Dems precipitated amnesty offer they decry

Frank Gaffney:

When the history of this era is written, it will be clearer than it is now what steps made a difference in the course of the present, global conflict -- the War for the Free World. Even now, however, it seems safe to say that two initiatives qualify, one in the negative sense, the other in a positive one.
The first is the effort led principally by Democrats like House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Sens. John Kerry and Carl Levin aimed at ending the U.S. involvement in Iraq. While the particulars of the several proposals debated on both sides of Capitol Hill over the past fortnight differ, what they have in common is unmistakable: They signaled to friends and foe alike, in Iraq and elsewhere, that the United States may prove once again to be an unreliable ally.
To be sure, the Democrats' measures were all defeated, some more soundly than others. And the positions that prevailed in each case -- with at least some Democratic support -- can properly be described by Republicans as evidence that those who would have us "cut-and-run" remain a minority and are not calling the shots in Congress.
Unfortunately, the effect that matters -- perhaps historically so -- at the moment is not in Washington; it is in Iraq. There on Sunday, the new prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, unveiled a controversial 24-point "reconciliation" plan. It would involve, among other things, amnesty for those who are deemed not to have committed "crimes and clear terrorist actions," including attacks on fellow Iraqis and Coalition forces. The plan also calls for compensation to be paid to "those who were killed by Iraqi and American forces."
Early reports indicated that Mr. al-Maliki's amnesty proposal would apply to those responsible for attacks on American forces as well. Naturally, this repugnant idea precipitated a bipartisan firestorm of criticism in Washington. Curiously, among the most vociferous of critics were those like Mr. Levin, who declared on Fox News Sunday: "For heaven's sake, we liberated that country. We got rid of a horrific dictator. We've paid a tremendous price. More than 2,500 Americans have given up their lives. The idea that they should even consider talking about amnesty for people who have killed people who liberated their country is unconscionable."
Mr. Levin's high dudgeon is understandable. But it is truly unconscionable that he fails to acknowledge the contribution he and like-minded legislators have played in the consideration of such an idea by the new Iraqi government. After all, it is surely in part a response to the perception of impending abandonment by the United States.
Democrats have been insisting that the Iraqis sort out their differences at once, so we can leave without delay. Sorting out differences under such circumstances invites the new Iraqi government to negotiate ugly "reconciliation" deals with the terrorists. We should make clear the unacceptability to us of terms that reward or assure safe havens to enemies of freedom in Iraq. But to do so, we must make absolutely clear that we are prepared to stay to help the friends of freedom defeat those foes we have in common.

...

I think the Democrats look disengenious on this issue. They are offering the Iraqis a lose lose choice that does not make sense. I am waiting for someone clever enough to suggest to the Iraqis that Americans accused of killing Iraqis, such as the Marines at Haditha, are deserving of amnesty too. Now that is a proposal that would put the Irqis and the Democrats to the test.

Update: Have any of these senators urged that we hold the Iranians responsible for murdering American servicemen accountable and what would they be willing to do to hold them accountable? The Iranians have been responsible for the murder of over 300 American military men and women in Lebanon and Saudia Arabia, but it has been the policy of the Democrats to give them defacto amnesty for years.