The most dramatic statement in the president’s State of the Union address Tuesday night did not come from the president, and it was made without speaking a single word.
During his speech, President Bush spoke with conviction about the importance of achieving victory in Iraq:
“This is not the fight we entered in Iraq, but it is the fight we are in. Every one of us wishes that this war were over and won. Yet it would not be like us to leave our promises unkept, our friends abandoned, and our own security at risk. Ladies and gentlemen: On this day, at this hour, it is still within our power to shape the outcome of this battle. So let us find our resolve, and turn events toward victory.”
The majority party’s response to that statement, and others, made more of an impression on me than anything the president said. In response to his call to “turn events toward victory,” the majority of congressional Democrats sat on their hands.
President Bush went on to speak of the consequences of failure in Iraq: “Nothing is more important at this moment in our history than for America to succeed in the Middle East … to succeed in Iraq … and to spare the American people from this danger.”
But most congressional Democrats’, led by their new speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, remained seated and did not applaud.
Body language often says much more than any words. Even my 6-year-old daughter can immediately detect which of the apologies her older sister is occasionally ordered to make to her are sincere — and which are not. I am not an expert in body language, but I can identify basic signs such as smiles, frowns and applause. During the State of the Union speech, it appeared to me that almost every time the president made a reference to victory in Iraq, the majority of congressional Democrats had a visible negative response.
One milblogger wrote that he was disappointed that so many “sat silent on a call to victory in Iraq, yet stood in ovation at the call to support the troops.” He continued, “If this is how you support us, please, just stop.”
Bryan Preston, who recently returned from Iraq where he reported as an embed, also reacted to congressional Democrats’ response to the president’s speech: “Still, it’s revealing that the Democrats stand up when the president mentions Darfur, where there are no U.S. troops and won’t be any U.S. troops — but sit on their hands when he mentions Iraq, where there are U.S. troops and where there will be U.S. troops fighting hard for a while to come. What possesses a group of people to take Sudan more seriously than Iraq … to rank the importance of international crises in an inverse relationship to those crises‚ effect on U.S. national security?”
Preston went on to ask congressional Democrats “why is it that many of them seem to believe the U.S. is capable of addressing the conflict and genocide in Darfur, yet is not considered capable of achieving victory in Iraq?”
I fear the answer to that question can be found in what Steve Schippert described almost a year ago as the “degeneration of American politics” — which “has been palpable, fueled by the successes of anti-military media coverage developed during the Vietnam era and skillfully maintained and nearly perfected since then.”
This battle being fought in the arena of American politics, Schippert says, is as important as the war we are fighting against the terrorists. “That we must defend [America] from ourselves is heartbreaking. … We dare not pause to rest lest we lose her from within.”
I understand, even appreciate, internal political debate, especially when it comes to the important issues of foreign policy and national security. There is a difference, however, between disagreement over methods and implementation, and the more basic disagreement over whether or not the final goal is to pursue victory, rather than defeat through surrender.
I sincerely hope congressional Democrats have not decided to choose failure in Iraq. I prefer to believe they are just unable to envision victory. Either way, the result is the same.
What I saw during the State of the Union address this week leads me to believe that congressional Democrats will not “stand” for victory in Iraq.
Lorie Byrd is a member of The Examiner’s Blog Board.
