Boehner: Democrats Have No Plan for Iraq

Via email:

House Democrats have taken many positions on the Global War on Terror but have never advanced a real plan for victory. A brief look at the Democrats' positions on the war in Iraq illustrates this very fact, reinforcing the point Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) has made numerous times: "Democrats have no plan for success in Iraq."

Before the new strategy for success was announced in January, Democrats - as recently as December - said the troops needed reinforcements:

"We have a responsibility now in Iraq there. And we have to get more troops on the ground." Would you send more American troops in order to stabilize the situation? "Yes." (Then Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), NBC's Meet the Press, May 30, 2004)

"We have to consider the need for additional troops to be in Iraq , to take out the militias and stabilize Iraq ...We certainly can't leave Iraq and run the risk that it becomes [like] Afghanistan . We need 20,000 to 30,000 more troops." (Rep. Silvestre Reyes (D-TX), Newsweek, December 5th, 2006)

But immediately after the new strategy was announced, Democrats reversed their position and now oppose troop reinforcements:

"Escalating our military involvement in Iraq sends precisely the wrong message and we oppose it." (Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Press Release, January 10, 2007)

"We don't have the capability to escalate even to this minimal level [20,000 troops]...President Bush's decision to send more troops into Iraq is the wrong one." (Rep. Silvestre Reyes (D-TX), Washington Times, January 13, 2007)

Before, Democrats said a "precipitous withdrawal" from Iraq would be disastrous:

"I believe that a precipitous withdrawal of American forces in Iraq could lead to disaster, spawning a civil war, fostering a haven for terrorists and damaging our nation's security and credibility. I still believe that we can - and that we must - achieve success in Iraq ." (Then Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD), Press Release, November 30, 2005)

Rep. Ike Skelton (D-MO) said pulling troops out prematurely would make Iraq a "snakepit for terrorists" and that imposing a timetable for withdrawal would be "counterproductive." (Reuters, December 7, 2005)

Now, they want a "redeployment" within six months:

"We should begin the phased redeployment of our forces within the next six months." (Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD), address at the Brookings Institution, January 26, 2007)

Democrats claim to support our troops, but not if it means giving them reinforcements or supporting their new mission:

"I'm saying two things. We will always support the troops who are there. But if the president wants to expand the mission, that's a conversation he has to have with the Congress of the United States ." (Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), CBS Face the Nation, January 07, 2007)

Democrats are against a precipitous withdrawal, but are also against giving our troops in harm's way the reinforcements they need to succeed. They say they support America 's troops, but they oppose their mission. They decry the new plan for victory before it has had a chance to succeed, but they don't have a plan of their own. They say we must win the Global War on Terror, but they want to abandon Iraq and leave it to al Qaeda. Democrats can't have it both ways.

The most important challenge facing the nation today cannot be addressed with political ambiguities, nor can it be solved by leaving Iraq in chaos. So there are two big questions the Democrats still cannot answer:

1) If you don't like the President's strategy, what is your plan for success?

2) If your resolution is not a first step toward cutting funds for the troops and their mission, why did you block the Republican resolution offered by Rep. Sam Johnson (R-TX) that would have protected funding for America 's troops in harm's way?