Talk Talk
PJM in Seattle (H/T)

Congress has decided to make itself useful. Congress has started talking. Congress doesn’t intend to stop talking for three days. All 435 members. Let’s listen in:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi: “The American people have lost faith in President Bush’s course of action in Iraq and they are demanding a new direction … I’m thinking, ‘Out!’ “

Rep. John Hall, D-NY: “As a new member of the House I feel it is my responsibility to ask serious questions of the president, who refuses to take this institution seriously. Three days of yada yada and a non-binding resolution will show him we’re not to be trifled with!”

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer: “This debate is about making sure our country is successful in the war on terror. I suggest … quitting!”

Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash: “The American people are watching our debate. They will judge us by our actions. … Doing nothing seems safe!”

OK, that’s not exactly what they said. I’m sorry, it was necessary to take some liberties to help them say what they wanted to say.

On Friday, Congress will vote on the following non-binding resolution. This is really what it says: ...

***

The Height of Cynicism
John Hinderaker

The Politico reports that the Democrats have decided on a strategy for defeat in Iraq:

Top House Democrats, working in concert with anti-war groups, have decided against using congressional power to force a quick end to U.S. involvement in Iraq, and instead will pursue a slow-bleed strategy designed to gradually limit the administration's options.

Led by Rep. John P. Murtha, D-Pa., and supported by several well-funded anti-war groups, the coalition's goal is to limit or sharply reduce the number of U.S. troops available for the Iraq conflict, rather than to openly cut off funding for the war itself. ...

As described by participants, the goal is crafted to circumvent the biggest political vulnerability of the anti-war movement -- the accusation that it is willing to abandon troops in the field.

***

Bizarre Democrats In Turmoil: Want To “Bleed” Our Troops
A J Strata

The Democrats’ obsession with surrendering Iraq to our mortal enemies, al Qaeda, has become something of a tragic comedy of late. Without the Congressional or National support for surrender on one side colliding with their rabid, overwrought and out of control anti-war base demanding some action now (just like al Qaeda is demanding) on the other, the result is some strange and bizarre pretzel logic (my apologies to Steely Dan). For example, the Dems are afraid to debate non-binding resolutions which commit funding to support our troops. This is not going unnoticed in the country. So instead of having the debate and letting the chips fall were they may, they have come up with a new, and very sick sounding, strategy:

Democrats Plan “Slow-Bleed” Strategy
As the House debate on a non-binding resolution against the President’s Iraq strategy gets underway, House Democratic leaders are making it clear the anti-surge vote (expected Friday) is only the beginning. USA Today notes House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said yesterday, “A vote of disapproval will set the stage for additional Iraq legislation, which will be coming to the House floor.” Pelosi offered no explanation of what that legislation might be, and media accounts in several major news outlets including all three network newscasts didn’t delve into the issue. ...

Murtha should know better. But to strangle the military is to repeat the disaster of Mogadishu during the Clinton years. That was another time Democrat ‘leadership’ limited the type and number of forces that could be used, forcing our people to attempt misions using the wrong mix of talent and weapons. And this is all this “slow bleed” will accomplish. It will leave our troops stranded without key personell and material. What if the need is for new medical supplies and a rotation of doctors and nurses? Doesn’t matter - Murtha will ‘bleed’ our forces into submission. What if the troops need new armor our more Strikers to provide better defense? Doesn’t matter, Pelosi will simply ‘bleed’ the military into submission.

The liberal hate of the mliltary is now barely being contained. ...

***

Murtha and the Democrats: A new low 
Bryan Preston

Disgusting.

Top House Democrats, working in concert with anti-war groups, have decided against using congressional power to force a quick end to U.S. involvement in Iraq, and instead will pursue a slow-bleed strategy designed to gradually limit the administration’s options.

If they do what they’re apparently planning to do, “slow bleed” will be a very apt description. Those doing the bleeding, slowly, will be US troops.

Led by Rep. John P. Murtha, D-Pa., and supported by several well-funded anti-war groups, the coalition’s goal is to limit or sharply reduce the number of U.S. troops available for the Iraq conflict, rather than to openly cut off funding for the war itself.

This is the strategy of a corrupt, dishonorable man. Yes, I realize I’m talking about a former Marine. I’m also talking about the unindicted co-conspirator of Abscam. I’m talking about the coot who thinks we can fight a war in Iraq from Okinawa. I’m talking about a man who is a tool for various subversive anti-war groups. ...

***
MM: "Disgusting."

***

Jack Murtha's Goal: Undermine the president's foreign and national security policy 
N.Z.Bear

[Too short to excerpt but do read the whole thing.]

***

Profiles In Immoral Cowardice 
Rick Moran

Last June as the Senate was debating various proposals for withdrawing American troops from Iraq, I wrote the following:

Any timetable for withdrawal necessarily obviates any thought of victory. And if you don’t believe that victory is achievable then clearly you believe we have lost already. Trying to split the difference between victory and defeat in war is not possible. One side wins and one side loses. Hence, by offering this “timetable,” the Democrats are saying that we have lost the war and should leave in order to cut our losses.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with this position, by the way. It is defeatist. It is cowardly. But there is nothing necessarily incorrect in admitting defeat and pulling out.

But what makes the Democrats position immoral is that they are not advocating this timetable to get our troops out of harms way as fast as possible. In fact, they are terrified of the political consequences of doing so. Instead, they opt for the Viet Nam approach. According to them, the war was a mistake to begin with, it was fought incompetently, it was illegal, and we’ve already lost since there’s no way we’re ever going to say that George Bush won the war. But instead of advocating an immediate withdrawal of all American forces, we are going to advocate that more young men die in a losing cause just so that we don’t appear to be “cutting and running” and thus, lose badly at the polls in November.

If there has been a more cynical, immoral ploy in the last half century of American politics, I can’t think of it.

As House Democrats prepare to open debate on the Iraq war resolution, we have further evidence that when it comes to having the courage of their convictions, the House Democratic leadership has feet of clay: ...

A “slow bleed strategy?” Whose blood? I daresay it won’t be any of the Democratic leadership.

There is nothing noble about war. There is nothing uplifting or heroic about fighting one. Individual acts of heroism notwithstanding, war ultimately represents a failure of some kind. For the United States, sleepwalking during the 1990’s while al-Qaeda gathered strength and states like Iraq trained terrorists with utter impunity, it was a failure of intelligence, of diplomacy, of will, and finally a failure of imagination that led to the catastrophe of 9/11.

There is nothing moral about war except its quick and decisive ending. And whether or not you believe Iraq was a war of choice or whether you think it was thrust upon us by the exigencies of the times, the fact of the matter is we either fight to win – and win as quickly as circumstances allow – or we admit defeat and leave, accepting the consequences of our folly while holding harmless the young men and women who sacrificed much in service to the government and the people.

I say to you that whether you believe this war to be moral or immoral, the actions of the Democratic leadership in deliberately drawing out our withdrawal because they lack the political courage to take a stand on what they believe and cut off all funding for the Iraq War to bring the troops home now constitutes a towering act of moral cowardice rarely seen in Congress.  ...

***

Video: Murtha rips Howard, says Iraqis will rout AQ “the minute we’re gone”
Allahpundit

From the mind that brought you an over-the-horizon redeployment to Okinawa comes this latest exercise in magic and wonder, in which a Sunni population threatened with ethnic cleansing chooses to fight the Sunni jihadis in its midst instead of coopting them for battle against the Shiites. Or am I misunderstanding Murtha and what he really means is that the Shiites themselves will “get rid” of Al Qaeda in the course of massacring pretty much every last Sunni in the country?

He also drops a variation of the chickenhawk argument on John Howard, thanking him for his contribution to the war effort but noting that it’s simply too insubstantial to make Murtha care much one way or another what he thinks. A few more dead Australian soldiers and then, maybe, he’ll listen. So much for Peter Pace’s opinion, eh? [video link]