Post by justjohn on Aug 14, 2007 2:45:01 GMT -5
Successful Surge Is Dems' Dilemma
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted Friday, August 10, 2007 4:20 PM PT
source
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted Friday, August 10, 2007 4:20 PM PT
Iraq: Democratic senators visiting Iraq have seen for themselves that President Bush's surge strategy is working. But their party has so much invested in losing this war, they're muffling the good news.
Interviewed from Iraq, Illinois Sen. Richard Durbin, the second-ranking Democrat in the Senate, last week admitted that our forces are "making real progress" there.
Durbin told CNN, "What we find is that the surge has troops going into areas where for 4 1/2 years we have not seen our military in action."
But back in January, delivering the Democratic response to the president's State of the Union address, Durbin called the proposed 20,000-plus new troops "too few to end this civil war in Iraq and too many American lives to risk on top of those we've already lost."
According to the Associated Press, freshman Sen. Robert Casey, D-Pa., who accompanied Durbin to Iraq, said in a conference call with reporters last week that a good argument could be made that U.S. troops have actually won the war in Iraq.
Yet Casey also told CNN last week that he was still right to have voted against the surge.
"The problem here," he said, "is that the president of the United States continues to insist on a stay-the-course policy, no change in direction, no sense that the American people can determine that there's a light at the end of the tunnel."
You can't have it both ways — yet that is exactly what Democrats are twisting themselves into contortions trying to do.
Contrary to Casey's Rip Van Winkle-like charge, President Bush's surge is, of course, a huge change in direction — and it's clearly becoming a light at the end of the tunnel that gets brighter almost by the week.
Even Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., last week conceded there has been progress.
Yet Democrats say never mind that we're winning; the Iraqi politicians are losing.
Durbin grouses that "the political scene is very discouraging." The al-Maliki government is "coming apart," he contends. "We see Shias leaving, Sunnis walking out. It's not the kind of promise that we want in terms of bringing stability to this country."
"I think we're making some measurable progress," Durbin told the Chicago Tribune, "but it's slow going. The fact is that, as our troops show some progress toward security, the government of this nation (Iraq) is moving in the opposite direction."
Levin echoed Durbin in pointing a finger at the Iraqi parliament. "The only hope is if they take the responsibility onto themselves and we end the open-ended military commitment," the Democratic senator told CNN on Sunday.
Is has become a familiar refrain among Democrats that the Baghdad parliament is unable to solve the country's deep-rooted ethnic-based political problems over a short period.
But someone should remind the Democrat-controlled Congress that it itself hasn't been able to address the biggest problems now facing America: It can't secure the border from terrorists, for instance. And staving off the inevitable fiscal train wreck on entitlement spending isn't even on its agenda.
Meanwhile, the legislature of the largest state in the union, California, is now in the midst of its annual paralysis, unable to approve a budget. Flawed though they may be, Baghdad's lawmakers routinely take bigger risks than either Washington's or Sacramento's.
What's more, there are encouraging political signs in Iraq.
The Kurdistan Regional Government's parliament, for instance, unanimously approved a regional oil law on Aug. 6, which is likely to spark interest in the region among a number of foreign energy companies. It may turn into a model for the entire country.
The Iraqi people have proved their commitment to freedom — by braving bullets to go to the polls, among other things.
Democrats in Congress should get it straight that America's job is to defeat the terrorists — which Durbin, Casey and other Democrats who have visited Iraq know we're doing successfully.
When that's done, and the real chance for stability and prosperity is there, political solutions will become much more attractive in Baghdad.
Interviewed from Iraq, Illinois Sen. Richard Durbin, the second-ranking Democrat in the Senate, last week admitted that our forces are "making real progress" there.
Durbin told CNN, "What we find is that the surge has troops going into areas where for 4 1/2 years we have not seen our military in action."
But back in January, delivering the Democratic response to the president's State of the Union address, Durbin called the proposed 20,000-plus new troops "too few to end this civil war in Iraq and too many American lives to risk on top of those we've already lost."
According to the Associated Press, freshman Sen. Robert Casey, D-Pa., who accompanied Durbin to Iraq, said in a conference call with reporters last week that a good argument could be made that U.S. troops have actually won the war in Iraq.
Yet Casey also told CNN last week that he was still right to have voted against the surge.
"The problem here," he said, "is that the president of the United States continues to insist on a stay-the-course policy, no change in direction, no sense that the American people can determine that there's a light at the end of the tunnel."
You can't have it both ways — yet that is exactly what Democrats are twisting themselves into contortions trying to do.
Contrary to Casey's Rip Van Winkle-like charge, President Bush's surge is, of course, a huge change in direction — and it's clearly becoming a light at the end of the tunnel that gets brighter almost by the week.
Even Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., last week conceded there has been progress.
Yet Democrats say never mind that we're winning; the Iraqi politicians are losing.
Durbin grouses that "the political scene is very discouraging." The al-Maliki government is "coming apart," he contends. "We see Shias leaving, Sunnis walking out. It's not the kind of promise that we want in terms of bringing stability to this country."
"I think we're making some measurable progress," Durbin told the Chicago Tribune, "but it's slow going. The fact is that, as our troops show some progress toward security, the government of this nation (Iraq) is moving in the opposite direction."
Levin echoed Durbin in pointing a finger at the Iraqi parliament. "The only hope is if they take the responsibility onto themselves and we end the open-ended military commitment," the Democratic senator told CNN on Sunday.
Is has become a familiar refrain among Democrats that the Baghdad parliament is unable to solve the country's deep-rooted ethnic-based political problems over a short period.
But someone should remind the Democrat-controlled Congress that it itself hasn't been able to address the biggest problems now facing America: It can't secure the border from terrorists, for instance. And staving off the inevitable fiscal train wreck on entitlement spending isn't even on its agenda.
Meanwhile, the legislature of the largest state in the union, California, is now in the midst of its annual paralysis, unable to approve a budget. Flawed though they may be, Baghdad's lawmakers routinely take bigger risks than either Washington's or Sacramento's.
What's more, there are encouraging political signs in Iraq.
The Kurdistan Regional Government's parliament, for instance, unanimously approved a regional oil law on Aug. 6, which is likely to spark interest in the region among a number of foreign energy companies. It may turn into a model for the entire country.
The Iraqi people have proved their commitment to freedom — by braving bullets to go to the polls, among other things.
Democrats in Congress should get it straight that America's job is to defeat the terrorists — which Durbin, Casey and other Democrats who have visited Iraq know we're doing successfully.
When that's done, and the real chance for stability and prosperity is there, political solutions will become much more attractive in Baghdad.
source
