The "Wrong Party" to Rid America of Terrorist Threats
Dem Freshman See Success in Iraq With Their Own Eyes; Dem Leaders See That as a Problem

Washington, Aug 1, 2007 - The surge led by General David Petreaus against al Qaeda has been scoring high marks lately, but the Democratic Party in Washington is facing an ideological conflict within its own ranks.

Several Democratic Members of Congress who had previously condemned the new offensive against al Qaeda and voted to withdraw troops from Iraq before it had even begun returned from Iraq last weekend and acknowledged they’d observed signs of progress during their trip. Examples:

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN): “The success in Ramadi is not just because of bombs and bullets, but because the U.S. and Iraqi military and the Iraqi police are partnering with the tribal leadership and the religious leadership … So they’re not trying to just bomb people into submission. What they’re doing is respecting the people, giving the people some control over their own lives.” (“Ellison Returns From Trip To Iraq,” Associated Press, 7/30/07)

Rep. Jerry McNerney (D-CA): “In Ramadi, McNerney and the others walked with military escorts in an open-air market. The troops have ‘made quite a bit of progress here, (Ramadi)’ McNerney said.” (Lisa Vorderbrueggen, “McNerney Tells Of Quick Trip To Iraq,” Contra Costa [CA] Times, 7/30/07)

Rep. Tim Mahoney (D-FL): “Mahoney said his group also met with U.S. Maj. Gen. Walter Gaskin and a colonel in his command. Gaskin told the lawmakers the troop surge had allowed the U.S. to force al Qaeda from Ramadi. ‘That has really made a difference and really has gotten al Qaeda on their heels [sic],’ Mahoney said.” (Greg Martin, “Iraq Visit Shows Need For Exit Plan, Mahoney Says,” Charlotte [FL] Sun, 7/31/07)

Unfortunately, these and other positive reports came on the heels of a rather shocking statement from Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-SC), who opined that success in the fight against al Qaeda in Iraq would cause a “real big problem” for his party, which has invested much of its political fortunes in the possibility of failure.

According to Investors Business Daily, “When your country's winning a war is ‘a real big problem’ for you, it's time to take stock of exactly what your party stands for.” No argument there. The editorial questions whether Congress is being governed by “The Wrong Party” during a period of national security crises:

“[Senator Joe] Lieberman [D-CT] called Democratic leaders ‘naive in thinking we can somehow defeat this enemy with talk, or they're simply hesitant to use American power, including military power.’”

“Echoing the late Sen. Henry ‘Scoop’ Jackson of Washington, Lieberman pointed to the ‘great tradition in our history of partisanship generally receding when it comes to foreign policy. But for the moment we've lost that.’”

“All the signs are that we have a chance to win in Iraq and prevent large-scale genocide. Yet rather than going all-out to win there, most Democrats in Congress are going all-out to win in Washington against Bush; they're dying to see him blamed for a failed war. And instead of recognizing the historic threat posed by a nuclear-armed Iran, they pretend that talk can be used as an effective weapon against an Islamofascist madman.”

“The sadness that Lieberman feels for his beloved party gone awry would surely be shared by Scoop Jackson, not to mention Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman — just as it is by the millions of patriotic Democrats all across this land.”

The question remains: will Washington Democrats Listen to the Generals and consider forward progress on the ground in Iraq come September or, as Senator Lieberman put it, continue their “naivety” with respect to the terrorist enemies we face?

READ MORE:

Print version of this document