Just prior to the beginning of the August Congressional break, ( reprieve
for we who tire of the liberal mantra
), Democrats made it painfully clear that even with the prospects of the report that is due in mid September by General Patraeus
on Iraq, the Democrat policy would follow the usual cut and run, surrender stance that they have followed for more that three years.
In fact many prominent
Democrats like Harry Reid were already beginning the usual rhetoric concerning pulling the troops , the failure of the surge and the incompetence
of our military and its commanders, especially the Commander in Chief.
Now as we approach the return of Congress after the Labor Day weekend, Congressional Democrats and especially the upper tier of Democrat Presidential candidates seem to be singing a different tune. While still not jumping on the stay until the mission is completed policy that has been that of President Bush and the GOP since we first went into Iraq, many are actually admitting that the surge is working and the outlook on Iraq is much better than it was even at the beginning of the summer.
Hillary, (the Hildabeast
), Clinton expressed best this new , "vision, " that Democrats are adopting concerning Iraq when she stated that the surge is working but it is ,"to late to win the war." Stupid ? Yes, but it does have the advantage for liberals concerning the war, at least from a voting stand point to somewhat appease the liberal base while opening the door to reach the more moderate voter. A fence post stance the she is famous for.
The other direction that Democrats seem to be taking is backing off of the pull out, (surrender), rhetoric and piling on to the Maliki
government to the point that many are calling for the removal of Maliki
as Iraq's Prime Minister. Faced with a growing support for staying in Iraq until the job is completed here at home and success that is so evident that even the usual liberal lies and the MSM's
biased coverage cannot hide, Democrats are moving to their next strategy which consists of admitting that the military aspect is working while condemning the political side.
It has long been known that Maliki
was a weak Prime Minister at best but Democrats have basically ignored Maliki
and opted instead to attack the troops, the commanders, the strategy of the war, especially the surge, which they condemned as a failure before it even started and of course the President. They
are now discovering that all of this is not only failing for them as a strategy but as popularity increases at home it is hurting their chances in 2008 and combined with a lack luster job performance since January in Congress giving them the lowest poll ratings of any Congress in history.
So now many Democrats are calling for the removal of Prime Minister Maliki
and the reconstruction of the Iraqi Parliament
and government. While this may play well for them in the press for the time being, my question is, "what gives them or anyone besides the Iraqi people the right to call for a new PM and a new government ?"
is not the best of leaders and the government has been struggling, it is still the duly elected government of the people of Iraq and until they as a sovereign
nation of free people choose to change that government no one, even elitists Democrats has the right to demand or expect otherwise.
Even elitist Democrats would cry foul if another nations political leaders were demanding the removal of our President. Democrats would be among the first to tell that foreign government it has no right to demand anything of our governmental
structure even if that President were
not popular at all among Democrats. In fact I believe
that it would be one of the only times that Democrats would step forward and even defend President Bush.
Yet these same elitist
Democrats are demanding that the leader of another sovereign
nation be removed and replaced in accordance to who and what THEY believe
should lead that government. Maliki
may be failing, he may be weak and he may not be able to turn things around politically
in Iraq, but he was elected by the people and his ouster is their choice and their choice alone.
Our only position should be, while disagreeing with his ability to govern, supporting the right of the Iraqi people to make their governmental decisions and as such supporting them as an ally and a sovereign
nation that is in need of our help. That does not mean staying indefinitely
in Iraq but it does mean that we respect the people of Iraq enough to let them decide who runs their country.
We expect nothing less for ourselves as a nation and should not demand anything less for nation in whom we respect as an ally. I do not hear Democrats calling for the ouster of Iran's President and he has threatened our nation, our allies and our very existence
. Yet Democrats recognize
Iran's sovereignty in governing, despite our disagreements and their status as an enemy of America.
Iraq deserves that same respect and even more so since
they are allies and are a new fledgling
government that needs our guidance and not our condemnation. Democrats will soon see that this strategy will fail as their surrender strategy has. In fact I will go on the record as saying that come mid-September when the Patraeus
report is made public that Democrats will once again twist the successful findings into yet another round of accusations of failure, demands for troop, "re-deployment, " and pull out, (surrender), and condemnation of the President , the commanders, the troops AND the Maliki
This time though the majority of American people have grown wise to Democrats and their maneuvering
concerning the war. They see the hypocrisy
and their motivation behind their actions. They understand that winning the war is essential for America and that Democrats advocate losing only for political advantage regardless of the cost to the troops and the country. This time the Democrat strategy of surrender and appeasement will fail even before it begins.