It occurred to me, while listening to this talking head, just why the Democrats suddenly seem to be in such a rush to pass a funding bill that mandates a withdrawal date from Iraq. Even those who were against it before voting for it before being against it have suddenly come to the conclusion that it is urgent that we get the heck out of Dodge (read Iraq).
Now, they would like the American public to believe that they really have this sense of urgency because they are concerned about the well-being of our soldiers in harm's way. They try to tell us that what the American people want is to have our troops come home (funny, they never asked me what I want). But I don't think their sudden rush to turn tail and run has anything to do with the safety of even one American, military or civilian. If they were really concerned about the safety and well-being of Americans, they would understand the consequences of leaving Iraq with the job undone.
No, that's not what they have in mind at all, in my opinion. Call it an epiphany, but this is what I think: 2009. Yeah, that's right: 2009. The Democrats think that they have a very realistic chance of winning the White House in 2008. They really think that they can do it. And you know what? The last thing any Democrat moving into the White House in January of 2009 wants to have to deal with is war -- especially the war in Iraq. Because this new President would then own the war, and they could no longer call it Bush's war. This new President would then have the responsibility to do what they keep pushing for George Bush to do -- withdraw, give up, admit defeat, run, come home. Even worse, this new President would then be responsible for the consequences of not finishing the job.
As it stands now, no matter what happens -- withdrawal or not -- the Democrats in the House and Senate can pretty safely lay the blame firmly in the lap of President Bush (blame, I say, because they would certainly try to claim the credit of any successes achieved). If they were to somehow force withdrawal, and the inevitable happened (which, depending on whom you ask, could include all-out civil war in Iraq, more trouble in Iran, and more attacks on American soil), Democrats can still say that it's all President Bush's fault. After all, he's the President, and he is ultimately responsible for what happens with American troops, regardless of the prodding demands of a liberal Congress.
However, if we remain in Iraq long enough for a Democrat to move into the White House, it's a totally different story. This new Democratic President would have to make a choice. Withdraw, as they have all been demanding, and be personally responsible for the backlash. Or remain in Iraq, become the target of all the anti's who want us to run and hide, and be responsible for every American life that might be lost in the cause of Liberty.
So don't let the current Democratic candidates for President fool you -- I don't believe that they are really as concerned about the troops currently serving in Iraq as they would have us believe. It is my opinion that they really only care about two things.
- Winning the White House in 2008 in any way possible;
- Washing their hands of Iraq before Inauguration Day 2009.