Sunday, June 18, 2006

House Resolution 861

One can only wonder what forces drive the legislative process in Washington, D.C. On 16 June, House Resolution 861 was approved in the U.S. House of Representatives by a vote of 256-153, with only 14 republicans and 10 democrats not involved in the voting. A total of 214 republicans voted for the resolution, with three against; a total of 42 democrats voted for the resolution, with 149 against. It would be well at this point to see what the resolution involved so one can make up his/her mind as to the reasonableness of the document and attempt a judgment as to why the vote was so rabidly partisan:

Resolved, That the House of Representatives--

(1) honors all those Americans who have taken an active part in the Global War on Terror, whether as first responders protecting the homeland, as servicemembers overseas, as diplomats and intelligence officers, or in other roles;

(2) honors the sacrifices of the United States Armed Forces and of partners in the Coalition, and of the Iraqis and Afghans who fight alongside them, especially those who have fallen or been wounded in the struggle, and honors as well the sacrifices of their families and of others who risk their lives to help defend freedom;

(3) declares that it is not in the national security interest of the United States to set an arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment of United States Armed Forces from Iraq;

(4) declares that the United States is committed to the completion of the mission to create a sovereign, free, secure, and united Iraq;

(5) congratulates Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki and the Iraqi people on the courage they have shown by participating, in increasing millions, in the elections of 2005 and on the formation of the first government under Iraq's new constitution;

(6) calls upon the nations of the world to promote global peace and security by standing with the United States and other Coalition partners to support the efforts of the Iraqi and Afghan people to live in freedom; and

(7) declares that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror, the noble struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary.

Items 1, 2, 5, and 6 are eminently predictable, against none of which any of the solons would dare to vote…or at least the ones with enough sense to come in out of the rain or enough skill to open an umbrella. So…the rupture between the two parties has to do with items 3, 4, and 7. The titular head of the Democrat Party is Senator John Kerry, who barely missed being elected president in 2004. According to the Malone Report, Kerry made this statement recently to a group pf activists in Washington: "I believe we need a hard and fast deadline, not an open-ended commitment of U.S. forces, so that we shift responsibility, and demand responsibility from the Iraqis themselves." The vast majority of House democrats apparently agreed with Kerry, as seen in their vote, thus seeing Item 3, which is in direct contradiction of President Bush’s policy, as unacceptable.

One wonders what the people in the rest of the world think about this circumstance, especially in light of the fact that democrats constantly caterwaul about the bad image this country allegedly is disclosing to the world populations, thus conditioning them on a daily basis to think ill of this country whether they know anything about it or not. This is the Vietnam Kerry who traveled to Paris in 1971 and met with folks on both sides of the Vietnam conflict, and in July of that year held a press conference in D.C. at which he said essentially that American POWs would be returned on a date certain if President Nixon would just set a date for withdrawing troops from Vietnam, thus, of course, surrendering and trusting the enemy to keep its word concerning the POWs. Sound familiar? Notwithstanding the fact that setting a withdrawal-timetable would empower the enemy to stand down and wait its chance to foment a horrific civil war, Kerry exhibits the same “la-la-land” war strategy that he thought was terrific 35 years ago…and the House democrats swallow this stuff, apparently – at least most of them if definition by association is operative. Weird!

Turning their backs on Item 4 meant that most House democrats screamed to the world that this nation will not keep its stated commitments and consequently is not to be trusted. They also said to the world that the opposition party that might win back the House this year is ready to make a grand sellout of Iraq, tuck its tail, take its marbles, and truck on home. The irony connected to this justifiable conclusion is that in Iraq, through the good offices of this government and its Coalition partners, there already is a free sovereign state with a complete representative government – after three nationwide elections – and security being acquired gradually each day. The recent killing of al Zarqawi, top terrorist guru and operator, is part of the proof of this, not to mention that Iraqi people will soon take over a section of southern Iraq that has been the preserve of some of the Coalition partners for years now.

In turning their backs on Item 7, most of the House democrats attempted to apply the coup de grace to worldwide civility and hope by asserting that this nation perhaps will stand down in the war on terror, the devil take the hindmost, the hindmost being all the smaller/weaker nations that depend on the USA for furnishing a glimmer of freedom. The non-Muslim folks in those nations understand that the term “infidel” applies to them as much as it does to Americans, so they see this country as perhaps the last, best hope that the beheaders-in-the-name-of-god will not come after them, as they’re instructed to do in their “holy book,” the Qu’ran. They understand the lessons of the Sudan, where the Islamic fascists who run the government have systematically attended to the genocide of hundreds of thousands.

So…the House has voted, and the democrats have only shame for their portion.

And so it goes.

Jim Clark.

1 comment:

sanskritg said...

The "titular head of the Democratic Party" is NOT John Kerry.

That would be Howard Dean. I ignored everything else after that sentence.