Congress' Symbolic Non-Binding Resolution

Glenn Beck on his television show has a brilliant comment about supporting the troops but not the mission. As he put it "hating the game, but not the players." When the troops are killing in your name you cannot say you don't support the mission when that is part of the mission. He said that you are either in full support of the war and the mission or your not and you have to withdrawal the troops from Iraq if you are not. You cannot have it both ways. Try to win the war or cut-and-run. That's the two options you have.

This Congressional symbolic non-binding resolution is really stupid and does not help the troops over in Iraq at all. All it does is bolster the spirits of the enemy. They see America's rulers not agreeing about winning the war. How does cutting funding of the war help the troops? It does not help. This action is the equivalent of taking their ammunition away from them. Leave them in Iraq and give them the military and moral support they need or completely withdraw them from Iraq. Period. You don't play stupid games with our military when their lives are in danger.

All this symbolic resolution is political pure and simple. If Iraq stabilizes that puts President Bush in a positive light. The Democrats in Congress cannot have that when there is a presidential election coming up. That increases Republicans chances of winning the Presidential race the Dems think. But the Democrats are not realizing (or maybe do not care) that if Iraq stabilizes then not only does that help President Bush but America and the whole region over there. As Bill O'Reilly would say the people behind this non-binding resolution are not looking out for America. So, why doesn't the Democrats want America to win in Iraq? One, they think they got elected by anti-war voters. Possibly. But there is another possibility. It could be that they got elected because the American public wanted to win the war and did not think the Republicans that got voted out were not doing a good job of running the war. Two, is the Dems are trying to appease the far-left anti-war cook groups. But these groups want the troops out of Iraq period. They are not going to settle for anything less. Those are the two basic reasons why the Democrats are trying to straddle the middle of the line. They don't want to appear against the troops while they want to appear against the war. Like I said make a choice. At least during the Vietnam war the Dems back then were against the war and the troops (who by the way were drafted). They were at least consistent.

I should say that criticizing the execution of the mission is not being unpatriotic. You can make the argument that President Bush should have put more troops in early, etc. But if you don't want America and her allies to win in Iraq then you are unpatriotic and border-line treasonous. That is almost like a fan not rooting for his hometown to win in a sport. It does not make any sense. Maybe every presidential candidate should be asked "do you want America to win in Iraq?" Hopefully a reporter will ask that question and the candidate will have the guts to answer the question. If the answer is no or the candidate dodges the question--do not vote for him/her.