The Invisible Hand

Surrender Now and Then What?

I didn't really pay much attention to the official talking points that went along with the Democrats’ Iraqi surrender legislation so this little clip of Pelosi and Reid was a bit confusing to me.



In a span of less than 40 seconds, Nancy Pelosi conflates three demi-truths into one amalgamated twist of logic that seems preposterous on its face. It makes me wonder, what are these guys (and ladies) thinking?

First she says the legislation “respects the wishes of the American people to end the Iraq war.” She must be talking about opinion polls showing that the majority of Americans who take surveys are dissatisfied with the course of the conflict in Iraq. I would count myself as part of that majority. But I want to succeed in Iraq, not surrender unilaterally as this legislation intends.

I wasn’t asked for my opinion by the pollsters Pelosi must have in mind. If fact the last time I registered a political preference was on Election Day 2006. On that day, as I recall, the most prominent antiwar Democrat in the nation, Ned Lamont, lost his bid for the Senate to perhaps the most pro-victory Democrat in the nation, Joe Lieberman. Iraq was one of many issues in 2006, the most prominent one being ethics. And on ethics the Democrats have yet to respect the wishes of the American people since that guy with $100,000 in cash cooling in his refridgerator is still a Member is good standing as far as I know.

Second, Pelosi claims the dead-and-decayed-on-arrival legislation she is signing was passed with bi-partisan support. Actually, the House version squeaked by with support from 216 Democrats and 2 Republicans. Hardly bipartisan. Indeed the opponents of the bill displayed more bipartisanaity (198 Republicans and 14 Democrats). The rest was basically a party line vote which is why it narrowly passed and why a veto of it cannot be overrided, or overridden, or overridieded

And lastly, Pelosi says that by signing the bill and withdrawing our troops from Iraq, we will be able to “refocus on fighting terrorists.” But surely even the Democrats are aware that Al Qaeda is active in Iraq.

How would surrendering in Iraq possibly help us fight terrorists in Iraq? Are we guaranteeing that we will never under any circumstances fight in Iraq ever? That might be taken by the Islamofascist organizations we've been chasing in the Middle East, South Asia, and the Horn of Africa as an invitation to set up shop, kick back and relax.

For months I’ve been hearing that Iraq has become a magnet for terrorists. Even the New York Times is reporting that Al Qaeda leaders are being killed in Iraq and I don’t think they were there for Spring Break vacation.

At the very least, Nancy Pelosi needs to remind these Al Qaeda knuckleheads that Iraq has nothing to do with the global war on terror.

Interestingly, today’s Times has a long story on how Sunni extremists in Jordan are literally dying to fight the infidels in Iraq. Where will they go when we withdraw from Iraq? Will they go back home and put aside their homicidal fervor and refocus on making the best damn chicken shawarma the world has ever tasted? Or will they follow our troops home and pursue martyrdom until we help them achieve it?

I wonder, what exactly is the Democrats’ policy on this issue? I suspect the foundation of it is whatever embarrasses and weakens Bush is good. Even though Bush is the President and Commander in Chief . . . offices that, for better or worse represent the United States at home and abroad to people who don't know the difference between a Democrat and a Republican. And even though George Bush will no longer be president in a little more than two years. What then?

If the Bush haters really wanted to refocus on fighting terrorists, how would they do it? They could begin by fighting the terrorists where they are right now . . . in Iraq.

And it wouldn't hurt if the Democrats took some of that hatred they reserve for their partisan rivals and refocus it on our actual enemies.