With the Democrat-dominated Senate moving toward a bill that would announce a date to begin America's retreat from Iraq, and with the Democrat-controlled House already in full surrender mode, it has begun to dawn on some that telling the terrorist enemy exactly when America plans to leave Iraq only helps to ensure that the retreat will amount to a full surrender.
Why, they can start planning their "Death to America" party (with bloodbath to follow!) -- right now!
The solution? One Senate Democrat has suggested that Congress stick with a firm deadline -- but keep the deadline a secret.
Yes, that will work -- about as well as it's working already:
From James Taranto's Best of the Web:
For some time now, Democrats and a few Republicans have been calling on America to set a firm date for retreat from Iraq. One obvious objection is telling the enemy when we plan to leave ensures that such a departure would amount to a surrender. Never fear. Sen. Mark Pryor, an Arkansas Democrat, has an answer, as the Washington Post reports:
Pryor wants to keep any plans for bringing troops home a secret. . . . Pryor wants a withdrawal deadline of some kind. He just doesn't want anyone outside the White House, Congress and the Iraqi government to know what it is.
But does Pryor really think Congress and the Iraqi government can be trusted to keep a secret? Yes and maybe!
Pryor said a classified plan would be provided by the president, shepherded by Senate committees and ultimately shared with Congress and Iraqi leaders. He is confident that the plan would remain secret, because Congress is entrusted with secrets "all the time."
What if the president's withdrawal plan didn't include a deadline? Or what if it leaked, through leaders in Iraq, to insurgents?
All worth considering, Pryor said. But in the meantime, "at least you'd have a plan."
Well OK then! All we need is a plan, and this plan is nothing if not well thought out. The enemy will never see us going!
But if Congress can't retreat openly without tipping its hand to the terrorists, and if Congress can't retreat quietly without tipping its hand, then how on earth is Congress supposed to retreat from Iraq?
The answer lies in the question itself.
Congress shouldn't be doing any retreating, surrendering, or tipping of hands. Congress is not the commander in chief. There's a good reason why the Constitution places control of the armed forces in the president, not in a 535-member Congress that is torn in many different directions.
Besides, once a war has begin, there is no substitute for victory. Deliberately losing a war is both foolish and dangerous.
The Democrats know that. It's just that the kind of victory they're looking for is . . . a lot closer to home.
Comments