Thursday, April 26, 2007

What’s The Point Of The Timetable Bill?

I’m sorry but I just don’t get what the House and the Senate have done. As we all know, today the Senate rebelliously passed a bill calling for U.S. combat forces to withdraw from Iraq next year.

Iraq commander Gen. David Petraeus and other senior defense officials went to Capital Hill on the day the House voted on the bill to tell legislators to reconsider the timetable, saying that progress is being made but it will take time. And let’s not forget what many have been saying for a long time now: A withdraw will give the insurgents enough time to regroup and wait for the pullout and then take over Iraq in a bloody battle. And let’s not forget that we will be giving al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups a victory that will inspire them to continue their bloody Jihad against the world.

And the president has already said he will veto the bill, so what is the point of acting defiant? To send a message to the president, America and the world that they want the troops home? Big hairy deal, for years now Democrats and few Republicans have called for troop withdraw. They don’t need a bill to make that point. It’s time to stop playing politics with our troops lives and the safety of this nation and others.

But the Democrats, sadly, have made a good point as to why President Bush won in the last election. They are not showing the foresight that is needed to deal with terrorists and the safety of this country. What do they expect to happen if there is a timetable that would withdraw our troops before Iraq is ready to deal with the insurgents and terrorists? How will this affect the U.S. and Iraq and the rest of the world if Iraq is taken over by people who have vowed to kill those who do not share their views?

Because they are not asking these questions or listening to the consequences that military experts are warning of, they are not showing the interests of this country or Iraq but they are showing a way for them to win the White House in 2008.

And within those four years in office, how will that Democratic president explain to America that we need to go back into Iraq and deal with a war machine bent on supporting terrorism and destroying lives? How will that president, who voted for this bill, look Americans in the eye and tell us that it will be a harder, bloodier war because the enemy had years of preparation, planning and support? And what kind of answer will this future Democratic president give when someone asks: Why didn’t you want to deal with this when it was far more manageable than it is now?

And if it doesn’t seem manageable now, wait until the insurgents take over Iraq, and they provide funds for terrorist black markets, training grounds and attacks. And while this is only speculation but a good educated guess by what has been reported on, Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will get the nuclear weapons/components he is seeking, as a payback for funding the insurgents. (Let’s not forget that there is strong evidence that former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had sent his WMDs to Syria long before the war started. An insurgent-controlled Iraq in four years will certainly have them shipped back.)

It’s not a pretty picture and it’s far from being finished but it is something that supporters of the bill fail to see or consider. Is it a possible scenario? After the 9/11 attacks, we simply can’t afford to see the glass as half full when innocent lives are on the line.