(Some) Sense In The Senate
Here and there are Republican senators who aren't grasping for the Iraq ejection lever. John McCain, for one; John Cornyn, for another:
Senator Cornyn's amendment denies them the indulgence of escaping public accountability for their cowardly, despicable, treasonous actions. It's in essence a waiver acknowledging that a vote for defeat is cast in full knowledge of the disastrous consequences it will incur. It's a public declaration on the part of the cut & run caucus that the fingerprints on Iraq's corpse and the mound of additional American military and civilian fatalities to come are their own.
Now if the American people are truly so "tired of" the war that they're cool with that and will reward such suicidal treachery, then the Donk/RINO axis shouldn't sweat the Cornyn amendment. But if the electorate hasn't thought through what "ending the war" actually means, and is really dense enough to be shocked and surprised - and dismayed - when "ending the war" turns out to mean "bringing it back home," those fingerprints could become, as the British say, a bit of a sticky wicket in 2008 and beyond.
I'm a little less impressed with the Lieberman-McCain-Kyl-Graham-Coleman amendment, however:
"We know what you are doing, and you must stop"; "Iran’s activities in Iraq are wrong, and they must end immediately"; "This amendment tells the Iranians we will not tolerate any actions which threaten our troops or allies"; "Providing any form of support to Iraqi insurgents will not be tolerated and must cease immediately.” Big words. Tough words. Bold words.
But they're all missing two additional words: "Or else." Those are the words that are always missing whenever any American politician decides to notice the twenty-nine-year war Iran has been waging against the United States. When all the jaw-jaw, all the diplomatic fellatio, all the repeated humiliations take the occasional holiday and we decide to pretend to get serious about the mullahgarchy, we get big on faux moral indignation, but never get around to what we'll actually DO about it if the mullahs don't immediately come to heel. Which they never do, because in nearly three decades we've never once given them a reason to.
Well, I take that back. One time we almost did: after we destroyed Saddam Hussein in three weeks, four years ago. But we didn't keep the tanks rolling eastward, and the moment passed. Now the momentum has all gone back to Tehran, and unlike ourselves, the word "magnanimity" isn't in their statecraft vocabulary, just as "ruthlessness" isn't in ours.
President Bush says that the Iranians developing nuclear weapons is "unacceptable". But he's done nothing to prevent it. Now these five senators declare Iran's proxy war against the United States in Iraq "intolerable". But they propose no consequence if the mullahs don't bow to the aura of their manly rhetorical swagger.
Quin Hillyer, the Mr. Fix-It of the conservative movement this year after having spent last year running around slashing GOP tires, has another laundry list of suggestions on how President Bush can perhaps turn around the domestic political momentum behind surrender in Iraq. I have one suggestion that'll blow all of his away in one fell swoop: give the mullahs an ultimatum. Cease your belligerent meddling in Iraq immediately, or we will bomb the entirety of your nuclear assets back to the Stone Age - for starters. Back up this ultimatum with a publicity blitz detailing the history of this virtually unreported, implicit invasion, establishing beyond a shadow of a doubt the mullahgarchy's responsibility for the difficulties we've encountered in stabilizing and pacifying Iraq. Put over the truth that once Iran is defeated and no longer aiding and using the terrorist "insurgency" to further its regional, and eventual global, ambitions, the mission in Iraq can be drawn to a successful - which is to say victorious - conclusion.
The Lieberman-McCain-Kyl-Graham-Coleman amendment is the seed that can sprout into the congressional authorization for this belated but critically necessary next phase of the War Against Islamic Fundamentalism. Or it can just be one more toothless addition to the jaw-jaw pile.
The mullahs stopped listening to our feckless diplogibbering years ago. We'd better start speaking the language they DO understand, while we still retain the capability of doing so.
U.S. Senator John Cornyn, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said today that in the midst of the current debate in the Senate on Iraq, the critical element missing is a serious review of the potential consequences resulting from a failed state in Iraq....Senator Cornyn's questions are rhetorical, and everybody in and out of the Senate knows it. There is no controversy about what will happen if we run away from al Qaeda in Iraq. That country will fall to the Iranians and their terrorist proxies, Afghanistan will quickly follow, the entire Middle East will destabilize, it'll be open season on American interests and American nationals at home and abroad. Everything gained over the past six years, all the progress in that part of the world, two burgeoning Muslim democracies, and the regained national prestige, respect, and the fear injected into our enemies, will be lost. Thousands of American soldiers will have died for nothing, and the Democrats and their contemptible RINO lapdogs are already pissing on their graves.
“It appears that some of my colleagues want to once again engage in political posturing at the expense of passing important legislation to provide needed funding and equipment for troops. In advocating a policy of retreat, they are seeking to abandon the central front in the war on terror and allow Iraq to become a safe haven for al-Qaeda,” Senator Cornyn said today.
Senator Cornyn announced that he has filed an amendment to the bill in the form of a Sense of the Senate resolution which would put every Senator on record in acknowledging the consequences of their vote for or against a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq.
Senator Cornyn continued, “Those advocating retreat will not, or cannot, answer critical questions on the consequences of a precipitous withdrawal. For example, if we leave Iraq before the Iraqis can defend themselves, will this strengthen or weaken al-Qaeda and other foreign jihadists in Iraq, and across the region? Will Al-Qaeda and other terrorists then follow us here to the United States? How will we address Iran’s continued support of Iraqi insurgents and terrorists now that we have definitive evidence of their involvement? Will Sunni majority nations outside of Iraq stand by and let Shiites massacre Sunnis in Iraq, or will this turn into a regional war? What is the scope of the humanitarian and refugee crisis that will ensue when
the U.S. suddenly withdraws from Iraq? And perhaps the most important question that must be answered by those advocating withdrawal is — what is your plan for the ‘Way Ahead’ in Iraq and the region? These are but a few of the many important questions that every Senator must ask of themselves during this important debate.”
“Our success is not just about providing the people of Iraq a safe environment to develop and provide for their own self-governance – it is about our own protection. We must do what is right for America’s national security, the stability of the Middle East and our partners in the war on terror,” Senator Cornyn concluded.
Senator Cornyn's amendment denies them the indulgence of escaping public accountability for their cowardly, despicable, treasonous actions. It's in essence a waiver acknowledging that a vote for defeat is cast in full knowledge of the disastrous consequences it will incur. It's a public declaration on the part of the cut & run caucus that the fingerprints on Iraq's corpse and the mound of additional American military and civilian fatalities to come are their own.
Now if the American people are truly so "tired of" the war that they're cool with that and will reward such suicidal treachery, then the Donk/RINO axis shouldn't sweat the Cornyn amendment. But if the electorate hasn't thought through what "ending the war" actually means, and is really dense enough to be shocked and surprised - and dismayed - when "ending the war" turns out to mean "bringing it back home," those fingerprints could become, as the British say, a bit of a sticky wicket in 2008 and beyond.
I'm a little less impressed with the Lieberman-McCain-Kyl-Graham-Coleman amendment, however:
Senators Lieberman, McCain, Kyl, Graham, and Coleman today introduced a bipartisan amendment to the Defense Authorization Act, confronting the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran over its proxy attacks on American soldiers in Iraq.
The amendment details the publicly available evidence put forward over the past year by General David Petraeus, commanding general of Multi-National Force Iraq, and others about Iran’s violent and destabilizing activities in Iraq.
The amendment states that “the murder of members of the United States Armed Forces by a foreign government or its agents is an intolerable act of hostility against the United States,” and demands the government of Iran “take immediate action” to end all forms of support it is providing to Iraqi militias and insurgents. The amendment also mandates a regular report on Iran’s anti-coalition activity in Iraq.
“For many months, our military commanders and diplomats have warned us that the Iranian government has been training, equipping, arming, and funding proxies in Iraq who are murdering our troops,” said Senator Lieberman. “This amendment is a common sense, common ground statement of the Senate to Tehran: we know what you are doing, and you must stop.”
“American officials attest that the government in Teheran seeks to bleed the United States and render unsuccessful our efforts to bring about a stable and self-governing in Iraq,” said Senator McCain. “This amendment will send a clear signal: Iran’s activities in Iraq are wrong, and they must end immediately.”
“The Iranians are attempting to thwart our policies in the Middle East by actively supporting terrorists who are killing our troops in Iraq,” said Senator Kyl. “It is time we acknowledge this hostility against us, and this amendment tells the Iranians we will not tolerate any actions which threaten our troops or allies.”
“The evidence is increasingly clear the Iranian government is working to destabilize the Iraqi government,” said Senator Graham. “It is long past time for Congress to speak out about this destructive behavior by Iran. We need one voice, and I expect it will be a unified bipartisan voice, speaking out and condemning these actions by the Iranian government.”
“The United States will not tolerate Iran’s hostile attempts to sabotage our efforts in the Middle East region,” said Senator Coleman. “On my last trip to Iraq, our Minnesota troops in Southern Iraq showed me Iranian-made explosives that were used against them on convoy missions. This crucial amendment makes it clear to the Iranian government, and any other government in the region that seeks to harm our soldiers, that providing any form of support to Iraqi insurgents will not be tolerated and must cease immediately.”
"We know what you are doing, and you must stop"; "Iran’s activities in Iraq are wrong, and they must end immediately"; "This amendment tells the Iranians we will not tolerate any actions which threaten our troops or allies"; "Providing any form of support to Iraqi insurgents will not be tolerated and must cease immediately.” Big words. Tough words. Bold words.
But they're all missing two additional words: "Or else." Those are the words that are always missing whenever any American politician decides to notice the twenty-nine-year war Iran has been waging against the United States. When all the jaw-jaw, all the diplomatic fellatio, all the repeated humiliations take the occasional holiday and we decide to pretend to get serious about the mullahgarchy, we get big on faux moral indignation, but never get around to what we'll actually DO about it if the mullahs don't immediately come to heel. Which they never do, because in nearly three decades we've never once given them a reason to.
Well, I take that back. One time we almost did: after we destroyed Saddam Hussein in three weeks, four years ago. But we didn't keep the tanks rolling eastward, and the moment passed. Now the momentum has all gone back to Tehran, and unlike ourselves, the word "magnanimity" isn't in their statecraft vocabulary, just as "ruthlessness" isn't in ours.
President Bush says that the Iranians developing nuclear weapons is "unacceptable". But he's done nothing to prevent it. Now these five senators declare Iran's proxy war against the United States in Iraq "intolerable". But they propose no consequence if the mullahs don't bow to the aura of their manly rhetorical swagger.
Quin Hillyer, the Mr. Fix-It of the conservative movement this year after having spent last year running around slashing GOP tires, has another laundry list of suggestions on how President Bush can perhaps turn around the domestic political momentum behind surrender in Iraq. I have one suggestion that'll blow all of his away in one fell swoop: give the mullahs an ultimatum. Cease your belligerent meddling in Iraq immediately, or we will bomb the entirety of your nuclear assets back to the Stone Age - for starters. Back up this ultimatum with a publicity blitz detailing the history of this virtually unreported, implicit invasion, establishing beyond a shadow of a doubt the mullahgarchy's responsibility for the difficulties we've encountered in stabilizing and pacifying Iraq. Put over the truth that once Iran is defeated and no longer aiding and using the terrorist "insurgency" to further its regional, and eventual global, ambitions, the mission in Iraq can be drawn to a successful - which is to say victorious - conclusion.
The Lieberman-McCain-Kyl-Graham-Coleman amendment is the seed that can sprout into the congressional authorization for this belated but critically necessary next phase of the War Against Islamic Fundamentalism. Or it can just be one more toothless addition to the jaw-jaw pile.
The mullahs stopped listening to our feckless diplogibbering years ago. We'd better start speaking the language they DO understand, while we still retain the capability of doing so.
posted by JASmius at 4:53 PM
<<< Home