403-3 Against An Iraq Pullout
Only three Democrats voted for the resolution when it was couched in direct terms as an immediate pullout, and one of the three was the pro-Arab congresswoman from Georgia, Cynthia McKinney. Six other Democrats voted "present," effectively abstaining. Not a single Californian voted no or abstained.
It's similar to the Civil War, when Lincoln used to call the Democrats' bluff now and then. The Democrats kept saying to negotiate with the South. Had they had their way, the Union would not have been saved and slavery not ended. Fortunately, they were never able to come close to prevailing in Congress.
The bottom line now is this: Were the U.S. and its allies to leave Iraq, it would fall under the control of al Queda and, in time, every Mideastern country would be threatened with a Caliphate and the oil would fall under the control of that Caliphate.
So difficult as the war is, and it is difficult, we can't afford to lose, and even most Democrats know that. There are a few cut and runners in the Senate, like Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, but they can only make a lot of noise. They are the old Democratic party appeasers from the Civil War days.
While the U.S. press was paying a lot of attention to Rep. John P. Murtha this week, something important was happening in the Mideast. That was King Abdullah's emphatic stand against Al-Zarqawi, and Zarqawi's threat to cut the King's head off. The king was one of the first of the Arabs to really take an all out position against the blood-soaked barbarians. If enough others do, al-Queda is certainly going to be beaten.
It would, it seems to me, be helpful if President Bush did shake up his war command, relieving the tired Donald Rumsfeld and bringing in John McCain to be Defense Secretary.
But cut and run? When it came right down to it in the House, only three representatives wanted to do that. Now, the wisest thing to do would be to shut up and let the war be fought. The press should cut the administration a little slack, perhaps.