The Full Murtha Is Underway
By streiff Posted in Democrats — Comments (26) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
From Reid and Pelosi to the President:
Surging forces is a strategy that you have already tried and that has already failed. Like many current and former military leaders, we believe that trying again would be a serious mistake. They, like us, believe there is no purely military solution in Iraq. There is only a political solution. Adding more combat troops will only endanger more Americans and stretch our military to the breaking point for no strategic gain. And it would undermine our efforts to get the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future. We are well past the point of more troops for Iraq.
…Rather than deploy additional forces to Iraq, we believe the way forward is to begin the phased redeployment of our forces in the next four to six months, while shifting the principal mission of our forces there from combat to training, logistics, force protection and counter-terror. A renewed diplomatic strategy, both within the region and beyond, is also required to help the Iraqis agree to a sustainable political settlement. In short, it is time to begin to move our forces out of Iraq and make the Iraqi political leadership aware that our commitment is not open ended, that we cannot resolve their sectarian problems, and that only they can find the political resolution required to stabilize Iraq.
That didn't take long.
« Corrupt Democrat Watch, July 10 Edition, Part One — Comments (20) | Senator Boxer Withdraws Award to Muslim Activist — Comments (3) »
The Full Murtha Is Underway 26 Comments (0 topical, 26 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
To follow up on what streiff wrote, those two have the ability to bring this to a head right now. They've certainly had enough time to think about it, and we've been told over and over and over again by their partisans that it's a battle that they're supposed to be able to win.
So let's see 'em do it.
Excuse-time is over, kids. Put up, or shaddup.
Moe
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
what they're trying to do is to make Bush make the decisions they are afraid to make and be able to avoid the consequences of their duplicity.
by simply saying they will withold funds for everything unless we declare defeat.
This could get very ugly.
If W had sold and led this right, we would not be in this position. But, and more importantly, the dhimmies have refused to be led, have refused to go along, and have undermined at every step.
This could easily turn into a plague on our entire house; not just the dhimmies or us.
to put up or shut up, Bush included. He needs to extend his declaration of war from Islamofacists to include Congressional Democrats (and Hagel) and the media.
I'm really, really tired of compassionate war making and bipartisanship.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
on Americans?
OK, yeah, that's a winning idea sure to make the country even stronger.
I agree, though, that if the Dems want to do this, do it sooner rather than later, and take responsibility for it.
And it was meant as a personal attack, I'll apologize to the Directors later.
The media has gone out of their way to support the enemy. From publishing only stories designed to paint the worst possible picture of events in Iraq to printing classified documents and programs. They are giving aid and comfort to the enemy, whether the Administration has the courage to charge them or not.
With respect to Congressional Democrats, see the previous paragraph.
These two institutions are and have been for the last four years at least to undercut our efforts in Iraq. In the living room of this military family, that makes them the enemy.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
-----------------------
Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman
what really is a sincere apology to a new guy. I won't bother with a commentary on my temper. I knew better. It was obvious.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
and I apologize if I came off as disrespectful to you.
I don't often agree with you (I lurk often) but I never doubt your sincerity.
As well, I can't begin to imagine what it must be like for your family now. Despite your obvious pride, it still must be hard, and my thoughts are with your family.
And they're fine.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
and the name-calling to go along with it.
Here's the deal: Despite your wishes, the media likely won't face charges. Deal with the reality.
And I've seen no evidence that your wish to declare war on Americans--your words, not mine--will go over well with the public at large. Do you have any evidence? Please, do share.
You really want to go down this rabbit hole, declaring an every increasing part of the American public as the enemy? I say increasing because this war just keeps getting more unpopular, and even wise fools such as Baker say the govt has underreported the bad situation in Iraq--hardly a boost for people who want to blame the media for our problems.
No, I don't think the media is all that great, but to declare them and millions of other Americans as the enemy is hardly a winning idea. I mean, do you think Iraq and the GWOT will go any easier by dividing this country even further into camps, or treating Americans as the enemy?
If so, go for it. Seriously, do your best. See what happens, see how much better this country will be, and how well the "enemies" co-operate with your views and, I assume, any actions you have in mind.
I agree with the last part of your characterization of Baker but I can't say I can agree a bit with the first part.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
...the American Public, for their own good ofcourse, BUT don't be surprised when they don't respond positively to our 'wakeup call'.
Yes, Yes, they really should have voted Republican and they really should have more patience with Iraq. But they didn't see the wisdom and we'd better find a more positive way to win them back.
There were only three (3) sentences in the original comment.
I hope they do make it ugly. It's time for everybody to put up or shut up, Bush included. He needs to extend his declaration of war from Islamofacists to include Congressional Democrats (and Hagel) and the media.
I thought that there were only 535 total members of Congress. Not all of those are Democrats. My comment, repeated above refers to Congressional Democrats, a subset of the "American People".
One of the main reasons that, as you correctly note, the war is unpopular is that it is attacked daily by the press and the CD's and the Administration has done a pathetic job of countering their attacks. The Administration wrongly thinks the media and the CD's have the same objective, winning and establishing a democratic government, in Iraq.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
To be honest, you're part of an irrelevant passing parade. Go ahead and side with the cut and run crowd and when the Middle East falls like Indochina did 30 years ago, don't be shocked when the slaughter doesn't stop over there. Don't be shocked when a few mushroom clouds pop up over major U.S. cities complements of the Iranians you and Baker turned the Middle East over to.
If you think calling the Left for what they are and enforcing the law discomforts you, wait and see how discomforted you are in the aftermath of your surrender. Standing up to traitors in our midst will seem like the good old days.
You missed the part where they declared war on the President four years ago. He's the one they wake every obsessed with toppling and destroying, the price to the country be damned.
Bush would only be acknowledging what's already been declared.
The democrats have always been the party of leave before the job is done. In the South after the civil war they left early and the KKK and others ran the place, it took another 100 years before the place was livable for all. WWII we left vast countries in the east to be dominated for 50 years. Vietnam was left, millions died after that and not one LL democrat cared. In Iraq they want to leave now(actually a few years ago) and all those people that helped us or tried to improve their country will either be killed or forced to leave. But do not worry, the democrats will save all polar bears and owls in the world.
I see this abbreviation on RS frequently enough. What's its meaning, please?
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Its usually best to get these things over quickly and early. Once its done you can start to work to fix things. They can take a lot of pain early and hope that everyone forgets by 2008.
They have a couple of benefits to making this strategy work. The press is non critical concerning democrats. They will have control of congress hence the ability to create distractions prior to the elections.
Their one downside is they have to hope their base manages to be satisfied with them trying but not succeeding. OH GEEZ I just remembered who I am talking about of course that will fly with their base. Its worked for the past 70 years.
Veritas magna est et praevalet.
vision of what to do in Iraq, we have an answer from the Democrat Party of the United States as dictated by their congressional leadership: Declare defeat and run away. Surrender.
Good. Fine. Predictability is a noble quality some of the time. It is in some ways quite comforting.
So, they've made their choice. I dare them to try to get the Adminstration to go along with it. In public. With cameras rolling. Often.
Please.
-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, in response to the question, "Are we at war, Helen?" - posed by then-White House spokesman Scott McClellan.
they had to do for their base, though of course it won't satisfy them. There seems to be a widely held idea that by winning control of Congress they get to dictate foreign policy and specifically the course of the war.
Everything will change next week when the President outlines hi new plan for Iraq and goes to the country to sell it. This letter will go the way of the ISG.
By the way, an interesting development: the President's job approval ratings, which have tanked since the election, rose sharply after the New Year according to Rasmussen. December was the Presient's worst month ever, mired at an average 39% and often lower. On Jan 3 though he was at 43, and today he is at 45%.
Which, by the way, is HIGHER than Nancy Pelosi's approval, which has risen to 43 after one solid month of media buildup. Rasmussen thinks Bush's rise might be due to Saddam's execution, or perhaps the reality of the awfuless of the Democratic takeover. I however think it's the fact that Mr Bush has signaled that he wants to win in Iraq.
but I don't understand how it's even effective in that sense. They're saying that they read in the news that *part* of the plan might include a troop surge, and then imply that his *entire* plan will consist of a troop surge by saying that a "purely military solution" won't work. Everybody already knows that a purely military solution won't work. They *don't* advance an argument that a troop surge would be ineffective regardless of the political/economic/social components of the plan.
I guess it's "effective" precisely because it confounds part of the plan with the whole thing -- an association which will be much more difficult to assert after President Bush announces the whole plan. If people have it in their minds that "many of our senior military leaders" disagree with a troop surge, they'll think that those same leaders disagree with Bush's plan if it includes a troop surge.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...