of Senators Kennedy, Reid, Durbin, and everyone’s favorite anti-war stinker, John Kerry.
Well, the air was just as rank over in the House of Representatives, where Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa), usually a stand-up guy in regard to the military, let fly some of the most dishonorable and nonsensical comments from an otherwise very honorable and sensible man.
In his comments, Murtha said: “The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion.” (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20051118/D8DV51A80.html)
Is this a case of liberal man bites military? Hardly. Murtha is a 37-year Marine Corps veteran, awarded a Bronze Star and two Purple Hearts. But it may be a case of normally hawkish Murtha reverting to party politics and/or fund-raising gimmickry.
We have seen this before, where normally sensible members of the left side of the aisle become, well, more erratic like their vociferously liberal colleagues. California Congresswoman Jane Harman, who is also usually well-grounded in military matters, had stated the day after London experienced its own version of 9/11 this: “But the notion that we are fighting terrorists in Iraq so we don't have to fight them in our cities is clearly false.”(www.house.gov/harman/press/releases/2005/0707PR_London_bombings.html)
Again, these types of wild-eyed charges are uncharacteristic, untrue, and unnecessary. But normally well-respected and looked-to members of Congress seem to gravitate, after all, into today’s new and senseless Democratic Party; nothing is out of bounds, and all is fair game, even at the expense of the men and women in combat.
For me, the real crime must be the country’s willingness to put up with such political demagoguery and drive-bys, cloaked within the well-worn comfort of “Free Speech.”
Such rubbish. If Democrats really had any backbone at all, they would have mustered up more than the shamefully paltry three votes they got in support of a GOP yet Democrat-inspired resolution that simply stated:
“It is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of U.S. forces in Iraq be terminated immediately.” (H.Res.571)
John Murtha and Jane Harman, of course, voted “No,” which only proves the point that insipid rhetorical yammering beats out principle nearly every time. For confirmation, look at the old media, who now make it their business to report not the news, but what they feel passes for it, politically. (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll608.xml)
In 1987, Bill Buckley wrote of Senator Ted Kennedy’s charges against then Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork as being “withered in distortion and malice.” Of course, Buckley was talking about “The” Ted Kennedy, but he was also commenting on the general state of politics within the confines of civilized discourse.
Alas, Buckley found it lacking then, and so it is today. From the Michael Moores and the test-tube kids down at Air America, I expect the distortion and malice. But the words that tumble out of the elected left these past few years can only hurt the country as a whole, and specifically our armed forces that fight and die for their “Free Speech” right to say such un-American filth.
For Democrats, it is not only war in Iraq, but war, war, everywhere; political or otherwise.
Vincent Fiore is a freelance political writer who lives in New York City. He receives e-mail at: Anwar004@aol.com