The Washington Times - March 21, 2007, 12:11PM
1. The Democrats‘ slow-bleed scheme would micromanage the war in Iraq and choke off resources for America’s generals and troops on the ground. \ \ 2. The Democrats’ slow-bleed scheme would mandate failure of the new strategy even before General Petraeus — the same General Petraeus who was unanimously confirmed by every single Senate Democrat — and his commanders in the field are able to fully implement their plans. \ 3. The Democrats’ slow-bleed scheme would lead to a contagion of violence spilling out across the entire country of Iraq, and, in time, the entire region.\ \ 4. The Democrats’ slow-bleed scheme would place freedom and democracy in Iraq at grave risk.\ \ 5. The Democrats’ slow-bleed scheme would telegraph to the terrorists how they can achieve victory, and ultimately lead to more — and not less — terrorism in Iraq.\ \ 6. The Democrats’ slow-bleed scheme would ignore the lessons of September 11th, providing terrorists a safe haven from which to plot and launch attacks against Americans.\ \ 7. The Democrats’ slow-bleed scheme would represent an unconstitutional infringement upon the authority of the president as commander-in-chief. \ \ 8. The Democrats’ slow-bleed scheme would cut off funding targeted to develop the Iraqi Security Forces, undermine the administration’s plan to develop the Iraqi economy, and undercut every effort to achieve economic, social, and political success in the burgeoning democracy. \ \ 9. The Democrats’ slow-bleed scheme would add billions in unnecessary domestic spending at the expense of our troops, whether it be $74 million for peanut storage, $25 million for spinach farmers, or $5 million for tropical fish.\ \ 10. The Democrats’ slow-bleed scheme is going nowhere. If it were to pass Congress — a big “if” at the moment — the president has rightfully stated he will veto it.
— S.A. Miller, Capitol Hill correspondent, The Washington Times SEE RELATED: