"Domestic priorities" take precedence

You gotta love the Washington Post's coverage of politics.  The intellectually, and otherwise, dishonest Democrats having been campaigning to force a military withdrawal and eventual defeat in Iraq which they presume will be blamed on President Bush and the Republicans.  But as they vote in favor of withdrawal, they claim it's really the way to victory. 

For four years al Qaeda has been setting off bombs all over Iraq.  Nowadays almost all of them are aimed at civilian targets.  According to Democrats, though, this is not terrorism, because as we all know, Iraq is a distraction from the war on terror.  The Democrats' plan is to pull the troops out of Iraq and send them somewhere else to fight the terrorists.  New York, maybe.  Who knows.  They don't.

They don't know and they don't really care where the war on terror is, and they have little hope of figuring out where on their own.  The only clue they've ever had, they got from George Bush when he identified Iraq as the key battlefield in the war on terror.  They would be lost without the leadership of George Bush.

So the Democrats oppose the war in Iraq, but won't vote to withdraw the troops.  Instead they attempt to take over strategy by imposing a legislative deadline by which troops must come home as a condition for continued funding.  The Post calls this legislation a "war funding bill".  Rather than an honest vote to withhold funding for a war they oppose, Democrats have loaded up their legislation with pork barrel spending, which the Post calls, "domestic priorities".  All of which Bush has promised to veto.

And now it's vacation time.  Congress is on their spring break, so funding to support soldiers in Iraq will await their return. 

But Congress now leaves town for a recess, with the House not returning until April 16.

Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a House panel that a delay in funding would force the Army to curtail training and equipment repair necessary to prepare units for deployment, which could lead forces now in Iraq and Afghanistan to have their tours lengthened.

If the funds do not arrive in time, the Army will have to cut spending on National Guard, reserve and active units at home to give priority to soldiers fighting overseas, according to Pace and senior Army officials.

No problem.  According to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, it's Bush's fault.

Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said it is Bush who would pay the price if a veto fight slowed down funding for the military, including billions of dollars for veterans' health care and other benefits. "If the president vetoes this bill, it is an asterisk in history," Reid said. "He sets the record of undermining the troops more than any president we've ever had."

And that's the task in front of the Washington Post.  Their charge now is to rebrand the Bush image.  The surge is on and showing early signs of success and that aura of Bush incompetence may be in decline as product life cycles go.  Time for the Post to reshape their coverage to for a new Bush image.  Anicipate news items that show that Bush is failing to support the troops he sends out to fight in America's defense.

Comments

[Jay]

I don't see how the Kurdish quest for independance and the Shiite/Sunni dispute have much to do with our troops "failing."

Foreign fighters in Iraq are there because of the instability created by these disputes. They should not be credited for creating the disputes.

To do so is to give aid and comfort to the enemy.

[Jay]

Brownback for President.

[Frank]

Jay……

You are wasting your time. Somebody asked this guy how he can claim to be a libertarian and make these neoconservative arguments.

His response? He is libertarian because he is for the spread of liberty.

I’m sure all of us support the spread of liberty. But the fact that the words liberty and libertarian share a bunch of letters is not exactly the basis for a philosophical treatise.

What kind of grade do you think you’re going to get on an 8th grade civics test with that one?

Take my advice….head over to one of the blogs at National Review.

Also, I like Brownback, but he’s going to vote to uphold the Bush veto. Any Republican who votes to uphold the Bush veto, or makes statements in favor of it, can’t win the Presidency next year.