Democrat retreats from the truth
Brian Bresnahan:
There is a reason for their investment in defeat in Iraq. They believe that defeat in Iraq will inhibit the use of force in the future. That is a major objective of many on the left who can't wait to call any conflict a quagmire.
Imagine how ridiculous Boyda, Murtha and Pelosi will look for pushing resolutions of retreat this summer, while we are in the middle of defeating the enemy with the surge. That will be really difficult for them to explain, much less face up to.
When it comes to the war in Iraq, some on the left have invested themselves in our defeat. Politically speaking, there are those who simply can’t afford for us to be successful fighting against the turmoil created by terrorists.These are the same Democrats who insisted before the 2006 election that they did not favor a cut and run approach to Iraq. One of their big lies has been that they were elected to get the troops out of Iraq.
There are also those who simply have their heads in the sand with regard to the realities of what we face in the world. We fight Al Qaeda every day in Iraq. Yet these same politicians from the left feel the fight against them is either not taking place or is not necessary in Iraq.
At a recent hearing of the Congressional Armed Services Committee, those two views from the left, which normally run parallel to each other, both headed in the direction of a U.S. defeat at the hands of the terrorists, crossed paths, and became too much for one Congresswoman to fathom or deal with.
Democratic Representative Nancy Boyda of Kansas had to remove herself from the hearing, frustrated and angry with the positive news being delivered about the progress being made in Iraq.
Invested in our defeat, while at the same time having to face the realities of who it is we’re up against in Iraq and the success we’re achieving against them was just too much for her to handle. So she left. She walked out of the hearing.
...
But if you subscribe to the Nancy Pelosi school of cut and run, then, as her spokesman stated in a Washington Times story after the hearings, you can’t be “willing to concede there are positive things to point to” in Iraq.
That says it all. They can’t be “willing to concede there are positive things to point to” in Iraq, because it would mean they’re wrong and have been. They can’t be willing because it would be in direct conflict with their political ambitions.
...
When reality collides with their politically distorted, defeatist attitude, it becomes too hard for some to handle, too much for them to fathom.
So they run from the room, as Nancy Boyda did, providing a perfect representation of liberal views and their best solution for Iraq, terrorism in the rest of the world, or for any other fight not involving a domestic social issue: when it becomes too hard to deal with, deny reality, disengage from the problem, separate yourself from (maybe even try to silence) those they disagree with, and just leave. Cut and run.
There is a reason for their investment in defeat in Iraq. They believe that defeat in Iraq will inhibit the use of force in the future. That is a major objective of many on the left who can't wait to call any conflict a quagmire.
Imagine how ridiculous Boyda, Murtha and Pelosi will look for pushing resolutions of retreat this summer, while we are in the middle of defeating the enemy with the surge. That will be really difficult for them to explain, much less face up to.
Comments
Post a Comment