Nuke's

The opening line in this article is interesting.

WASHINGTON, Nov. 12 — Democratic leaders in the Senate vowed on Sunday to use their new Congressional majority to press for troop reductions in Iraq within a matter of months…

Why wait? If the dems are convinced that the message voters sent last week was to get out of Iraq, then why do they intend on waiting months to reduce or cut off funding for military operations?

Why not announce that in the first 100 hours of the new Congress, legislation will be introduced to cut off funding for the war, and pressure the President to either veto the measure or bring the men and material home?

The more that dem leaders talk about the war in Iraq, the clearer it becomes that they have no plan, no new ideas, and can offer little in the way of leadership on this crucial issue. Regardless of how it is couched: redeployment, phased reductions, strategic withdrawals; it is nothing but cut and run, a losing proposition, just ask Ned Lamont. Frankly, I don’t think the democrat victory last week can be attributed solely to President Bush. The Republicans shot themselves in the foot on a whole host of issues, from overspending to outright corruption. Democrat leaders may be tempted to try and lay the blame on the President, but in doing so, they run the risk of overreaching, and misreading the intent of the electorate.

“The people have spoken in a very, very strong way that they don’t buy the administration policy,” Mr. Levin said on ABC. Mr. Reid, in an appearance on CBS, said troop redeployment “should start within the next few months.”

So, I ask again, why wait around and spend more treasure. If you think it’s a good plan 6 months from now, then what will be gained by waiting?
NYTlink

Big Mo

And, totally unrelated to the post, but a great short essay from Smith

Filed under: 'War on Terrorism', military, News and politics