Posted 11/18/2005

It was said that in World War II, politics "stopped at the shores", meaning that inspite of their ideaological diffrnences the Democrats and Republicans in congree always put our national security ahead of their own ambitions. Fortunately the current crop of congress-people weren't in office back then, we'd all be speaking German and turning in our parents and neighbors to the SS. Who will defend this country against an aggressor so ruthless that all rules of engagement are broken? Certainly not a party who time and time again seems to willing to surrender at the first signs of a fight. Harry Reid and company would fit in well in France. But this is not France and my father and many like him did not volunteer to fight the Nazi's for the sole purpose of turning us into a weak-knee'd marshmellow. It's time to clean the House and the Senate and find people who want to run the government, not rule over the country.

From Investors Business Daily:
Posted 11/18/2005

War On Terror: When we heard that key congressional defense "hawk" John Murtha regretfully decided to call for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, we had one question: Who is John Murtha?

We're not trying to be cute. Democrat Murtha, who got front-page play in the nation's major newspapers and whose diatribe against Bush's Iraq policy led the network TV news, is hardly a household name. Even in his home state of Pennsylvania.

Yet, his comments were treated as if some major figure in America's national security community had suddenly "turned" in his support for Operation Iraqi Freedom. Repeatedly we heard Murtha, a decorated Vietnam vet, called a defense "hawk." But on the issue of Iraq, there's no evidence of that at all. And his "opposition" is nothing new.

For the record, Murtha on Thursday offered a resolution to compel President Bush to withdraw 160,000 troops from Iraq "at the earliest predictable date."

Near as we can tell, Murtha's plan seems to be a trial balloon floated by the pacifist wing of the Democratic Party. Its leaders knew full well they could push forward an obscure backbencher and get the media to play it up on Page One. It seemed to work like a charm.

Except that, as we went to press Friday, the Republicans looked ready to call the Democrats' bluff — planning a late-day vote on Murtha's resolution, something the Democrats doubtless thought they'd never do.

Democrats have fiercely defended Murtha. Fine. Though horribly wrong on this, he's a fine man — twice decorated with the Purple Heart and a recipient of the Bronze Star in Vietnam. We're grateful to him for his service 40 years ago — and we mean it.

But he's just one of 435 members of Congress. On Friday, it appeared that they'd all have a chance to go on the record. We didn't know how the vote would go, but we were quite sure the Democrats didn't welcome it. We were also sure of this: the "ayes" had better be ready to defend their decision next year.

Still, we wonder why Democrats and their allies in the media pounced on Murtha as the messenger for their apparent desire to surrender to the terrorists. Murtha's been opposed to the war for at least two years and has repeatedly criticized it — often contradicting himself in the process. This is no hawk turning into a dove.

In May 2004, for instance, he said a withdrawal would be "disastrous." But three months later he called for more troops. Now, he wants to pull out. That pretty much covers all the options.
The question is, what do Democrats hope to achieve by withdrawal? The demoralization of our troops and allies? A cheap win over a president they loathe in midterm elections — at the expense of a war on terror that we happen to be winning?

Sure, Iraq is troubled. After four decades under a pathological dictator, what country wouldn't be? Still, it's moving steadily toward democracy, with an election next month. It has written a constitution, and it's training an army. Patience is in order.

As Friday's bombings of two mosques in Iraq showed, our enemies can still cause mayhem. Leaving now would leave Iraq in chaos, with the very real possibility of rebellion, civil war, collapse and slaughter on a mass scale. Is that what Democrats stand for?