Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock


Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict


Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links


Regional News


News Publications

Pullout, Amnesty, What’s the Difference?
Posted by: Dale Franks on Friday, June 16, 2006

Jonah Goldberg compares and contrasts the Democrats response to recent goings on in Iraq.
For a couple of years now Democrats have increasingly demanded that America get out of Iraq now, soon or by a date certain. The Murtha bug-out chorus says “it’s not our fight,” “let the Iraqis handle it,” “let’s stay out of a civil war,” and, “we can’t win.”

So on Thursday the Washington Post ran a front-page story on how the democratically elected Iraqi government is considering offering amnesty for some insurgents as part of a larger “national reconciliation plan.”

In response, the Democratic leadership in Congress went ass over tea kettle.

“The mere idea that this proposal may go forward is an insult to the brave men and women who have died in the name of Iraqi freedom,” shrieked Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid. New Jersey Senator Bob Menendez a co-sponsor of the resolution demanding that the amnesty plan be immediately quashed, thundered: “We ask you Prime Minister Maliki, are you willing to have ‘reconciliation’ on the pool of American blood that has been spilled to give your people and your country a chance for freedom?” He continued: “We reject that notion and are outraged that the sacrifice of American troops and the American people could be so devalued.”

Florida Senator Bill Nelson says “Terrorists and insurgents shouldn’t be rewarded for killing American soldiers.” And, Chuck Schumer in a pitch perfect pose of deep regret and sadness lamented that insurgents were getting a “get out of jail free card.”

This is repugnant. Shame on them.

What on earth do these people think cutting and running from Iraq means? When they say, “it’s not our fight” and “it’s a civil war,” how do they envision this non-American conflict to be resolved after we depart?

...Look: Bugging out of Iraq is the greatest amnesty possible because it’s the only way the men who’ve shed American blood can not only get off scot-free but actually win the war. But that is precisely what Democrats want to do. These guys talk about how the sacrifices of American troops would be “devalued” by amnesty, but they see no devaluation of such sacrifice in surrender. They say they don’t want to “reward” those who spilled American blood through amnesty. But amnesty is the consolation prize. It is the set of steak knives and coupon to Chuck E. Cheese’s of rewards. Chasing the infidel American crusaders out of Iraq is the jackpot. And that is precisely what the Democrats are for.
I couldn't have said it better myself.

You can't call for an immediate pullout of Iraq, and leave the country to its own devices—which, at this point, might mean a full-scale civil war—then criticize the Iraqis who are trying to avoid a civil war by saying that an amnesty would, as Yoda might say about our troops, "destroy all for which they have fought and suffered." If an amnesty would negate our troops sacrifice in Iraq, then how does a pullout of Iraq not also do so?

If your primary interest is that our troops be removed from Iraq with all deliberate speed, then moaning about the sacrifices of our troops is nothing more than the cynical shedding of crocodile tears.
Return to Main Blog Page

Previous Comments to this Post 

Sure you can, guys when your objective is to "Beat Bush" not advance a serious policy alternative....Man it’s SO OBVIOUS.
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Having been exposed to the lunatic ravings of Harry Reid for the last few months, I think it is safe to say that if he is against it, there is something good to be said about it.
Written By: tmactual
URL: http://
I think you people seem confused between an unnecessary and incompetently managed war, and supporting freedom, our troops, and America’s security. But I don’t expect much from you folks pushing hard for incompetence to become America’s leading export.
Written By: George
URL: http://
There’s already a civil war. I’m not sure where you missed that one. Defending a get-out-of-jail-free-card for insurgents who murder Americans will cause even more Americans to be used as easy targets. It really isn’t a stretch of the imagination to understand this probability. Changing the course in Iraq is another topic altogether, and frankly, I’m surprised to see you’ve so easily bought into such an uncorrelated and flimsy moral argument.
Written By: Jude
It’s odd how Murtha’s comment to pull back, re-evaluate and monitor Iraq from the outside means "cut and run." This administration continues to broadcast that anything different than their position equals "cut and run." BS.
Written By: charlie
URL: http://

Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Vicious Capitalism


Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks