I just went to the Amy Klobuchar for Senate website’s issues page. I specifically went there to read her ideas on national security. What a joke. Here’s her second recommendation:

I will fight for a change of course in Iraq. 2006 should be the year that the Iraqi government decreases its dependency on the United States. It should be a year of transition in which we bring a significant number of our troops home.

Since April, I have been asking the President to give the nation a clear plan to bring our troops home safely. As with any effective plan, there should be a realistic time-frame based on specific milestones and benchmarks, with honest and current information from the administration about the status of our efforts, the training of the Iraqi forces, and the restoration of basic services to Iraq. In fact, the leaders of Iraq’s otherwise sharply divided Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis agreed that there should be a time frame for the drawdown of American troops. If the president is unwilling to provide a plan, Congress should call upon the Joint Chiefs of Staff to do so. By establishing such a plan and setting a time frame for a drawdown of forces, we send an important signal to the people of Iraq that we do not intend to stay indefinitely and that we expect them to take on the responsibility of governing and securing their own nation. That is why I oppose establishing permanent military bases in Iraq.

I also believe we have to manage our exit from Iraq in a responsible way. I do not support immediate withdrawal of our troops, as has been suggested by some, because the situation is just too precarious. We also must engage other countries in our efforts, including those countries in the region. By making clear that we will not be staying in Iraq indefinitely, we will jumpstart our diplomatic efforts to involve other countries.

As with every Democrat not named Joe Lieberman, Ms. Klobuchar talks endlessly about timeframes, “based on specific milestones and benchmarks.” Compare that with this exchange between FNS host Chris Wallace and Barbara Boxer:

WALLACE: …So when you call for a timeframe for withdrawal, what does that mean?

BOXER: Well, I’ve said it over and over again. You have benchmarks. The president said, he admitted finally a little bit of an error. He said it was taking too long to train the troops, and they’ve gotten that down to a reasonable amount. So you have a timeframe based on their ability to stand up.
So there’s no specific timeframe, but I would say the withdrawal ought to start now, right after the elections, December 15th. We’ve gone up before the elections, as John Kerry said. We can start bringing those troop levels down, and I’d like to start with the National Guard.

How is Sen. Boxer’s statement substantively different from Ms. Klobuchar’s? Timeframe for withdrawal…benchmarks. The similarity in their positions brings to mind other questions, specifically these:

  • Why doesn’t Sen. Boxer or Ms. Klobuchar talk about winning in Iraq?
  • Why doesn’t Ms. Klobuchar say anything about keeping our commitment with a newly created democracy?
  • Are Democrats genetically prone to thinking that hitting a series of difficulties is all that’s needed to justify abandoning one our crucial allies in the Gulf region? Does Ms. Klobuchar think that getting our troops out of harm’s way is more important than achieving a major goal like helping Iraq become self-sufficient?
  • How can Amy Klobuchar justify abandoning all the Iraqis who defied the terrorists and voted that last Sunday in January, 2005?
  • How can Amy Klobuchar rationalize leaving Iraq before they’re able to defend themselves from Iran’s mullahs and their proxy Muqtada al-Sadr?

It seems to me that we already have a Minnesota senator who agrees that abandoning an ally in the middle of a fight is good foreign policy. If you think that America keeping her promises is important, then electing Amy Klobuchar shouldn’t be important to you. Ms. Klobuchar hasn’t talked about honoring our commitment to the heroic Iraqi people. She never will talk that way because it isn’t important for her or for the Democratic Party.

Technorati: , , , ,

Cross-posted at California Conservative

2 Responses to “Amy, Isn’t Winning Important, Too???”

Leave a Reply