March 24, 2008
The fifth anniversary of the Iraq War is a strong reminder that we as a nation must consider which Presidential candidate will beat the terrorists and keep our troops safe, all while moving America forward. The answer to that comes in the form of Senator John McCain. His experience and understanding of the threat we face stands in stark contrast to the positions of Senator Clinton and Barack Obama.
Looking at Clinton's shifting views on Iraq; it's easy to see a pattern of politicking and pandering. In 2002, she voted for the Iraq War resolution, but now claims she would not have voted for the war. At the time she stated in the Senate floor: "So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our Nation." In January 2007, Clinton said, "If I had been president in October of 2002, I would have not started this war."
Her shifts continued with statements concerning troop withdrawal. On Meet the Press in 2005, Clinton said, "We don't want to send a signal to the insurgents, to the terrorists, that we are going to be out of here at some, you know, date certain." She continued by saying establishing a date for withdrawal would give a "green light" to insurgents to just bide their time. But earlier this year she said she'll start bringing troops "home within 60 days" of taking office.
Another egregious backtrack of Clinton's came in May 2007, when she said she would "of course" provide funding for the troops. But just weeks later, she voted against an emergency Iraq spending bill to provide $94.4 billion in funding for the troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. She repeated that action by voting in November against $70 billion in emergency Iraq funding.
In a speech on Monday, Clinton continued to pander to voters by taking McCain's words out of context. She suggested McCain will "... stay the course, keeping troops in Iraq for up to 100 years if necessary." That is not the case, however. Senator McCain was speaking in terms of a post-war scenario to maintain an American troop presence, not a combat presence, just as Americans have been peacefully present in Germany and Japan for more than 60 years.
But it's not just Clinton who has shifted on the issues. Barack Obama has exhibited shifting rhetoric as well. In April 2007, he opposed severing troop funding, saying "... nobody wants to play chicken with our troops on the ground." But turned around weeks later and voted against funding for the troops, essentially pandering to left-wing extremist group MoveOn.org.
The group sent an e-mail alert to its 3.2 million members, threatening to support primary contests against Democrat candidates who voted in support of troop funding. And now Obama says he won't vote for additional troop funding without a timeline for withdrawal. Denying funds for body armor, mine-resistant vehicles, and combating IEDs sure seems like playing "chicken with the troops" to me.
Both Democrat candidates have shown they are neither straightforward nor consistent when discussing the Iraq War. America faces a very real threat of terrorism, and with Obama or Clinton in the White House that threat will only grow when we send a message to the enemy that we are willing to surrender and allow them to declare victory in Iraq.
John McCain will be the Commander in Chief who will get
positive work done in Iraq and Afghanistan by securing those countries and
keeping our troops adequately prepared. I cannot say the same for Clinton if she
was elected President, nor can I imagine the drastic consequences of Obama's
actions at the helm of our nation's military. We as Americans cannot trust
either of them with the fate of our nation's security, just as we cannot trust
their continuously shifting views on how to handle the War on
Terror.
As a veteran and leader on military and foreign relations issues, Senator McCain appreciates the sacrifices our troops have made. He also understands the very real threat posed to our nation each and every day by radical extremists. He knows that American and allied troops are making real progress. And he will be able to guide us forward to success.
Emory "Trip" Bellard is an Iraq War veteran who served with the 1st Infantry Division.
3 comments:
It takes two to play chicken. But I suppose when Bush vetoes funding for our troops, that's not the same to you, is it? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/01/AR2007050100968.html)
No Mr. Rose it's not. You know why President Bush vetoed this bill. He is NOT going to withdraw troops on a "timeline", like the 'Chicken-Hawk democrats' want. You don't set timetables for withdrawl. You don't want these enemies of the United States and most of the world to win do you sir?
It's the same thing. Bush has his reasons for vetoing, and the Democrats have their reason for including timetables. Both of them are "playing chicken" when they require something of the funding bill besides simply funding (Bush requires no timetable, Democrats require timetable).
In regards to "winning", the decision to withdrawal from Iraq is a tactical maneuver in the fight against Al Qaeda. We should be focusing on Al Qaeda instead of policing an Iraqi civil war.
Post a Comment