One of the things that’s been missing in the debate on the Iraq War supplemental bill has been Democrats talking about listening to the generals. Instead, they’ve been talking about President Bush not listening to the American people. This Washington Times article provides us with a typical Harry Reid quote:

“We hope the president will reconsider his stubbornness and his refusal to listen to the American people,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat.

That’s quite a contrast from what Reid and Pelosi said just a couple months ago. Here’s some of their quotes (H/T Captain Ed):

Senate Democrats voted unanimously to confirm General Petraeus in January.

  • “Listen to the generals.” – Sen. Harry Reid, 01/19/2007
  • “If the President won’t listen to generals, he won’t listen to the American people, who have spoken for a new direction, then perhaps he will listen to us, Congress, when we send him a supplemental bill that acknowledges reality in Iraq.” – Reid, 03/26/2007
  • “Just listen to the generals.” – Speaker Nancy Pelosi, 02/27/07

What’s obvious to the trained observer is that the Democrats have now bought into the Insane Left’s agenda, lock, stock and barrel. Gone is the pretense that they believe in defeating the jihadists.

In fact, there’s proof that if they controlled both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, they’d make us fight this war blind. That proof comes in the form of the legislation that John Conyers would “correct the Patriot Act”. The proof comes in the End Racial Profiling Act that Conyers and Pelosi co-sponsor.

In other words, it’s obvious that Reid and Pelosi would have us (a) obey “the will of the people”, (b) ignore THE GENERAL in Iraq and (c) fight the terrorists blind.

That’s what I’d call a disaster waiting to happen. One man fighting to avoid that disaster is Joe Lieberman. Here’s what he said during the debate:

The lone member of the Democratic caucus to vote against it was Sen. Joe Lieberman, Connecticut independent, who blasted his colleagues for saying U.S. troops don’t belong in the middle of Iraq’s “civil war.”

“Al Qaeda’s own leaders have repeatedly said that one of the ways they intend to achieve victory in Iraq is to provoke civil war,” he said in the floor debate. “They know that this is their best way to collapse Iraq’s political center, overthrow Iraq’s elected government, radicalize its population and create a failed state in the heart of the Middle East that they can use as a base.”

While we’re on the subject of civil wars, what’s the big deal about them? Democrats want us out of Baghdad because our soldiers are getting caught “in the middle of a civil war.” John Murtha’s used that mantra seemingly forever. Despite the calls for getting our troops out of harm’s way in Iraq’s ‘civil war’, Joe Biden is calling for military intervention in Darfur, which is in the midst of a true civil war.

I don’t recall Biden, Murtha, Reid or Pelosi whining about Bill Clinton sending in troops into the civil war known as Bosnia-Herzegovina. That war pitted Muslims against Christians, which is infinitely more explosive than what’s happening in Iraq.

The first inescapable truth in all this is that Democrats have frequently shifted the goalposts in this debate. The other inescapable truth in all this is that they’ve done this solely for political gain. This has nothing to do with national security. This has nothing to do with preventing future terrorist attacks.

The only thing this has anything to do with is winning more seats in the House and Senate and recapturing the White House. It’s one thing to play politics with taxes or social policy. It’s quite another when we’re dealing with life and death matters. Playing politics with that is as unacceptable as it is morally reprehensible. Democrats should be ashamed of themselves for their reprehensible behavior.

Then again, for that to happen would require a conscience, something that hasn’t been seen in a Democrat in years.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Cross-posted at California Conservative

5 Responses to “Will of the People vs. General Petraeus”

  • carsick says:

    Those quotes about listening to the generals referred to the retired generals and generals since replaced by the president. Not the ones who are required by their position in the chain of command to carry out the policy of the president. They would never publicly disagree with their orders unless they wanted to “spend more time with their family.”

  • Bigfoot says:

    I’m glad you mentioned Bosnia-Hercegovina, but you could also have thrown in Serbia and its muslim-majority province of Kosovo. Bill Clinton sent our air force (and was joined only by that of Tony Blair’s U.K.) to intervene in that country’s civil war. That war involved only two nations on our side, and thus was even more “unilateral” than the invasion of Iraq, and against a country that had not attacked the U.S. This is not to say that there was no just reason for Clinton’s war, but that some of the same criticisms as those made for the Iraq invasion could also have been made for the bombing of Serbia – but were not. As for the sole reason given for that war, which was humanitarian, I have a simple question. Between Kosovars dead from Milosevic and Kurds dead from Saddam, which pile of dead bodies is bigger?

  • Gary Gross says:

    Carsick said:

    Those quotes about listening to the generals referred to the retired generals and generals since replaced by the president.

    You can’t seriously believe that, can you? Why listen to generals who aren’t getting firsthand, current reports of what’s happening on the battlefield when you can listen to the generals currently in Iraq?

    Chalk that carsick’s comment up to being a liberal apologist/spinmeister.

Leave a Reply