Q&A Friday #28: The Democratic Party Has Been “Kerrized” When It Comes To America’s Security
Question: “From Yahoo News today: ‘LATROBE, Pa. – Most U.S. troops will leave Iraq within a year because the Army is “broken, worn out” and “living hand to mouth,” Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting record) told a civic group.
Murtha predicted most troops will be out of Iraq within a year.
“I predict he’ll make it look like we’re staying the course,” Murtha said, referring to Bush. “Staying the course is not a policy.”‘
Given that you have predicted the beginnings of a scale down in the next year (so even Democrats could see it), do you agree that this is Murtha simply trying to cover his arse and ensure that the media will be able to paint any return of the troops in his defeatist colours?
If this is the kind of long game the D’s are now going to play how can your President defend and counter these tactics without discussing troop scaledown?…” — RightForScotland
Answer: What you have to understand is that the majority of Democrats in Congress have been “Kerryized” when it comes to America’s security. By that, I mean that they habitually lie, act hypocritically, and regularly shift their position — even when American lives are on the line — based on what they think will bring them the most political advantage.
* The President and most of the Democrats in Congress looked at intelligence provided to them by the CIA and came to the conclusion that Saddam had stockpiles of WMDS. When no stockpiles were found, Democrats have claimed they were merely mistaken, but Bush lied.
* Democrats who voted to give Bush authority to go to war have been almost impossible to distinguish from the Democrats who voted against the war. Both groups have done nothing but complain, kvetch, and whine non-stop since we went to war.
* Democrats spent all of 2004 complaining that Bush “didn’t have a plan” for the war in Iraq. Then when John Kerry was finally prodded into coming out with his own plan, it turned out to be almost exactly what Bush was already doing in Iraq.
* Democrats like Murtha publicly and expressly called for an immediate pull-out in Iraq, but when the GOP in the House called their bluff and made them vote on it, almost all of them voted against it rather than lose by a lopsided count.
* When the Democrats thought it was to their advantage to call for more troops in Iraq, they were insisting that we send more troops to Iraq. Now that they think it’s to their advantage to have the troops home, they’re calling for them to come back.
And, yes, even though Bush has been saying over and over again that as the Iraqis stand up, our troops will stand down and even though blogs like this one have been telling everyone for months that we’ll probably be bringing a significant number of troops home in early-mid-2006, expect the Democrats to try to take credit for it when it happens.
What it all comes down to is that most of the Democrats have put their political fortunes ahead of defending America and because of that, they’re conflicted. They want to cut and run, which is what their liberal base is demanding, but they’ve already paid a big political price because the American people have correctly tagged them as appeasers and wimps. If they live down to their reputation, it could do even more damage to their political fortunes in the future, especially if things start looking up in Iraq in 2006 (which is highly likely, by the way).
So, what most of the Democrats are trying to do is play both sides of the fence. If things turn out great, it’ll be, “Oh, we were for the war all along!” If things don’t turn out well, it’ll be, “We Democrats told everyone the war would be a disaster!”
Most of the Democrats in Congress including Murtha, Kerry, Pelosi, Reid, and Clinton have been able to get away with that for most of the last year, at least in part, because:
#1) Up until recently, the Bush administration hasn’t been calling them on it.
#2) The liberals in the mainstream media understand the game the Dems have been playing and haven’t been putting pressure on them to take a side.
But unfortunately for the Democratic Party this strategy isn’t going to work any better for them in the end than it did for John Kerry in 2004. It’s more than obvious to anyone paying attention already — and will become even moreso as the new media and White House make the distinctions clearer — that the GOP is the party of victory in Iraq while the Democrats are the party of surrender. The Democrats have taken a disgraceful position and like their behavior during the Vietnam War, it will not be quickly forgotten by the American people.