Wednesday, January 31, 2007

Politics? Or Conscious Acts Of Treason ... ?

As stated in a speech by John Kerry, delivered on the Senate floor on Nov. 9, 1997, as recorded in the Congressional Record. "Plainly and simply, Saddam Hussein cannot be permitted to get away with his antics, or with this latest excuse for avoidance of international responsibility". Image Credit:

Politics? Or Conscious Acts Of Treason ... For Simple Political Gain?

Good question.

Now that the Democrats are in power over the Congress --- Hypocrisy RULES to the detriment of national security issues. The Democrat Congress does not believe that the military is up to the task of victory in Iraq and chooses to castrate their efforts as opposed to supporting their mission --- and this "surge" in hypocrisy is effecting some jello-kneed / round-heeled Republicans.

Typical of the “John Kerry Party” - the Democrats are of one voice about the surge strategy in Iraq when in saying “I was for it, before I was against it”.

Excerpts from The Washington Times -

Advocates of troop surge about-face in Congress
By Charles Hurt - THE WASHINGTON TIMES - January 31, 2007

For many in the Senate, they were for a surge of troops in Iraq before they were against it.

"We don't have enough troops in Iraq," Sen. John Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat, said in 2005.

In 2004, he told NBC's Tim Russert some things he believes "very deeply."

"Number one, we cannot fail," Mr. Kerry said. "I've said that many times. And if it requires more troops in order to create the stability that eliminates the chaos, that can provide the groundwork for other countries, that's what we have to do."

He no longer believes that now. He is among at least a dozen Democratic senators who in the past have called for more troops in Iraq but now support a resolution condemning President Bush's plan to do just that. Many Republicans who voted for the war now plan to support a no-confidence resolution, including Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, who in the past had warned that the war would be a long, tough slog and that Americans should "speak with one voice."
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph R. Biden Jr. has for years advocated increasing the number of troops on the ground in Iraq. But after Mr. Bush offered his proposal to do that earlier this month, the Delaware Democrat drafted a resolution rejecting the idea as not "in the national interest."

In June 2005, he said, "There's not enough force on the ground now to mount a real counterinsurgency."

"They're going to need a surge of forces," he said in another interview.

By last week, Mr. Biden had reversed his war strategy.

"The president and others who support the surge have it exactly backwards," he told reporters.

As late as last month, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was still open to the idea of a surge.

"If it is for a surge -- that is, two or three months and it's part of a program to get us out of there as indicated by this time next year -- then sure I'll go along with it," said the Nevada Democrat who voted for the war in 2002. "If the commanders on the ground said this was just for a short period of time, we'll go along with that."

After Mr. Bush laid out his plan to increase troops, the Democratic leader flatly rejected it.

"The surge is a bad idea," Mr. Reid said on CNN's "Late Edition."

Democrats say that the time for a surge has long passed and now that the war has become so bloody and so unpopular, it's time to pull the plug.

"The bottom line is that you cannot unscramble an omelet," House International Relations Committee Chairman Tom Lantos, California Democrat, said yesterday.
Mr. Hagel, who is considering a run for the presidency and has been one of the harshest critics of the war and the Bush administration's handling of it.

"There is no strategy," he said last week. "This is a pingpong game with American lives."

But he hasn't always opposed the war. He voted for it.

"There are no easy answers in Iraq," Mr. Hagel said on Oct. 9, 2002, before voting to authorize the war. "The decision to commit our troops to war is the most difficult decision members of Congress make.

A veteran of the Vietnam War, he also warned his colleagues that an Iraq war would be a long, tough slog.

"This is just the beginning," he said. "The risks should not be understated, miscast or misunderstood. Ours is a path of both peril and opportunity with many detours and no shortcuts."

And Mr. Hagel warned them against sowing seeds of division with hot rhetoric.

"America -- including the Congress -- and the world, must speak with one voice about Iraqi disarmament, as it must continue to do so in the war on terrorism," he said. "Because the stakes are so high, America must be careful with her rhetoric and mindful of how others perceive her intentions."

Mr. Hagel co-authored the resolution with Mr. Biden rebuking Mr. Bush and his "escalation" plan.

Sen. John W. Warner, Virginia Republican, also has drafted with others a nonbinding resolution that condemns the plan but, he said, does so more gently.
Read All>>

If you are FOR having our country stand and aid the continued freedom of the 95%+ majority of the 25,000,000 liberated people of Iraq (who have also voted to be free - 3 times), sign the pledge and get active in persuading Congress to continue to support the mission of our troops.

At the web site more than 30,000 people signed the pledge of non-support for individual senators and the NRSC in the first three days of its operation. Thousands of bloggers have joined on as well. We, at MAXINE, expect the numbers to grow, and the memory of the votes of next week to remain strong for years to come.

No comments: