CONGRESSIONAL ACTION... COURAGEOUS?
March 4, 2007
The House of Representatives passed a non-binding resolution rejecting President Bush's plan to redeploy more troops to Iraq. We ask, "was that the most courage they could muster? " Think about it, it would take courage to go against most of the polls and support the surge of troops OR, go with the polls and pass a resolution to immediately pull the funding for the military operation in Iraq. Either of these positions would have required decisive leadership and strong courage. But, the recent action in the House, of passing a non binding resolution, showed a flagrant disdain for the public and contempt for the American people. But, the American public is NOT blind. The public can see that the so called "courageous" high powered decision -makers in Washington want it both ways. They wanted to appear to be taking a strong stand without taking a strong stand. It is troubling to see such hypocrisy and cowardliness.
Clearly, if Congress wants to end the war, it would decisively vote to cut off funds for the operation in Iraq and receive whatever benefits or consequences that result from that action. Now that would have shown the courage of their conviction. But in reality, what the House did when they issued their statement "we support the troops" was to give verbal support to our men and women in harm's way and then, by sleight of hand, take it back. If Congress wants to end this war, it should immediately vote to cut off funds. But what they did was to protect themselves with no thought of protective reinforcement for our troops. In short, if the surge worked they could say "we verbally supported the troops all the way" ; and, if it does not work, they can say... "We knew it would not work, we did not support the surge and condemned it from the beginning." All this political rhetoric and chicanery is unseemly and even dangerous. What a lack of decisive courage on the part of a majority in the House and at a time of war, no less!
There was a time, just two or three years ago, when most members of Congress supported the President's prosecution of the war. Of course, that was when his approval numbers were sky-high. Now those poll numbers have fallen, and so has Congressional support. If however, the President's policy succeeds, one thing will happen, those same Congressional members who opposed him, will claim victoriously they whey were behind the troops all along. In reality however, the message the Congress vicariously sent to the emboldened forces of al Qaeda was... "Hold on, we'll stop the surge, we will accept defeat, we're going to leave and not stand in your way." In truth, that will give the green light for al Qaeda and the terrorists to continue terrorizing, torturing and maiming of innocent men, women and children. This is humanely unconscionable.
President Bush is sending reinforcements, the "cavalry" if you will, to reinforce our troops in Iraq. There are those who doubt that this will work. They are entitled to conclude that whole cause is hopeless or unjust and that we should withdraw from Iraq as soon as possible. They have a right to that opinion, but we ask "what is THEIR plan and their alternative strategy?" Surely, they would not try to weaken the U.S. position in Iraq, granting open encouragement to world wide terrorism But frankly, that is precisely what they are doing with the non binding resolution condemning the dispatch of additional troops and walking out of Iraq in defeat.
As we see, this non binding resolution is only the first step in a slow-bleed strategy. There is a plan now being put forth, by certain members of Congress including Congressman Murtha, which intends to block further relief and reinforcements for American troops, leaving them exposed and thus unable to succeed. This is reprehensible to say the least. This is a slow bleed strategy of defeat. It is inconceivable to see those in positions of Congressional leadership who appear to be so invested in defeat and are scrambling to take ownership of the defeat strategy. Speak about emboldening the enemy and, at the same time, demoralizing our American troops in harm's way.
As we see it, you don't support our troops by political figures micromanaging military operations. You don't support our troops by sabotaging their mission and strategy--a strategy designed by an outstanding general, General Petraeus, who was unanimously approved. You don't support the troops by continually giving comfort to the enemy by declaring that we are retreating in defeat. You don't support our troops by declaring that they are there because they were too stupid to finish their schooling and were not prepared to get a "real" job. You don't support our troops by openly describing them as "mercenaries" as one US Senator declared. You don't support our troops by declaring, as one US Presidential candidate declared: that "she would put an end to U.S. arrogance." Where is the courageous substance of "We support the troops" with such non supportive actions and arrogant statements?
It is at a time such as this, that we remember the words of truly great leaders of another time in history: It was President Kennedy who said "Let every nation know, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty." And in the words of Winston Churchill: "Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival" ... remarkable words and actions by Kennedy and Churchill; now THERE is REAL courageous and heroic leadership. And that is how we see it FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE.