Wednesday, January 10, 2007

Troop Escalation

Troop Escalation? What, they don't like the word surge? And what happened to all these Dems who were demanding the President follow the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group. Looks to me that he's following this recommendation and now they have changed their minds.

Kennedy, being the major windbag that he is pontificated on the need for congressional approval for the President to take further military action. Still think the Dems aren't trying to take constitutional powers away from the president?
Sen. Edward Kennedy, one of President Bush's fiercest anti-war critics, said Tuesday he hopes to throw up a legislative roadblock against Bush's expected call for up to 20,000 more troops in Iraq.

Kennedy, D-Mass., flexing his political muscle in the new Democratic majority, is pushing a bill to deny Bush the billions of dollars in funding needed for a troop buildup unless Congress first approves. Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., is filing a similar measure in the House.

"We cannot simply speak out against an escalation of troops in Iraq," Kennedy said. "We must act to prevent it."

The legislation is expected to spark broader debate on Capitol Hill over steps lawmakers eager to curb Bush's war strategy should take.

Kennedy warned that Bush's anticipated call for extra troops, to be outlined Wednesday night in a nationally televised address, would "exact a fearsome toll" of American lives.

"Such an escalation would be a policy of desperation built on denial and fantasy," Kennedy said in a speech at the National Press Club. "It is 'stay the course' under another name."
Of course Ed Markey, the other knee jerk from the People's Republic of Massachusetts is on board. I wonder if Kennedy has told Kerry what to think on this subject yet.

Of course, the BoGlobe failed to report the Vietnam quotes. This from The Swamp.
“Iraq is George Bush’s Vietnam.” Thus said Sen. Edward Kennedy, the Massachusetts Democrat, in a speech at the National Press Club today.

Of course, if that’s true, then not only would Iraq be President Bush’s Vietnam, it would be the American people’s Vietnam too, yet another quagmire with no end in sight.

I especially love Kennedy braying about history, ignoring that what he is proposing would in fact violate what he is contending.
This Congress cannot escape history or its own duty. If we do not learn from the mistakes of the past, we are condemned to repeat them. We must act, and act now, before the President sends more troops to Iraq, or else it will be too late.

The legislation that we will introduce today is brief but essential. It requires the President to obtain approval from Congress before he sends even more American soldiers to Iraq. And it prohibits the President from spending taxpayer dollars on such an escalation unless Congress approves it.
Seems to me I recall funding to support Vietnam and the US intervention there in was withdrawn by a Democratic majority. Wonder if Teddy has considered that president since he so clearly wants all the blame for any failure to fall on Bush while he and his ilk are viewed as innocent bystanders. Unfortunately, his actions show that he is ignoring history which he so vehemently points at as a lesson for the public.
Kennedy worked hard to tighten any link in the minds of listeners who were predisposed between Iraq and Vietnam. Said Kennedy:
Listen to this comment from a high-ranking American official: “It became clear that if we were prepared to stay the course, we could help to lay the cornerstone for a diverse and independent Asia…If we faltered, the forces of chaos would scent victory and decades of strife and aggression would stretch endlessly before us. The choice was clear. We would stay the course. And we shall stay the course.”

That is not President Bush speaking. It is President Lyndon Johnson, forty years ago, ordering a hundred thousand more American soldiers to Vietnam.
You'd also think that he'd have a better grasp of the history of Vietnam considering his brother was the one that escalated the US intervention there. You'd think that JFK wasn't involved with how Teddy lays the blame squarely on LBJ. You have to question his intentions as to the reasoning. [Insert your own smarmy comment on his(teddy's) level of sobriety at the time.]

Reid and Pelosi have been following along with this line of reasoning. Fortunately, It would appear unlikely that this legislation would make it through to meet a veto. Even if it did, it would be unlikely to have sufficient votes to bypass that veto.

No comments: