Friday, January 12, 2007
Let's be clear: the Democrats do not oppose Bush because they care about our troops. They don't like the people who join the military, they don't like the people who serve in the military, they don't go to the funerals (except as publicity stunts) of those who die while serving in the military. Their 'concern' for the troops - their moaning about the casualties and so on - is simply a position taken for the sole purpose of attacking Bush.
Nor do they oppose Bush because they feel the money being spent on Iraq ought to be used elsewhere. As much as I disagree with Bush's handling of the federal budget, he has in effect funded the Iraq conflict through borrowings and not by cutting spending elsewhere. Not a single Democrat-favored program has been cut in order to finance the war effort.
Nor do they oppose what Bush is doing in Iraq because those efforts are taking away money or personnel from other 'more important' anti-terrorism programs. It's true that Bush has done a terrible job of increasing security on our borders, in our ports and on the rails... but he hasn't done so because of Iraq, he hasn't done so because he just isn't smart enough to see that those things need to be done. And the Democrats really don't care about port security and the like; this too is simply the Democrats looking for an angle to attack Bush.
The fact is that the Democrats oppose Bush not out of any principled basis (such as I have for criticizing what he is doing), but rather because they hate Bush and would knee-jerk object to anything he does. Does anybody doubt that if Bush had announced that he was throwing in the towel as far as Iraq goes and was going to start bringing home the troops, that the Democrats wouldn't have complained about that?