Between Cooler Heads and Fruitloops: No Dem unity on Iraq
House Dems tried to caucus Tuesday
By Mark Kilmer Posted in War — Comments (7) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
House Democrats caucused on Iraq Tuesday, but they remained split on how best to use the situation politically. Sure, the WashPost is trying to breathe some life into the Murtha-Pelosi "Slow Bleed" plan:
More than a week after Rep. John P. Murtha (Pa.) detailed plans that he said would curtail deployments to Iraq, Pelosi and other Democratic leaders said the coming debate on war funding would be about forcing the administration to live up to existing military requirements. War funds would be redirected toward equipment, such as night-vision goggles, that some troops lack. Democrats would insist on giving combat troops a year off between deployments, and they could impose restrictions on Pentagon policies that extend combat tours.
But it's going nowhere. The political costs are potentially too high for the Democrats, and despite the Murtha-Pelosi recklessness, this won't be dumped on the caucus's cooler heads. (For the House Democrats, a "cool head" is still boiling-point-plus-one, but it's not the Murtha-Pelosi level of insanity.)
Read More...
In fact, cooler heads, in that sense anyway, can be heard:
At a meeting of Democrats in the House of Representatives, a proposal was floated to give President George W. Bush some flexibility with the conditions in his push to send 21,500 more troops to Iraq.
It was unclear if a majority of Democrats would embrace the proposal, but under the plan Bush would be permitted to sign a waiver on a demand that all troops be properly trained, equipped and rested, said Rep. Chet Edwards, a moderate Texas Democrat.
"I think it's responsible to put in waivers that would require the president to take responsibility for troops not being trained or not having been back home for a year before returning to Iraq," Edwards said. "At the same time, it gives him the flexibility if that is needed." [my emphasis
If Murtha-Pelosi were about troop safety instead of slow bleed, which Murtha has boasted is not the case, giving the President a waiver power would not be a possibility. It slow-bleeds the Murtha-Pelosi slow bleed plan but makes the President absorb any political damage. If the safety of the troops were the main concern, this would not be on the table. Edwards sees through Murtha-Pelosi slow bleed: it is a political tactic, not a military strategy. (The former is, of course, is within the purview of Congress; the latter is not, and had better not be.)
Edwards has heard:
Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, said the conditions pushed by Democrats would cut the number of U.S. combat troops in Iraq and "leave gaps on the battlefield. … It would have enormous effect on the battlefield with regard to what is required and what is available."
Has he heard this?
"Our deploying units will be manned, trained and equipped and they will be ready for their specified missions," Maj. Gen. Richard Formica, the U.S. Army's director of force management, told reporters.
But who is the Army's director of force management to contradict a bitter, old chairman of a defense appropriations subcommittee? Or Nancy, for that matter, who told General Formica:
"Well, we'll see," replied House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat. "But there are two other points. How long have they been home ... and how long will they have to stay."
Sure, Nancy. And like Billy Arkin would say, "Obscene amenities, maaaan." (I assume, then, that Arkin would favor Bush-Pace-Formica to Murtha-Pelosi-Sadr, but there's no telling what that idiot is thinking, and it's a worthless argument in which to engage anyway.)
As the WashPost relates, Senate Dems are in such disarray that they are spending time on implementing every jot and tittle of the questionable and now outdated 9-11 Commission Report in order to avoid confronting their internal fissures:
Senate Democratic leaders said [Cheese Whiz] Feingold's concerns are not insurmountable. To the greatest extent possible, they are seeking to maintain public unity on Iraq, despite a wide range of views within the party.
As the Republicans have also learned, that is nearly impossible when your conference contains a few fruitloops. That being said, I'd prefer to think that the gentleman from Nebraska is not motivated entirely by Presidential politics.
« We need more COIN in the Afghan realm — Comments (0) | Sensationalism Abated — Comments (1) »
Between Cooler Heads and Fruitloops: No Dem unity on Iraq 7 Comments (0 topical, 7 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
The Democrats are actually having a real debate on the topic, and enrich the discussion on this Iraqi Occupation by expressing several points of view. If you are for the troops, then I think it should go without saying that they are adequetly trained and equipped to go out into the field and do the job as their very best.
The Republicans, by in large, have been sniffing whatever Bush/Cheney's been farting out and repeating it as the party line as "How sweet it is". But now everyone sees the chunks.
First of all, the "training" argument was taken down here.
And the idea that the elected Democrats in DC give a tinkers dam about the US military, other than to find ways to hinder their operations in the field and redirect military spending into social programs, is simply foolish. Or stupid. Or stupid and foolish.
Refer please to Dick Durbin's comments about Nazis and Pol Pot or John Kerry's entire career. Or anything the congressman from PA, Rep. Off has done or said. Other than directing military contracts to his brother.
____
Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged. — J. Michael Waller
You want us to ban you: fine. But I have umpteen different things to do before the end of the day and I really don't have the time to wait for you to get everything just so before it's your Special Time. So either get cracking, or else come back next week. You're holding up the line.
Well, what are you waiting for? Excrete something from your mouth, already!
Moe
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
there's not a Democrat in the Country that would know or care if an American Soldier/Murderer is properly equipped and trained. This is all the standard Democrat "we can do it better" game while they do nothing and try to figure out a way to surrender. I have a very well trained and well equipped kid somewhere "south of Kandahar" who's making the World safe for idiots like you to spout this crap.
I suspect you have a rondezvous with management in your future; so enjoy your stay here.
In Vino Veritas
Re: "Senate Dems are in such disarray that they are spending time on implementing every jot and tittle of the questionable and now outdated 9-11 Commission Report in order to avoid confronting their internal fissures"
The more time they waste on stupidity like this, the less damage they can actually do. Does anyone think the public will be fooled by this in, say, 2008?
on a political level. The Dems are digging several holes for themselves in which to scatter their remains, but this is not politics. Or it shouldn't be. If any of this "great Democratic debate" is getting through to our troops in Baghdad, God help them if it is even in the back of their minds as they do their jobs.
Sam Johnson's recent speech, given a standing ovation by House Democrats, still rings in my ears.
Anti-war Democrats = Copperheads
After reading a recent book review at the American Thinker, Copperheads during the Civil War were those Northerners who essentially wanted peace at any price, railed against Lincoln's supposed lack of intelligence and sophistication, and overall competence as a leader. Copperheads were also seen as aiding the enemy by their words and attempted deeds. I can think of no more of an apt term than Copperheads.
See http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/02/americas_neocopperheads.html