Let's be honest. The entire symbolic Anti-Surge resolution that's being put forward in troops has no purpose other than to undermine our military and our President. Who benefits from such a symbolic proposal? Only the terrorists that are attacking our troops in Iraq.
If the Dems were truly against the surge, they should have the cojones to pull the funding for the troops. But they know the consequences of such a policy and want to have it both ways.
Think I'm full of it? Check out this story from the Washington Times:
Inside the BeltwayAnd the GOP is right to call him on his unprincipled stance. You would think that our objective, mainstream media would also notice.
By John McCaslin
January 18, 2007
On Dec. 5, Newsweek magazine touted an interview with then-incoming House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Rep. Silvestre Reyes as an "exclusive." And for good reason.
"In a surprise twist in the debate over Iraq," the story began, Mr. Reyes "said he wants to see an increase of 20,000 to 30,000 U.S. troops as part of a 'stepped up effort to dismantle the militias.' "
"We have to consider the need for additional troops to be in Iraq, to take out the militias and stabilize Iraq," the Texas Democrat said to the surprise of many, "I would say 20,000 to 30,000."
Then came President Bush's expected announcement last week, virtually matching Mr. Reyes' recommendation and argument word-for-word -- albeit the president proposed only 21,500 troops.
Wouldn't you know, hours after Mr. Bush announced his proposal, Mr. Reyes told the El Paso Times that such a troop buildup was unthinkable.
"We don't have the capability to escalate even to this minimum level," he said.
The chairman's "double-talk" did not go unnoticed. Among others, Rep. Joe Wilson, South Carolina Republican and a member of the House Armed Services Committee, says such blatant "hypocrisy" undermines both national security and the war on terrorism.
And, more proof that Reyes is a tool is contained in the article:
Unfortunately for the new House intelligence chief, this is his second (some would argue his third) major blunder in the space of one month. When asked by Congressional Quarterly reporter Jeff Stein whether al Qaeda was a Sunni or Shi'ite organization, he answered: "Predominantly, probably Shi'ite."
As Mr. Stein wrote later: "He couldn't have been more wrong. Al Qaeda is profoundly Sunni. If a Shi'ite showed up at an al Qaeda clubhouse, they'd slice his head off and use it for a soccer ball."
The reporter added: "To me, it's like asking about Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland: Who's on what side?"
In the same interview, Mr. Stein had asked Mr. Reyes about the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah.
His now-infamous reply: "Hezbollah. Uh, Hezbollah? ... Why do you ask me these questions at 5 o'clock? Can I answer in Spanish? Do you speak Spanish?"
This is the 21st century and we're likely to be gripped in the War on Terror for a generation or more... and we have people in power who are totally incurious about the situation.
If the Dems take the White House in 2008 and still retain Congress, we can kiss our country good-bye.
A Message to Mr. Reyes: YOU ARE NOW IN POWER! YOU HAVE TO HAVE IDEAS AND AN UNDERSTANDING OF REALITY, YOU TWIT!
ARC: St Wendeler