This Is What I Meant ...

... when I wrote this post.  The Democrats in the Senate were unsatisfied with the 93-6 vote against withdrawing troops by the end of this year, and are going to offer a resolution for "a timetable for a phased withdrawal"  I've read the story.  I haven't seen the resolution, but to this point I see no indication that the Democrats are considering any of the contingencies, victory benchmarks if you will, that I mentioned.  (And I'm sure there are others that I overlooked.)  If so, if the resolution does not make troop withdrawals contingent upon achieving those benchmarks, then it is worthless as policy.  It would be a statement that victory, to them, means nothing.  It would be a statement that defeating President George W. Bush is more important than defeating terrorist thugs who dream of destroying America and Americans.

It is a statement of fundamental unseriousness about national security.  And it would send a message to the Americans whom Democrats hope to convince to vote them power that they cannot be trusted with national security.

For more fundamental unseriousness about national security, check out these proposals, one from the last Democrat to run for president and another from the veteran and legislator that all Democrats seem to be looking to for leadership.

6/18/06 2200:  Yeah, this veteran and legislator. (Video at Expose The Left)

6/19/06 0620:  This legislator, who thinks cutting and running from Somalia was a sound strategy.  It was so sound that Osama Bin Laden would be thrilled to see us repeat it time and again.  Who thinks China and Iran would allow us airspace for travel and refueling to the Iraq theater from Okinawa?