The
Difference Between
Support
and Surrender
Written by JB
Williams
©2007 USA
Soldiers, who
are now or have ever been on the battlefield, already know the difference between
support and surrender, just as they know the difference between redeployment
and retreat.
Although leftist
Democrats have been largely successful in fooling many Americans into believing
that their surrender agenda is some form of support for the troops, the troops
certainly know better…and so does the enemy.
According to AP
writer Anne Flaherty, “The Senate is expected
to vote as early as this week on whether to cut off money for the
Iraq war next year, as well
as on a softer measure calling for troops to leave this
fall.”
To be clear on
the subject, Democrat Senate leader Harry Reid and Democrat Senator Russ
Feingold (of McCain-Feingold fame) have offered two amendments to the pending
Iraq war funding bill, otherwise known as the Senate attempt to bribe or coerce
(choose your favorite) the Defense Department and Bush into surrender in
Iraq.
It
should be noted that both the western allies and their enemy jihadists in
Iraq and beyond, consider
Iraq to be the central front
in the international war against terrorism. Any retreat from the central front
in Iraq is a retreat from the
broader war on terror. Just ask the enemy who has been regurgitating Democrat
war propaganda as if they were members of the American Press.
The first amendment, backed by Reid and Feingold, would
require that combat operations end by March 31, 2008, by cutting off money after that date.
The second measure would provide more than $120 billion
to fund the wars in
Iraq
and Afghanistan,
as well as various
domestic projects. It would call for troops to begin leaving
Iraq by
Oct. 1, 2007 but
allow the president to waive that requirement.
Meanwhile over
in the People’s House, Democrat Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her House Democrats
have passed another bill that would sabotage the war effort. Some say sabotage,
others call it support…
The House voted
to split war funding into two parts. $42.75 billion -- enough to fund operations
through July
31, 2007 -- would be released right now. Of course, it will be June
1, before anything happens.
In the House
bill, the president would have to report on progress in
Baghdad by July 13, 2007 and then a
second House vote would be required to release the remaining $52.8 billion,
which would carry the military through the end of the fiscal year in October
2007.
Of course the
$26 billion in pork-barrel bribes used to garner the Democrat votes needed to
pass the bill, can be released immediately, no strings attached. Neither bill is
“bi-partisan” as being reported by the way. Both are being forced up the hill
strictly down party lines.
Now soldiers
from grunts to generals know exactly what both houses of congress are moving
towards here. In order to get the funding they need to continue their missions
in the war against international terrorism, Bush must first agree to surrender
in
Iraq
on or before October 2007.
There is no
missing this message, coming through loud and clear from both houses of
congress. Even the lowest boot soldier in Al Qaeda understands what this means.
If Bush wants his money, he will have to agree to surrender by October. I’m sure
it’s a coincidence that this is about the time frame in which the 2008
presidential campaigns will get into full swing.
Now the
Democrats see this as a means of supporting their
troops, who are currently dying on the battlefield, as they listen to
Al Qaeda members regurgitate Democrat plans to retreat, withdraw and surrender
as soon as July, but no later than October. This is wonderful news to every
terrorist in the region. Is it good for our troops though?
Democrats
regained political power by beating the drum of defeat and retreat in
Iraq,
the war on terror. It’s a safe bet they will stick with what worked in 2006 and
keep beating that drum until Hillary is once again telling the Marine One crew
to “make themselves useful
and get her bags”… or at least until the freshmen Senator from
Illinois is upgraded to his first swivel executive chair, name plate and
all.
The soldiers
know exactly which it is, where they are caught in the cross fire; the political
war for supreme
U.S.
power being waged in the halls of congress back home. But how can the American
people tell the difference between real support for our troops and real top
notch political horse manure being shoveled at them at light speed by Democrats
and their always ready to surrender press?
It’s easier than
you think.
For starters,
you can’t separate the troops from their mission. The success of our troops is
defined entirely by the success of their mission. Therefore, anything that
threatens to undermine or sabotage that mission, like forcing a surrender and
retreat deadline, interrupting the flow of resources needed to complete the
mission or encouraging the enemy to fight them harder and hang in there until
July or October, can never be considered a form of support for the troops
themselves.
But if this is
still a bit fuzzy for some of you, allow me to make it even more crystal
clear…
Those truly
interested in supporting our troops are not demanding that our troops retreat in
defeat. They are asking our troops what they need in order to succeed and then
moving heaven and earth in order to provide the troops with everything they ask
for, and then some. Have you ever seen a Democrat besides Joe Lieberman take
this stance?
Real supporters
are relying upon battle tested military experts and real-time information in
theater, to make day to day, sometimes minute to minute adjustments in strategy.
They are not relying on armchair generals back in
Washington
DC who are too busy waging a different war
for a different purpose to worry about such trivial things as winning the
international war against terrorism, beginning with
Iraq, or keeping
America safe
from the next strike at home.
And last, the
way you can tell whose side the left is on if you haven’t figured it out by now;
ask yourself what would happen in the next election if Bush won the battle for
Baghdad and kept
America safe
from a second round of attacks on
U.S. soil?
Then ask
yourself what would happen in that election if Bush was forced to retreat in
defeat from
Iraq,
lost the broader war on terror and then had another attack on
U.S. soil, this
time worse than 9/11?
The latter is
the best thing that could ever happen to Democrats currently frothing at the
mouth with power and working around the clock to cause a complete Bush failure
in Iraq and they know it.
As a result,
Democrats are more focused on causing a Bush failure at any cost than causing an
American success in the war on terror at any cost. If you haven’t figured out
the difference between support and surrender by now, you never
will.
And if Bush
doesn’t soon figure out that he has a more dangerous enemy at home than abroad,
he will deserve to be written into history as the president who lost it all…
