Murtha’s Cut-And-Run Plan Is Dead-On-Arrival
So says the Washington Post in Sunday’s edition.
The story of Murtha’s star-crossed plan illustrates the Democratic Party’s deep divisions over the Iraq war and how the new House majority has yet to establish firm control over Congress. From the beginning, Murtha acted on his own to craft a complicated legislative strategy on the war, without consulting fellow Democrats. When he chose to roll out the details on a liberal, antiwar Web site on Feb. 15, he caught even Pelosi by surprise while infuriating Democrats from conservative districts.
Then for an entire week, as members of Congress returned home for a recess, Murtha refused to speak further. Democratic leaders failed to step into the vacuum, and Republicans relentlessly attacked a plan they called a strategy to slowly bleed the war of troops and funds. By the end of the recess, Murtha’s once promising strategy was in tatters.
Tom Andrews, a former House member and antiwar activist who helped Murtha with his Internet rollout, fumed: “The issue to me is, what is the state of the backbone of the Democratic Party? How will they respond to this counterattack? Republicans are throwing touchdown passes on this because the Democrats aren’t even on the field.”
Keep going, Imperial Congress. America is watching….
And in the meantime, the Crazy-Blogo-Left continues their campaign to undermine America during wartime.
From DailyKos: …it is certainly conceivable that at some point in the future, the Bush administration will be able to provide genuine evidence of Iranian aid to militant groups in Iraq. Will it then follow that an attack on Iran is justified? The question is an interesting one: should we despise Iran for aiding the insurgent attacks that are killing our troops, or should we respect them for it?
Yes, folks, I do question the patriotism of those who would ”respect Iran in their killing of American troops.” I guess Democrats now think that killing our troops is also “supporting our troops“? Just like Hanoi Jane and Cambodia Kerry.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
19 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
[...] Original post by GayPatriot [...]
Pingback by Politics: 2008 HQ » Blog Archive » Murtha’s Cut-And-Run Plan Is Dead-On-Arrival — February 26, 2007 @ 9:18 am - February 26, 2007
Question to all the “Redeployment is not surrender” types.
The terrorists want us to leave Iraq. They are killing us for the purpose of getting out of Iraq.
So, if we get out of Iraq, how is that not losing the war? How is that not surrender?
Comment by V the K — February 26, 2007 @ 10:04 am - February 26, 2007
It appears the guy you are quoting is from the UK.
http://heathlander.wordpress.com/
So you cannot question the Dems patriotism but you can question this specific guy from the UK…
Its interesting how the right wing bloggers don’t say that. Instead you post everything the folks at LGF tell you to.
Comment by keogh — February 26, 2007 @ 10:18 am - February 26, 2007
Someone get 401k a reality check…RCP polling averages show that Congress has a LOWER approval rating than the President.
Yet you don’t hear of this in the Drive-By Media.
Bias? What bias?
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — February 26, 2007 @ 11:08 am - February 26, 2007
5. V the K, how do you know the terrorists want us to leave Iraq? Because they say so? Because the clowns in Iran so say as well? Maybe they really like things as they are, because they get to play with all their car bombs and other weapons, and kill as many Americans and many more Iraqis. And maybe they are just saying they want us to leave so that we interpret it to mean that we should stay? Who knows, and who cares what they think?
Despite my criticism of the Administration’s strategy of the war, the one thing that I hope is that they don’t listen to what these scum say. It is meaningless garbage with a basis only in their reality. The Administration needs to decide what the best strategy for the war on terror based on what the Administration thinks is best, not on empty words of terrorists and rogue states.
Terrorists seem to get emboldened no matter whether their perception is that we are winning, losing, surrendering, redeploying, etc. Whether or not the U.S. decides to stay in Iraq should not depend on what the warped perceptions the terrorists will have for the decision.
Comment by Pat — February 26, 2007 @ 11:47 am - February 26, 2007
V the K, how do you know the terrorists want us to leave Iraq? Because they say so? Because the clowns in Iran so say as well? Maybe they really like things as they are, because they get to play with all their car bombs and other weapons, and kill as many Americans and many more Iraqis. And maybe they are just saying they want us to leave so that we interpret it to mean that we should stay?
You’re overanalyzing them just a tad much, Pat.
As I pointed out before, once Hitler knew the rest of the world wouldn’t act against him no matter what he said, he simply started playing to the German people and telling them what they wanted and needed to hear, regardless of what anyone else thought about it. He simply said what he needed to say to keep his grip on power, and let the other countries rationalize why he didn’t really mean it and that they didn’t need to act.
Similarly, the Iraqi terrorists and insurgents, as well as the Iranian government, know that there is a large group of people, now in control of Congress, who won’t act against them no matter what they say. They thus are now saying what their followers need and want to hear, and letting Congressional Democrats and leftists globally rationalize why they don’t really mean it and why we don’t need to act.
In short, they expect us to do nothing, because we have a long history of doing nothing, while they whip their followers into a frenzy.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 26, 2007 @ 12:15 pm - February 26, 2007
How do you know the terrorists want us to leave Iraq?
My first hint was the way they’re shooting at us and stuff. And, I couple that with the regular demands from terrorist groups that the US leave. Since I don’t live in “Crazy Opposite World” where everything means the crazy opposite of what it apparently means, I’ll go with that. The terrorists and rogue states have pretty much kept their word as far as killing infidels and spreading terror so far, so I think they’ve earned credibility on that score.
The stated objective of the enemy is to drive the US out of Iraq. If we do that under conditions that will let the terrorists prevail and take over the country, we lose, they win. That’s how it works in Reality World, which is in a parallel dimension to Crazy Opposite World.
Comment by V the K — February 26, 2007 @ 12:19 pm - February 26, 2007
#5 –
Pat, I’m sorry, but you can’t be serious. Al Qaeda in Iraq have a rump state they have declared, called “The Islamic State of Iraq”. They want it to take over the country, as the cornerstone of an Islamic Caliphate which will then resume the 14-century Muslim project of trying to take over the world. How do we know? Because not only (1) they have said so explicitly, but (2) they are currently dying in Iraq to make it happen and have been for years, as well as (3) killing both Sunni and Shia Iraqis. No empty words.
Now the success of such plans would surely involve us being gone from Iraq, for starters. Wouldn’t you agree? Points (1), (2) and (3) apply equally to Iran, btw. (Iran currently has hundreds, if not thousands, of agents carrying out war and assassination in Iraq.)
Surely. So let’s look at what happens if we leave too soon (before Iraq’s democratic government has a grip on things):
- Iran and al Qaeda succeed in stirring up a full scale civil war and massive bloodbath in Iraq.
- The Kurds declare independence, and promptly get invaded by Turkey. (another bloodbath)
- The Islamic State of Iraq (the al Qaeda state in the Sunni areas) gets a new lease on life and begins drafting, brainwashing and training tens of thousands of new terrorists.
- Possibly, Iran invades Iraq to take over the Shia areas.
- America’s entire Mideast position collapses as the Saudis, the Kuwaitis, the Pakistanis, the Jordanians, the Afghans, the Egyptians, the Israelis, the Indians and so many others, realize our utter unreliability as an ally.
Comment by Calarato — February 26, 2007 @ 12:21 pm - February 26, 2007
Agreed. In fact, the reason Democrats have had to embrace the “crazy opposite” theory that whatever terrorists say they mean the opposite, is because Islamist and Democrat rhetoric has become increasingly indistinguishable.
Comment by V the K — February 26, 2007 @ 12:22 pm - February 26, 2007
#8: True, Cal, there is no probable consequence of US pullout that does not lead to massive bloodbath. But history tells us that liberals don’t care, the death of millions of brown people is a small price to pay for liberals getting to gloat over American defeat.
Take Vietnam for example. While smug liberals drank their chardonnay and toasted American defeat, over three million Vietnamese and Cambodians were slaughtered by the same people the liberals cheered on and helped put in power. Did liberals give a damn? No. Those pyramids of human skulls in the killing fields of Cambodia were the trophies of leftist triumph in Indochina.
The leftists will be high-fiving each other as mass graves are dug in Iraq.
Comment by V the K — February 26, 2007 @ 12:26 pm - February 26, 2007
I think the topic of this thread was Murtha’s “Slow Bleed” plan was dead on arrival and the Left is really, really undermining American resolve.
The part of the WaPo piece that cracks me up is how the MSMLeft bias screams out with this line:
“By the end of the recess, Murtha’s once promising strategy was in tatters.”
Once promising???
Once promising???
What the heck… that takes the cake for the MSMLeft bias example.
The first order of business after the next conservative revolution ought to be to nationalize the press, tax all newspaper owners into poverty, and prohibit any journalism student from getting student loans! And organizing rioting mobs to burn down the local TV and radio stations.
OK, I need a break… I’ll go burn some newspapers in the fireplace.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — February 26, 2007 @ 12:47 pm - February 26, 2007
Yeah Matt. If it did any of those things, it would be a Left revolution – not conservative.
What the next conservative revolution ought to do is rip down more “barriers to entry” in the media business, and in the business world generally. The more competitors the biased MSM must face, the better off we all are.
Comment by Calarato — February 26, 2007 @ 1:03 pm - February 26, 2007
6, NDT, actually my point is we shouldn’t be analyzing the words at all. I do understand that there is some historical context, and yes, lo and behold, they actually might really mean what they say. Because Hitler did it, doesn’t mean they mean it. We need to be prepared either way.
8, Calarato, yes, I am serious. I don’t disagree with the points that you made about Al Qaeda’s purposes and the Iraq that they want. In fact, I’ll even go further and say what they envision is even worse than what you have stated.
One of the rationales I’ve heard for staying in Iraq, is that it brings terrorists to Iraq, and by keeping them there, we can capture and kill them more easily. The opposite may also be true. I’m sure that their goal is for eventually the U.S. to get out of Iraq. But in the meantime, they can try and kill as many American soldiers as possible, and as a bonus, kill and maim thousands of Iraqis whether they are on “their” side or not, since their thirst of blood is so great. Keep the war going as long as possible and bleed trillions of U.S. dollars away while not stabilizing Iraq.
I don’t know if that reflects Al Qaeda’s and Iran’s strategy, but I don’t think the above is implausible. And even if the above is true, I don’t think that by itself would justify getting out of Iraq.
It is just my opinion that this strategy as it stands is not working. I believe by having the surge with no additional change of strategy is not going to work either (although I hope I’m wrong).
V the K and I actually agreed on a solution in one of the other threads. Have those in both parties who are serious about winning the war on terror get together with military and intelligence experts, etc., and come up with a real plan.
If such were to happen, it would seem to me that the plan would necessarily include future military action. It would also include different rules of engagement necessary to defeat the enemy. One problem, of course, it’s hard to deal with an enemy who couldn’t care less about international law, the lives of their enemy combatants as well as their own people. It does not appear that we can defeat the terrorists with the current rules of engagement.
Unfortunately, what may end up happening is that we may be in a situation where we go to the limit of what is allowed by our law and international law in terms of rules of engagement, and still have an increasing threat of terrorism. Then what?
Comment by Pat — February 26, 2007 @ 2:31 pm - February 26, 2007
Semi-OT: The Cleanest, Most Ethical Congress in History Marches On.
Comment by V the K — February 26, 2007 @ 3:06 pm - February 26, 2007
But in the meantime, they can try and kill as many American soldiers as possible, and as a bonus, kill and maim thousands of Iraqis whether they are on “their” side or not, since their thirst of blood is so great.
If Muslim jihadists kill Muslims, Pat, what exactly does that do for their propaganda that they are only fighting “infidels” in the name of the faith? Think of the reaction across the Muslim world to the Amman bombings in 2005, and you’ll see what I mean.
Meanwhile, I would rather have our soldiers being shot at, when they are deployed and ready, rather than as they were in the Beirut bombing, in the Khobar Towers bombing, in the East African embassy bombings, and everywhere else to where we “withdrew” under the insistence of leftists like Murtha that “they wouldn’t follow us” and that it was “protecting our troops”.
Keep the war going as long as possible and bleed trillions of U.S. dollars away while not stabilizing Iraq.
Do you know where the lion’s share of US military spending goes, Pat?
1. Paying the troops — who are American
2. Buying military equipment — which, by law, is limited primarily to American companies who build the bulk of the equipment here in the United States
3. Paying US contractors
bin Laden and his fanatical ilk do not understand this, because they are not a nation. If they want weapons, they have to pay someone else to get them, and that money is gone to them. But in our case, the government pays a US manufacturer for building them, who in term pays its employees and shareholders, who then in turn pay taxes on their earnings back to the government.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 26, 2007 @ 3:55 pm - February 26, 2007
#15 – And ND30, don’t forget the USS Cole. Which, by the way, could have been avoided if Slick Willie had not been getting a BJ in the Oval Orifice.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — February 26, 2007 @ 5:02 pm - February 26, 2007
But in our case, the government pays a US manufacturer for building them, who in term pays its employees and shareholders, who then in turn pay taxes on their earnings back to the government.
Thats pretty much the theory behind socialism!
Comment by keogh — February 26, 2007 @ 5:41 pm - February 26, 2007
I have a slightly more modest fantasy. My fantasy is to fire the entire WSJ editiorial board and replace them with undocumented workers who do their jobs for a tenth the pay and no benefits.
Comment by V the K — February 26, 2007 @ 6:24 pm - February 26, 2007
I like your fantasy, too, VdaK. But I won’t give up on closing down Columbia’s School of Journalism, ending student loans for journalism students… or burning down a couple of media facilities for now.
Besides, if those undocumented workers can be illegal immigrants, I’m betting they can do a better job than any WASP in a white shirt and bright tie.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — February 27, 2007 @ 10:06 am - February 27, 2007