I n an extraordinary week, the U.S. House and Senate both rejected defeatist appeasement
arguments as the answer to the problems of Iraq. The Senate rejected the John Kerry call for mandated withdrawal
by the end of the year by a vote of 93-6. The House followed the next day by asserting in a non-binding resolution
that a date certain for withdrawal was not in the national interest. Their vote was 253-149.
During the week, President Bush traveled to Baghdad for personal talks with leaders of their newly-formed government..
The visit put the elected President of the United States in the same war theater as his troops and brought with
it a personal and public pledge not to cut-and-run but to stay and support the creation of a self-sufficient security
force controlled by a properly-elected government, operating under an approved Constitution.
These actions add up to an important endorsement of the elected government of Iraq and a commitment to help normalize
Iraq's relations with the world community. Iraq now has the most legitimate government in the Arab world and a
chance to showcase an alternative to endemic Middle Eastern hatred and violence.
Democrats, says David Limbaugh, try not to allow a single news cycle to pass without attempting to undermine their
opponent and assert their own relevancy. With the events of the last two weeks, however, the momentum has shifted.
Ralph Peters summarizes the current relevant facts:
- The American President can go to Baghdad and his enemies can't stop him
- Iraq has established an elected, functioning government of a quality worthy of a presidential visit.
- American's aren't quitters. They keep their commitments.
- Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is dead and not easy to replace.
- The intelligence captured has sparked hundred's of raids and roundups
Iraq needs two things to win, according to The Anchoress archives. Time and reassurance that they will
not be abandoned. The insurgents, she adds, also need just two things. They need the media and the politicians
to dwell on the negative and call for withdrawal. They also need the troops to abandon the people because of their
fear that the Americans will cut and run.
Right on cue, the war protestor masquerading as a war hero, John Kerry, announced his proposal to mandate a virtually
complete withdrawal of American forces by the end of December. Kerry seeks to attach his amendment to the must
approve defense authorization bill. Sen. Mitch McConnell (KY), the second-ranking leader in the Senate, promptly
proposes a mirror of the Kerry bill for a stand-alone debate and immediate vote. The bill calls for discussions
with the Iraqi government on a schedule to withdraw combat troops by December 31, 2006. It allows "only forces
that are critical to completing the mission of standing up Iraqi security forces to remain in 2007."
The Kerry mandate goes down to ignominious defeat: 93-6. The miniscule Cut-and-Run Caucus consists of Kerry, Russ
Finegold (Wisconsin), Barbara Boxer (California), Robert Byrd (West Virginia), Tom Harkin (Iowa) and Edward Kennedy
(Massachusetts). The other 93 refuse to put the Senate on record as favoring abandoning the Iraqi government before
it can defend itself.
One day later, the House of Representatives addresses a non-binding resolution of support. In condensed form, HRES
861 resolves that:
- Honor should be given to all those Americans who have taken part in the Global War on Terror whether at home
or abroad.
- The Iraqi, Afghanistan, coalition partners and forces of the United States should be given honor.
- The United States should not set an arbitrary date for withdrawal or redeployment of United States Armed Forces
from Iraq.
- The Congress declares that the United States is committed to the completion of the mission to create a sovereign,
free, secure and united Iraq.
- Congratulates Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and the Iraqi people in the formation of the first government under
the Iraqi Constitution.
- Call upon the other nations of the world to support Iraq and Afghanistan.
- Declares that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror
In the 12 hours of debate that followed, the vast majority of Democrats avoided the specifics of the resolution
to launch highly emotional diatribes against the war in general. They reinforced the notion that a Democrat can't
be trusted with national security by reciting anti-war catechisms unburdened by fact or thought.
The resolution was approved 256-153, including 42 Democrats.
What does it all mean?
The predicate is set for the fall elections. Every incumbent for office now has a recorded vote on Iraq.
The final roll call is available at http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll288.xml
The allied force reduction can proceed. From a peak of 300,000, Allied troop strength hovers at 130,000
today. Some 26 countries have turned over 30 bases to Iraqi forces. The U.S, is moving towards small-unit support
of Iraqi military and police combined with logistical and air support plus quick reaction teams, says columnist
Ross Mackenzie.
The noise isn't enough. The left are the merchants of illusion, says Michael Novak. The votes this week
indicate that a significant majority of Americans can see through the fog.. It appears that the word from back
home is that there is broad support for victory in Iraq. The angry left, its lap dog press and its enablers have
had some success at souring the public mood. They have failed utterly at producing victory for their cause. A good
friend of the Left, pollster John Zogby, was asked why the Democrats lost in CA50. He replied in words to this
effect "because they had no ideas of any interest to anyone."
It would seem that at this point in time a goodly portion of those who actually go to the polls understand that
a Democrat majority in either the House or Senate would cripple the war effort.
06/16/06
