Can't Let Bush Win
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted Wednesday, July 18, 2007 4:20 PM PT
Iraq: Instead of all-night pajama parties and obtuse legislative ploys, why can't Democrats be honest and just shut off war funding? Answer: They know it would betray our troops and turn Iraq into a slaughterhouse.
Rep. Dennis Kucinich is one of the most left-leaning presidential candidates ever, but at least he's honest. Earlier this month, when the House passed the sure-to-be-vetoed "Responsible Redeployment From Iraq Act," Kucinich was one of only 10 Democrats to oppose it.
"This bill will not end the war," the Ohio Democrat pointed out. Instead, "We must inform the administration that the $97 billion appropriated last month is the end of the financing for the war."
He went on: "We could have our troops home by October 1st. The question is whether we're ready to take a stand to do that, or whether we're going to vote on resolutions that give the American people the appearance that we want to end the war, without actually addressing the central issue that will end the war. Stop the funding."
What an embarrassment for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who just presided over a Senate slumber party regarding Iraq.
Kucinich has bona fides with the anti-war crowd; they know he means business about pulling out. And he was telling the world that the Democrats in charge of Congress are just playing games.
The bill Kucinich refused to support calls for "the reduction of the number of armed forces in Iraq" and "a justification of the minimum force levels required to protect United States national security interests in Iraq after April 1, 2008." But it leaves all discretion to the president, whose "reduction" to "minimum force levels required" could conceivably amount to bringing home a dozen mess hall attendants.
Is it any wonder a Zogby poll of about 1,000 likely voters found a record 83% unhappy with Congress? Even opponents of the war are mad at Pelosi and Reid for their toothless anti-war gimmick.
Meanwhile, we've been seeing real progress in Iraq — most recently Wednesday's announcement of the capture of Khaled al-Mashhadani, the most senior Iraqi leader of al-Qaida in Iraq.
He's told U.S. officials that "Abu Omar al-Baghdadi," the group's purported native Iraqi leader, is really an actor's voice on a Web site to keep Iraqis in the dark about the terrorist group's non-Iraqi leadership.
It's also clear that Democrats know what those terrorists will do to Iraq if we leave:
• Last week, Reid repeatedly refused to answer ABC News reporter Jake Tapper's question of whether there is "a moral obligation of the United States to make sure that the Iraqi people are safe before the U.S. withdraws."
• This week, Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards told the Washington Post of his plans if genocide resulted from a U.S. pullout — including basing a rapid deployment force in Kuwait, possibly stationing U.S. forces in Jordan and even setting up buffer zones around Iraq's borders.
The American people think the president and congressional Democrats are separated by a great philosophical divide on Iraq.
But it's becoming clearer that Democrats know as well as the commander in chief that we have to win there. They just can't live with the thought of George W. Bush getting the credit.
ibdeditorials.com |
