Monday, January 17, 2005

Will the Democrats Ever Get Serious About Iraq?

I caught a little of NBC's Meet the Press yesterday morning. On it was Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL). Nice looking fellow. Had that sort of blow-dried look we've come to expect from politicians. But the words coming out of his mouth made me want to throw a brick through the television screen.

When Russert let him spew his garbage without serious challenge, I turned the channel. But this morning I dug up the transcript:

MR. RUSSERT: How do you think President Bush has handled the situation in Iraq?

REP. EMANUEL: Well, Tim, we have a situation in Iraq. You know, there was basic presumptions made that--I think--and, you know, as Dan said earlier, Dan Bartlett, that, you know, plans go awry. I don't think we had a plan for when after the statue of Saddam Hussein came down. There was not a plan. We thought we were going to go in there, and, you know, on this show, Vice President Cheney said we're going to be greeted as liberators. Well, let me just say this: Iraqis have a very funny way of greeting liberators.

They said it was going to be easy and quick. It's turned out to be long and hard. There was not a plan for the occupation. There was not a plan for an exit strategy. And so at every step of the way, the United States Congress has provided the president the resources he's asked for, the resolution he's asked for. I think the one thing we've asked for back, and one thing the American people deserve, is a modicum of competency in the management of this war. None of the things that we face today in Iraq had to be this way. It's because of the way this has been managed at the Defense Department, in my view.

Let's examine some of the idiocy that passes for statesmanship in the Democratic Party lately:

"They said it was going to be easy and quick..." Who the heck is this "They" who said this. The president himself said the opposite repeatedly.

"There was not a plan for the occupation..." B freakin' S. Yes there was. The fact that utopia didn't suddenly spring up between the Tigris and Euphrates is not due to a failure of U. S. planning. It's because creating a functioning democratic state from the ruins of a thugocracy isn't something you can do without the remaining thugs taking offense.

"There was not a plan for an exit strategy..." Not one a modern Democrat might recognize I suppose, but there is such a plan. It's called victory.

"None of the things that we face today in Iraq had to be this way. It's because of the way this has been managed at the Defense Department, in my view." And like the rest of his party, you'll notice the attention to detail as he carefully lays out his alternate plan to "manage" Iraq.

The Democratic Party has become the party of sniping from the sidelines. How should we handle Iraq? After careful deliberation the opposition party has decided they have the answer: "Better." Brilliant.

Then the Congressman launched into one of those weird defenses of his vote in support of the war, even though now his rhetoric now doesn't match what it was then. In the midst of it he offered up this golden oldie:

REP. EMANUEL: You can make--you could have made a case that Saddam Hussein was a threat, and what you could have done also, Tim, is worked with other countries, go through the U.N., take the time to do it.
Oil. For. Food. Scandal.

What kind of alternate reality are folks like this living within? At least two of the members of the U. N. Security Council were on the take from Saddam. They were not ever going to support serious action.

Then we get this:

Again, the problems with our troops and the country today faces in Iraq isn't about whether we should or should not have gone to war, whether we should or should not have removed Saddam Hussein, it's how they have pursued this war, the lack of planning, the lack of processing, thinking about there was no plan, as you know, for after we removed Saddam Hussein, what would you do. There was no plan for--as you know, before war, you had to have an exit strategy. One has not even been annunciated. There's been a presumption that we were going to be greeted as liberators. There was a presumption this would be quick and easy, and then we can turn the country over. None of that has been laid out, and that has to do with the competency and the planning that goes in, and they did not have a plan for the day after "hostilities ended."
Here is the reason this bothered me so much. Skippy the Congressboy here isn't just speaking for himself. He was clearly sent out with some obvious talking points, and he dutifully kept spouting them.

The election is over, and yet the left continues their attempt to demoralize the nation in regard to Iraq. By a combination of flat-out lies and negative spin they hope to accomplish... what exactly? Is this laying the groundwork for the 2006 elections? Are they never going to get out of campaign mode and get into governing mode again?


Post a Comment

<< Home