By J.B. Williams
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Soldiers, who are now or have ever been on the battlefield, already know the difference between support and surrender, just as they know the difference between redeployment and retreat.
Although leftist Democrats have been largely successful in fooling many Americans into believing that their surrender agenda is some form of support for the troops, the troops certainly know better...and so does the enemy.
According to AP writer Anne Flaherty, "The Senate is expected to vote as early as this week on whether to cut off money for the Iraq war next year, as well as on a softer measure calling for troops to leave this fall."
To be clear on the subject, Democrat Senate leader Harry Reid and Democrat Senator Russ Feingold (of McCain-Feingold fame) have offered two amendments to the pending Iraq war funding bill, otherwise known as the Senate attempt to bribe or coerce (choose your favorite) the Defense Department and Bush into surrender in Iraq.
It should be noted that both the western allies and their enemy jihadists in Iraq and beyond, consider Iraq to be the central front in the international war against terrorism. Any retreat from the central front in Iraq is a retreat from the broader war on terror. Just ask the enemy who has been regurgitating Democrat war propaganda as if they were members of the American Press.
Meanwhile over in the People's House, Democrat Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her House Democrats have passed another bill that would sabotage the war effort. Some say sabotage, others call it support...
The House voted to split war funding into two parts. $42.75 billion -- enough to fund operations through July 31, 2007 -- would be released right now. Of course, it will be June 1, before anything happens.
In the House bill, the president would have to report on progress in Baghdad by July 13, 2007 and then a second House vote would be required to release the remaining $52.8 billion, which would carry the military through the end of the fiscal year in October 2007.
Of course the $26 billion in pork-barrel bribes used to garner the Democrat votes needed to pass the bill, can be released immediately, no strings attached. Neither bill is "bi-partisan" as being reported by the way. Both are being forced up the hill strictly down party lines.
Now soldiers from grunts to generals know exactly what both houses of congress are moving towards here. In order to get the funding they need to continue their missions in the war against international terrorism, Bush must first agree to surrender in Iraq on or before October 2007.
There is no missing this message, coming through loud and clear from both houses of congress. Even the lowest boot soldier in Al Qaeda understands what this means. If Bush wants his money, he will have to agree to surrender by October. I'm sure it's a coincidence that this is about the time frame in which the 2008 presidential campaigns will get into full swing.
Now the Democrats see this as a means of supporting their troops, who are currently dying on the battlefield, as they listen to Al Qaeda members regurgitate Democrat plans to retreat, withdraw and surrender as soon as July, but no later than October. This is wonderful news to every terrorist in the region. Is it good for our troops though?
Democrats regained political power by beating the drum of defeat and retreat in Iraq, the war on terror. It's a safe bet they will stick with what worked in 2006 and keep beating that drum until Hillary is once again telling the Marine One crew to "make themselves useful and get her bags"... or at least until the freshmen Senator from Illinois is upgraded to his first swivel executive chair, name plate and all.
The soldiers know exactly which it is, where they are caught in the cross fire; the political war for supreme U.S. power being waged in the halls of congress back home. But how can the American people tell the difference between real support for our troops and real top notch political horse manure being shoveled at them at light speed by Democrats and their always ready to surrender press?
It's easier than you think.
For starters, you can't separate the troops from their mission. The success of our troops is defined entirely by the success of their mission. Therefore, anything that threatens to undermine or sabotage that mission, like forcing a surrender and retreat deadline, interrupting the flow of resources needed to complete the mission or encouraging the enemy to fight them harder and hang in there until July or October, can never be considered a form of support for the troops themselves.
But if this is still a bit fuzzy for some of you, allow me to make it even more crystal clear...
Those truly interested in supporting our troops are not demanding that our troops retreat in defeat. They are asking our troops what they need in order to succeed and then moving heaven and earth in order to provide the troops with everything they ask for, and then some. Have you ever seen a Democrat besides Joe Lieberman take this stance?
Real supporters are relying upon battle tested military experts and real-time information in theater, to make day to day, sometimes minute to minute adjustments in strategy. They are not relying on armchair generals back in Washington DC who are too busy waging a different war for a different purpose to worry about such trivial things as winning the international war against terrorism, beginning with Iraq, or keeping America safe from the next strike at home.
And last, the way you can tell whose side the left is on if you haven't figured it out by now; ask yourself what would happen in the next election if Bush won the battle for Baghdad and kept America safe from a second round of attacks on U.S. soil?
Then ask yourself what would happen in that election if Bush was forced to retreat in defeat from Iraq, lost the broader war on terror and then had another attack on U.S. soil, this time worse than 9/11?
The latter is the best thing that could ever happen to Democrats currently frothing at the mouth with power and working around the clock to cause a complete Bush failure in Iraq and they know it.
As a result, Democrats are more focused on causing a Bush failure at any cost than causing an American success in the war on terror at any cost. If you haven't figured out the difference between support and surrender by now, you never will.
And if Bush doesn't soon figure out that he has a more dangerous enemy at home than abroad, he will deserve to be written into history as the president who lost it all...
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2024 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2024 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement