Hillary's War Policy: WIMP OUT

This morning's New York Daily News published a column co-authored by Senator Robert Byrd (D - West Virginia) and Presidential Candidate Senator Hillary Clinton (D - New York).
You can read the entire column here

The main point of the article is that tried and true Democratic talking point:

Today, more than 150,000 members of our armed forces are caught in a civil war. According to the Pentagon, overall levels of violence in Iraq have not decreased since the surge began. The last three months have been the deadliest period for American troops since the start of the war. It is time for the waiting to end and for our troops to start to come home.

This argument is specious and dangerous. The Democrats, if successful, will only hand Iraq over to Iran... read my posts here, here, and here.

The principal question remains, when will the Administration, the Republican Leadership in the Congress, and or the Republican Presidential Candidates have the gumption to call this cowardice what it is: a plan for handing victory in the war on terror to the shia branch of Islam, led by the murderous gang of Ayatollah's in Iran.

Senator's Byrd and Clinton also mis-characterize the situation in Iraq and the success of the surge:

According to the Pentagon, overall levels of violence in Iraq have not decreased since the surge began. The last three months have been the deadliest period for American troops since the start of the war.

For more realistic assessment by someone who is on the ground in Iraq read the interview in todays' New York Post here

But beyond that, the implication of these two Senators argument is that body count is the way to count victory. This is heinous, obnoxious, and cowardly. The idea behind the surge is to take the fight to the enemy, clear them out, and then hold the ground. This means there will be more troops in the country, increasing the number in harm's way. It also means more combat in which brave young soldiers will be asked to sacrifice their lives for liberty.

Senator Byrd and Clinton don't believe in these principles. To them, no fight is worth having. They would rather surrender freedom than fight and die. The problem with pacifism is: if there is nothing you are willing to fight for, then there is nothing that you value.

So the question for Senator Clinton is: How much do you value freedom?