In what should send the clearest signal on what’s at stake in Iraq, an Iraqi government spokesman criticized the Senate’s vote. Here’s what he said:
“We see some negative signs in the decision because it sends wrong signals to some sides that might think of alternatives to the political process,” Ali al-Dabbagh told The Associated Press.
He went on:
“Coalition forces gave lots of sacrifices and they should continue their mission, which is building Iraqi security forces to take over,” al-Dabbagh said. “We see (it) as a loss of four years of sacrifices.”
Undeterred, Democrats launched a media counteroffensive:
“It is with great pride that I stand with you after the passage in the Senate today, and yesterday in the House, of this legislation that takes us in a new direction in Iraq.
“I have said that the war in Iraq is the greatest ethical challenge facing our nation. How ethical is it to send our troops into harm’s way, into war without the training, the equipment and a plan for success? How ethical is it to place them in the middle of a civil war, undermining and straining our military?
“How ethical is it to do that, to diminish our capacity to fight the war on terrorism, to fight any threat to the interest of the United States wherever it may occur, at home or abroad?
“How ethical is it to destroy our reputation in the world, diminishing our ability to be a force against terrorism and a leader in the world?
“In the last election, the American people called for a new direction. Nowhere were they more firm in that new direction being necessary than in the war in Iraq.
“This legislation presents that new direction by supporting the troops; indeed, giving the president more than he asked for, for the troops; by honoring our commitments to our veterans.
“How ethical is it for us to dishonor our commitment to our veterans when they come from war, instead of treating them as the heroes they are?
“It holds the Iraqi government accountable. It holds the Administration accountable as well. And it helps to rebuild our military.
“It’s a good bill. It’s a bill for a new direction in Iraq. It is a bill that, hopefully, will wind down this war and bring our troops home safely and soon.
This woman dares speak about ethical behavior after voting to destroy the alliance we’ve built with Iraq’s democratically elected government? This woman dares speak about ethics after she permits a disgraced ex-Marine to write legislation that violates the Constitution? I’m speaking of John Murtha, who declared that it’s Congress’s “job to micromanage the war.”
Frankly, that’s grounds for getting Rep. Murtha getting kicked out of the House on the grounds that he violated his oath of office, which states that he will uphold the Constitution. I can’t think of anything more deserving of expulsion than ignoring the Constitution whenever it suits his purposes.
Here’s a portion of Barack Obama’s official statement on the Senate surrender vote:
“We are one signature away from ending the Iraq War. President Bush must listen to the will of the American people and sign this bill so that our troops can come home. I opposed this war from the start. I said then that it would distract us from pursuing those who attacked us and would entangle us in an occupation of undetermined length, cost and consequences. This war has no military solution, and the Iraqi people need to take responsibility for their own future.”
This statement ignores what David Petraeus said at today’s press briefing:
“My sense is that there would be an increase in sectarian violence, a resumption of sectarian violence, were the presence of our forces and Iraqi forces at that time to be reduced,” General Petraeus said at a Pentagon news conference.
Here’s more of what he said:
In his comments on Thursday, as well as in private briefings to lawmakers a day earlier, according to one lawmaker who was involved, he talked about numerous obstacles to stabilizing the country, including evidence of new assistance going to Al Qaeda of Mesopotamia from outside Iraq and what he called “exceedingly unhelpful activities” by Iranian-backed Shiite militants.
American forces, he said, found evidence of this in a 22-page document on a computer seized during a raid last month that outlined details of a Jan. 20 attack on the provincial headquarters in Karbala in which five American soldiers were abducted and killed.
General Petraeus also said that Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki of Iraq lacked enough power to single-handedly push through measures sought by the United States that were aimed at easing tensions between Shiite and Sunni Arabs. In order to have any hope of results, the general said, pressure would be needed on factional leaders in the government and Parliament.
In other words, Ms. Pelosi is lecturing Republicans about how unethical we’ve been while she ignores today’s briefing by Gen. Petraeus. She says that she met with Gen. Petraeus before voting to tie his hands. For the sake of argument, let’s take her at her word.
If it’s true that she was briefed by Gen. Petraeus, then she’s admitting to voting for U.S. troops to be pulled from Iraq, which would result in an immense increase in sectarian violence that would likely destroy the elected government while giving al Qa’ida a new training center. Meanwhile, it also means that she isn’t interested in the 22 page document that Al Qaeda of Mesopotamia and Iran were trying to destabilize Iraq’s government by fomenting civil war.
We know that Ms. Pelosi has said that she’d meet with the Iranians. Now we know that the Iranians who are working against us in stabilizing Iraq. Therefore, we know that Ms. Pelosi’s vote would destabilize the entire Middle East, would assist al Qa’ida build a new training center in Iraq & give Iran huge sway over oil production in that region.
Have we sunk that low as to accord such a person the title of leader?
Cross-posted at California Conservative