“Is there not a moral obligation of the United States to make sure that the Iraqi people are safe before the U.S. withdraws?” ABC News’ Jake Tapper asked Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid yesterday. As Mr. Tapper summarized the exchange, “I tried to get an answer… I did not succeed.”
Mr. Reid’s response to this very reasonable question was to dodge here, dodge there, and never answer directly. He cited Iraqi opinion polls showing that 69 percent of Iraqis feel less safe because of the U.S. presence. He cited the war’s cost of many billions and the 600 dead Americans in the last six months. “That’s enough,” Mr. Reid said. “With all due respect, Senator, you didn’t answer my question,” responded Mr. Tapper. Mr. Reid’s final response: “OK. This is not a debate.” Indeed, real debate is the last thing Mr. Reid and the growing pro-withdrawal caucus wants.
That from an OP-Ed in the WaTi, [1]this morning.
The reason for that, as the editorial goes on to point out, is that the Democrats in reality have no plans for how to deal with the situation. They haven’t even made an attempt at putting together some kind of strategic plan. None. Their argument, therefore, is completely in line with what their advisers have been telling them; “forget facts and figures, stick with the emotional. ”
The Democrats, certainly have the TV on their side, as I predicted when we get involved in Iraq and the first place. You’ll recall, that the time I projected this was going to be a year’s long struggle, possibly a decade’s long struggle. I remarked at the time, that the overt Democrat support for our actions in Iraq, was going to dwindle away. So it did, particularly when they saw a political opportunity to make their opposition look bad on an emotional appeal.
True to form, the Democrats, far from actually having a fact based plan to deal with the situation, lean on the emotional aspects to garner support. The philosophy appears to be the same as drives the constant mantra chant of “It’s for the Children”.
We should continue pressuring the senator Harry Reid to explain to the American people what is plan is. I think him morally obligated, if he finds such faults with that of the people who are, by means of the constitution, actually in charge of the military, and foreign policy, which is to say the President of the United States and his representatives in the military (in this case, the joint chiefs and their appointees ) then he should be providing us with what he thinks to be a more workable plan, if he really wants us to supersede that constitutional authority.
Let’s look at what the Democratic leadership wants us to do.
Postulate a group of soldiers, withdrawing from the field of battle as quickly as possible without any plan, without any concern about winning, without any concern of the safety of the people left behind, simply withdrawing, as quickly as possible, from the field of battle, without a plan.
Would that not be considered “cut and run”?
That’s precisely what the Democrats are urging us to do. Somehow, that kind of leadership strikes me as wanting.
Addendum: (David L)
Military terminology department: moving away from the enemy is called a retreat. Doing so in an unorganized manner is called a rout.
Leftard hysteria department: The lads and lassies at Think Progress, are refering to the Jake Tapper piece as the “ABC Hit Piece On Reid [2],” I mean Tapper asks Dirty Harry a question, which can be answered a simple yes or no, which Reid refuses to answer, and Think Progess calls it a “Hit Piece.”
Liberals used to made of sterner stuff.