“…make sure this is still President Bush’s war’

Reading the Washington Post this morning I see the Democrats still have their panties wadded up over how best to hamstring the President and his troops;

House Democratic leaders offered a full-throated defense last night of their plans to link Iraq war spending with rigorous standards for resting, training and equipping combat troops, saying that they would hold President Bush accountable for failing to meet those readiness tests.

But after a fractious meeting of the House Democratic caucus, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) said Democratic members still have not united around the proposal.

They all seemed so united recently when the war protesters were in town. It was like there was blood in the water and it was feeding time. So what could have happened? Maybe the left discovered that the average American citizen (as opposed to the below-average American citizens who make up the vocal anti-war crowd) isn’t ready to admit defeat. Notice that only Democrats in secure seats are supporting Murtha – very few secure seats. Included in that number is my favorite (drunken, loutish) Jim Moran from across the Potomac – despite the WaPo calling his district in Alexandria, VA “conservative”;

But some Democrats, especially those from conservative districts, remain wary. Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (Va.), who supports the plan, said many Democrats “want to make sure this is still President Bush’s war. It’s his war to manage, and it’s his war to end.”

It’s the president’s war, huh? Then let him fight it, gumball.

AP reports that Democrats may be finally awakening to the fact that they don’t really have a say in the war after all;

Bush “hasn’t to date done anything we’ve asked him to do, so why we would think he would do anything in the future is beyond me,” said Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif., one of a group of liberal Democrats pushing for an immediate end to the war.

Across the Capitol, Carl Levin suddenly decides that Syria is the problem, according to Flopping Aces and RedState. Remember before the war in Iraq, the Left was yelling that Iran would be a better a more logical objective than Iraq. And they pointed out that several of the nineteen hijackers on September 11th were Saudis – why don’t we attack Saudi Arabia? Now that we’ve tied Iran into the murders of our troops, Levin points us in the other direction.

I was just wondering, does the military have a plan to, if necessary, to go into Syria to go to the source of any weapons coming from Syria?

What’s up with these nimrods? Do they so want the war against terror to be such a failure that they’ll advocate a war anywhere except where our troops happen to be deployed?  

I sure hope the American voters are watching this circus and will take it into consideration next November.

Category: Politics