Democrats Need Definition of Victory

Remember the endless publicity from the media over the Murtha amendment? The furor caused by the Republicans for calling the Democrats bluff and forcing a vote on immediate withdrawal from Iraq?

Well, I had to dig long and hard to find this story.

House disavows calls for Iraq withdrawal

By LIZ SIDOTI ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

WASHINGTON -- For the second time in as many months, the House rejected calls for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq with a vote Friday that Democrats said was politically driven and designed by Republicans to limit debate on the war.

In a 279-109 vote, the GOP-controlled House approved a resolution saying the chamber is committed "to achieving victory in Iraq" and that setting an "artificial timetable" would be "fundamentally inconsistent with achieving victory."
Democrats voted against the resolution by 108-59, while 32 of them voted "present," a rarely used option that signals neither support nor opposition. That split underlined divisions within the party over alternatives to President Bush's Iraq war policies.

Among Republicans, 220 supported the proposal, none were opposed and two voted "present," while the House's lone independent voted "no."

So, you can read the entire amendment on my December 16th post. What do you suppose were the Democrats' objections?

Murtha sent his fellow Democrats a letter objecting to the GOP resolution. "It calls for 'complete victory' which does not define victory, is open-ended, and therefore means that our troops could be there for ten or fifteen years," Murtha said.

And this one...

"What is victory? Nobody has defined what victory is," Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., objected.

These people rejected a resolution calling for victory in Iraq. Their reason? No one has told them what victory in Iraq means. This is probably why they are so completely clueless about what DEFEAT in Iraq means.

It is hard to understand the motivation of the Democratic party on a purely philosophical basis. After all, isn't the Democratic Party the champion of the 'little guy'? The Party of taking care of those who can't care for themselves? The compassionate party who doesn't believe that people should raise themselves by their own bootstraps? The party of government intervention in every aspect of life?

So, why are they so absolutely unconcerned about the Iraqi people? Ask yourself...if the Iraqi people could vote in OUR elections, do you think the Democrats' outlook would change? In a New York minute.

This is all political. The irony is that they accuse Bush of being political (yeah, right, let's start a war in the Middle East--that'll boost my popularity) when he is not political enough. Notice how his approval ratings have soared once he started fighting back?

Really. These people need to get their act together and start standing FOR something. They have been trying to build a platform of being AGAINST Bush for so long, I'm not sure that they have it in them. For America's sake, I hope I am wrong.