Star Tribune Votes Surrender
It looks as though the Star Tribune is changing its name to the Surrender Tribune, as it rails against the probable capitulation by the Democrats in Congress on setting conditions of surrender to terrorists in regards to funding our Armed Forces currently operating in Iraq. So far, the attempts made by the Party of Surrender to force a timeline for withdrawal, as been vetoed, and they do not have the support to over ride the vetoes.
From the Strib:
What a joke the Democratic majority in Congress risks becoming. On Tuesday, as nine more American soldiers were dying in President Bush's failed Iraq war, the Democrats were caving to Bush and agreed to pass a supplemental war appropriation with no meaningful strings attached. Will the challenge to Bush's Iraq policy mandated powerfully by last fall's congressional election come to such a pitiful, mewing end? It should not.
Although things have not gone anywhere near as well in Iraq as any of us would like, there are a number of reasons why this is so, beginning with the hard-left, including John Kerry, voting against the $86 Billion in funding for equipment the troops on the ground needed. Especially body armor.
The hard-left Democrats, in their rush to pull our troops from Iraq are short-sighted, and only prove that they are willing to do anything to discredit President Bush, even if it means handing Iraq over to terrorists and thugs.
Things could have gone better in Iraq. We all know this. We should never have trusted and negotiated with Muqtada al-Sadr, the leader of an armed militia that has been fueling sectarian violence since 2004. 20-20 hindsight is a wonderful thing, but it doesn't mean squat in the long run, and we don't have a time machine capable of sending people back to correct the mistakes.
As for having received a "mandate" in 2006, that is hardly the case. If they had received such a "mandate" from the American people, there would be no problem in achieving the votes needed to override a presidential veto.
Actually, this is half-true. They've voted to grant the funding only with conditions that UNCONSTITUTIONALLY shifts power away from the executive to the legislative branches. Under our Constitution there is only one Commander-in-chief - the President.
Congress is expected to provide the funding that will adequately equip our troops to continue to do the job that is needed to assist our fledgling ally in securing liberty for its people. If we withdraw before that is accomplished, then it will send a signal to Muqtada al-Sadr, al-Qaeda and the terrorist networks, and the Mullahs of Iran that Iraq is now theirs for the taking. And the sacrifice our troops of made will be in vain.
If the hard-left continues to fail to provide the funding that will provide the equipment that will improve our troops ability to survive in the hostile environment, including the new v-shaped hauled combat vehicles that have proven more resilient at protecting our troops than the more vulnerable Hummer.
To claim that legislation that authorizes funding with a timetable for surrender, I mean withdrawal is the same as saying that there will be no funding provided.
Failure to properly equip our troops in the field the latest and best technology for them to accomplish their mission on the part of Congress means that more of our precious troops lives will be in greater risk. Their blood will be on the hands of the hard-left controlling Congress for their continued refusal to provide them with that which they need, and their mouthpieces in the media, including the Star Tribune.