« | »

Democrats Want To Lose Afghan War Faster

From a cheering Reuters:

Democrats challenge Obama’s Afghan withdrawal plan

By David Alexander – Thu Jul 7, 2011

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Democratic lawmakers fed up with the lingering war in Afghanistan launched a new challenge to President Barack Obama’s plan for a measured U.S. troop withdrawal over the next year as they resumed debate on Wednesday on a $649 billion defense spending bill.

Isn’t Afghanistan what Democrats like Mr. Obama used to call ‘the good war’? ‘A war we have to win‘? Or were they only pretending to support Afghanistan so as not to seem to be completely in bed with the terrorists?

Democratic members of the House of Representatives proposed a series of amendments to the 2012 fiscal year defense appropriations bill aimed at forcing a speedier U.S. troop withdrawal, including by cutting funding for combat operations.

It’s been clear for some time that what Mr. Obama really wants is a ‘Vietnamization’ of the war in Afghanistan. And now it is really shaping up to end exactly like Vietnam all over again.

Just like in Vietnam, the Democrats are determined to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by defunding our troops and our allies.

"The whole premise of this war is wrong. Fighting in Afghanistan does not enhance the security of the United States," said Representative Jerrold Nadler. "We should withdraw our troops now, all of them, as rapidly as physically possible."

After all, Mr. Nadler needs all that money being wasted on defending our country to buy votes right back here at home. The man is worried about putting food on his table.

Representative James McGovern said Obama’s Afghan strategy was not sustainable given difficult economic times at home. "While we serve as an ATM machine for a corrupt government in Kabul, we tell our own people that we have no money for roads and bridges and schools and teachers and police and firefighters and jobs," he said…

And here we were almost believing the Democrats when they claim the only thing that would lift the country out of the current recession is massive government spending like what we saw during WWII.

Final votes on the Afghanistan amendments were not expected until Thursday. Lawmakers also planned amendments challenging U.S. involvement in the NATO-led and U.N.-mandated no-fly zone to protect citizens in Libya

And never mind that the lawmakers who oppose Afghanistan are not the same lawmakers who oppose Libya. In fact, Democrats seldom oppose any war that is not in our nation’s interest.

Penny-conscious House lawmakers made little headway in trimming more from Pentagon funding on Wednesday

Nadler, who opposed the amendment, said it was difficult to justify the funding at a time when social programs for the needy were facing cuts

Defense spending has already been recently cut by $400 billion dollars. And it is going to be slashed by another $400 billion dollars. That adds up to nearly a trillion dollars in real cuts.

Meanwhile, there have been exactly zero dollars cut from "social programs." There haven’t even been pretend cuts.

This article was posted by Steve on Thursday, July 7th, 2011. Comments are currently closed.

3 Responses to “Democrats Want To Lose Afghan War Faster”

  1. Chinnubie says:

    I’m not going to say the war isn’t necessary but the way wars are currently fought goes against the way they should be executed. I’m all for completely destroying any terrorist group that threatens this country in any way, shape, manner, or form but unleashing the greatest military on the planet and tell them they have to execute thier misson with kit-gloves or in other words walk on eggshells not being allowed to crack a one. The entire excercise does nothing but get our guys killed and in the end Afghanistan goes right back to the way it was before we got there. Nation building only works if your committed to the end result and that’s owning the ground. If our worry is to every civilian on the ground you are going to lose a lot of treasure and lives. Either do it correctly or don’t do it at all. Military’s are meant to destroy and break things not be concerned about grandma cooking her dates in the hut next door. At the same time I’m not saying be completely reckless about the entire situation but get our goals in order before stepping on the field of battle. So, if we can’t prosecute this campaign properly there is no real need to be there in the first place regardless of how the population is being treated because if that were the case we would be at war with the better part of the planet.

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      What’s curious to note, is that the Soviet Union, a military force to be reckoned with, to be sure tried their level best to break the Afghans. They were unable to do so. The did not have any bizarre ROE or any restrictions that I’m aware of, albeit having an admittedly ignorant viewpoint of their whole operation. But they left, frustrated, after spending much treasure and blood. http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0802662.html

  2. Astravogel says:

    It is a shame that the Afghans don’t have
    a coast so they can become “boat people”
    after we pull out. Shame BHO’s dad didn’t
    pull out sooner.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »