Three Democratic congressmen have just come back from a dog and pony show in Iraq and suddenly think everything is going just great! Surprise surprise surprise. As I've written before, General Petraeus is known for his sweet-as-candy ability to lie his way out of any crisis, so it's no wonder that his smoke-and-mirrors production of Iraq, the musical, snookered these 3 Dems. Still, it's rather sickening that these Democrats have chosen to go the Joe Lieberman route - letting our troops continue to die for a lie because they don't have the backbone to call this disaster for what it is. First, the clip from the Post, then a few salient questions for our new Democratic Iraq experts:
a few Democratic lawmakers have returned expressing support for a continued troop presence. One of them, Rep. Brian Baird (Wash.), said yesterday that he will no longer vote for binding troop withdrawal timelines....
Last Friday, Baird told the Olympian, a newspaper in his district, that he now believes the United States should stay in the country as long as necessary to ensure stability.
That followed comments by Rep. Jerry McNerney (D-Calif.) suggesting that his trip to Iraq made him more flexible in his search for a bipartisan accord on the future U.S. role in the conflict. "If anything, I'm more willing to work to find a way forward," he told reporters late last month.
Rep. Tim Mahoney (D-Fla.), who was with McNerney, told his local paper that the troop increase "has really made a difference and really has gotten al-Qaeda on their heels."
Gee, what great news. So I'm assuming the following is true regarding these Dems' visit to Iraq:
1. They weren't stuck inside the Green Zone like every other codel. 2. When leaving the Green Zone, if they left at all, they didn't have massive security, including helicopters and dozens of US troops, just like John McCain had. 3. They didn't have to wear their kevlar vests even inside the US embassy because things have gotten so dangerous. 4. The facts they have backing up their assertions that the surge has "made a difference" has nothing to do with Al Anbar province, since Al Anbar wasn't included in the surge. This is an important point, as it's the only real success that Petraeus ever points to in order to justify the surge - a province the surge didn't cover. I seriously hope these congressmen don't dare mention Al Anbar.
As for Congressman Baird, I'm rather shocked that he is now supporting the permanent stationing of 171,000 US troops in Iraq. I can't imagine that even HIS district supports that. But that's what he said. So long as the troops are needed for stability, they should stay - period, no ifs ands or buts. Well, that would be forever, under the current estimates. Is the congressman okay with our troops fighting and dying forever in Iraq if stability is never within reach?
And Congressman Mahoney, you didn't actually just say that your proof for how well the surge is going is that Al Qaeda in Iraq is somehow on the run? I mean, you actually believe, congressman, that Al Qaeda in Iraq is the major player to consider when determining if we're winning? It's a civil war, congressman. AQI is ancillary to that war, and any school kid know that. Seriously, someone please go ask the congressman to expand on his statement, because if that's what he really said, the man needs to be eviscerated for coming back from Iraq and still not even understanding the basics of the battle taking place over there. How utterly embarrassing.
