Biden On Why Dems Are Dangerous

Of course, Joe Biden didn't set out to write on op/ed in WaPo on why Dems threaten the future of America, but that's what he ended up with. Here's an indisputed leader of the Democratic Party, the senior Dem on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, a man who sees himself as president and has assembled the sort of top-tier staff such men assemble.

And here's the fruit of all that excellence, the best the Dems can offer. He begins,

The question most Americans want answered about Iraq is this: When will our troops come home?

Yes, that's an important question, but Americans capable of thinking back to 9/11 have a different primary question: Are we being effective in stopping global terrorism? We want our troops' heroic deaths to be for a victorious cause.

Then he presents his plan:

First, we need to build political consensus, starting with the constitution. Sunnis must accept that they no longer rule Iraq. But unless Shiites and Kurds give them a stake in the new deal, they will continue to resist. We must help produce a constitution that will unite Iraq, not divide it.

Forgive my naivity, but isn't there an election in Iraq on Dec. 15, in which free Iraqis will vote in their elected representatives who will finalize the constitution our troops' blood has helped move forward? The Sunnis understand all this more than Biden does.

If we are to cut and run, what influence will we have in helping produce a uniting constitution? Our efforts in that regard are longstanding and ongoing -- or they will be if Biden and his ilk let them continue.

Second, we must build Iraq's governing capacity and overhaul the reconstruction program. Iraq's ministries are barely functional. Sewage in the streets, unsafe drinking water and a lack of electricity are all too common. With 40 percent unemployment in Iraq, insurgents do not lack for fresh recruits.

I wonder what a President Biden would do that's different than what's being done? Would he still be repeating these big Dem lies? Would he admit that there was sewage in the streets, unsafe drinking water, a lack of electricity and unemployment under Saddam, and that we're continuously improving the Iraqis quality of life?

Would he ignore, as he does here, the number of "insurgents" recruited from foreign lands because there aren't enough Iraqis for Zarqawi's campaign against Iraqis? Would Biden admit that the Sunnis he so wants included in the constitution are the ones who are blowing themselves up in order to kill the Shiites?

The third goal is to transfer authority to Iraqi security forces. ... The president must set a schedule for getting Iraqi forces trained to the point that they can act on their own or take the lead with U.S. help.

What is this fixation with schedules? Is it akin to the Dem's strategy for better schools: Set goals, pour in money, then say you've met the goals? Isn't the right strategy simply to train, train, train and equip, equip, equip, until Iraqi forces are fully capable? Would setting an unreasonably short schedule alter the timing of this fully supported strategy? No, it would only weaken the results.

We also need an effective counterinsurgency strategy. The administration finally understands the need not only to clear territory but also to hold and build on it. We have never had enough U.S. troops to do that. Now there is no choice but to gamble on the Iraqis. We can help by changing the mix of our forces to include more embedded trainers, civil affairs units and Special Forces.

We should have had more troops in, they say now, as they say they want the troops out. Wanting more troops has always been the Dem's weak excuse for hawkishness, but it requires them to say they know more about military strategy than the generals running the campaign -- so they simply say it's the president who's saying he knows more about military strategy than the generals, not them.

How exactly would more troops be effective against IED's? And excuse me, but haven't we already begun changing our mix of forces? And if we begin siezing and holding terrorities, won't we really be the occupation forces he criticizes elsewhere in this piece?

And I can't wait until the Iraqi press translates "no choice but to gamble on the Iraqis" and passes it on to everyone in Iraq. Won't Zarqawi have fun with that? Won't it help his shakey in-Iraq recruiting efforts?

This is one of the best Dems? That's scary -- but not as scary as the fact that John Kerry, saying much the same stuff, got 47% of the vote.