|
New Surrendercrat Strategy: Betray The Troops -- Update 4
  
Murtha: U.S. Troops “Have Everything They Need,” live in palace(s)
Ian Schwartz
CNS: He did not elaborate but went on to talk about services enjoyed by U.S. troops in Iraq but denied to many Iraqis.
“Let’s take, for instance, Saddam Hussein’s palace - that’s where our troops are living,” Murtha said.
“They have everything they need. They have electricity, as they should. They have warm water. They have all the things that you need and we provide for our troops, and I agree with that,” he said.
Don’t believe me? Here’s the video (long): [video link]
See previous:
*** Washington Post Spanks Murtha
Ed Morrissey
The unbelievable cynicism of John Murtha's "slow bleed" plan to end the war in Iraq has not gone unnoticed by the Washington Post. The editorial board excoriates Murtha in no uncertain terms not just for his plan to elevate the Democrats on the backs of the troops in Iraq, but also for his ignorance on Iraq (via Instapundit): Mr. Murtha has a different idea. He would stop the surge by crudely hamstringing the ability of military commanders to deploy troops. In an interview carried Thursday by the Web site MoveCongress.org, Mr. Murtha said he would attach language to a war funding bill that would prohibit the redeployment of units that have been at home for less than a year, stop the extension of tours beyond 12 months, and prohibit units from shipping out if they do not train with all of their equipment. His aim, he made clear, is not to improve readiness but to "stop the surge." So why not straightforwardly strip the money out of the appropriations bill -- an action Congress is clearly empowered to take -- rather than try to micromanage the Army in a way that may be unconstitutional? Because, Mr. Murtha said, it will deflect accusations that he is trying to do what he is trying to do. "What we are saying will be very hard to find fault with," he said.
Mr. Murtha's cynicism is matched by an alarming ignorance about conditions in Iraq. He continues to insist that Iraq "would be more stable with us out of there," in spite of the consensus of U.S. intelligence agencies that early withdrawal would produce "massive civilian casualties." He says he wants to force the administration to "bulldoze" the Abu Ghraib prison, even though it was emptied of prisoners and turned over to the Iraqi government last year. He wants to "get our troops out of the Green Zone" because "they are living in Saddam Hussein's palace"; could he be unaware that the zone's primary occupants are the Iraqi government and the U.S. Embassy? ...
Has John Murtha ever been anything more than incoherent on Iraq? He talks loudly but says next to nothing other than reiterate the need to declare defeat and bug out of Iraq. He can't even get his facts straight despite having spent the better part of two years making himself the leading Democratic voice on the war. Even the Washington Post can't help but notice that this Emperor has no clothes.
Despite this, Pelosi insists on following his leadership on Iraq policy. ...
*** Iraq Terror Groups Offer Non-Binding Ceasefire
by Scott Ott
(2007-02-17) -- A coalition of major terror groups operating in Iraq today announced a symbolic, non-binding ceasefire in response to House Democrats’ passage of a non-binding resolution rejecting President George Bush’s troop surge plan. ...
*** WaPo Slams Murtha'a "Slow Bleed The Troops" Plan
Rick Moran
I got an earful from some of my friends on the left for taking Representative John Murtha and the Democrats to task for their moral cowardice in not directly trying to defund the war but rather slink in the shadows and attempt to sabotage deployments and readiness. Some of the emails I got tried to explain that Murtha’s strategy of strangling the Defense Department by mandating shorter tours and longer periods at home between deployments as well as going so far as to require troops to train with all their equipment (despite the fact that the troop’s equipment is either already in theater or is shipped to Iraq ahead of time) represents a “realistic” approach to the problem of defunding the war.
They point out that an up or down vote wouldn’t pass because Democrats don’t want to be saddled with the inevitable Republican charge of undermining the troops in a time of war. One commenter went so far as to explain that the American people wouldn’t understand the “nuances” of defunding the war so Murtha’s “brilliant” plan not only accomplished the task of ending the war but also left Democrats blameless!
Well, I’m glad we cleared up those points about moral cowardice, aren’t you?
Today, I was gratified to see that the Washington Post mirrors my thoughts on Murtha and his “slow bleed the troops” plan: [...]
Is Murtha in complete control of his faculties? This brazen admission of political and moral turpitude points up how truly cynical the Pennsylvania Congressman and his partners in this calumnious plan have become. Not only that, Murtha is also apparently woefully ignorant of what is going on in Iraq and some of his statements call into question whether the 74 year old is mentally sharp enough to occupy a position of leadership in the Democratic party: ...
*** Washington Post Warns The Dems
Dan Riehl
They might be in favor of de-funding the war, that isn't clear from this. What is clear is that at least they have the integrity to call Murtha and Pelosi on their playing politics with the surge while our troops are in harm's way.
If the Washington Post is willing to call BS on the Democrats in the House, it should be heeded as a strong warning. This will be worse than the way they McGovern-ed themselves in '68. At least then they took a principled stand. What they are about today is far from that. Ultimately, they could easily be exposed for the shallow, power happy mob that they are. ...
*** Cloture Vote In Process
Ed Morrissey
The Senate is holding their cloture vote as I post this. So far, the Democrats have gotten four Republicans to cross the aisle -- John Warner, Chuck Hagel, Olympia Snowe, and Susan Collins. Joe Lieberman crossed from the Democratic caucus, making a net of 3 for the Democrats -- and they need a net 10.
Norm Coleman crossed. Dems +4. This surprises me; Coleman told us specifically that he supported the surge in Anbar, and this resolution makes no mention of supporting that portion of the operation. It's a major disappointment.
1:19 PM CT - Cloture fails, 56-34. The resolution has been withdrawn by Harry Reid.
UPDATE: The AP reports this as "Republicans foiled a Democratic attempt to rebuke President Bush".
UPDATE II: Allahpundit has this update: ...
*** Cowards Give Up On GIs -& Give In To Evil
Ralph Peters
PROVIDING aid and comfort to the enemy in wartime is treason. It's not "just politics." It's treason.
And signaling our enemies that Congress wants them to win isn't "supporting our troops."
The "nonbinding resolution" telling the world that we intend to surrender to terrorism and abandon Iraq may be the most disgraceful congressional action since the Democratic Party united to defend slavery.
The vote was a huge morale booster for al Qaeda, for Iraq's Sunni insurgents, and for the worst of the Shia militias.
The message Congress just sent to them all was, "Hold on, we'll stop the surge, we're going to leave - and you can slaughter the innocent with our blessing."
We've reached a low point in the history of our government when a substantial number of legislators would welcome an American defeat in Iraq for domestic political advantage. ...
*** The Defeatists Falter
Austin Bay
Well, their resolution failed a cloture vote. This “failure” could be the defeat caucus’ best outcome (see why below).
From the Washington Post:
[...]
Go here to support victory in the great 21st century war for modernity.
Remember, we are in the wonderland of “non-binding” resolutions. Why? I suspect the defeat caucus is hedging its bets. GEN David Petraeus has a six-month window to help the Iraqi government stabilize itself. The so-called surge is proving to be a welcome change in ROE (see this from last month). GEN David Petraeus (I am given to understand) is a Democrat. He could prove to be the biggest political winner. ...
*** Diddling While Americans Die
By Oliver North
SPOTSYLVANIA, Va. -- He was an American hero. On his second tour of duty in Iraq, he had already served in the Western Pacific and a prior combat tour in Afghanistan. On Friday afternoon, Feb. 16, when Sgt. Joshua Frazier, USMC, was laid to rest in the soil of his native Virginia, his comrades in arms from the 1st Battalion, 6th Marines were fighting terrorists on the mean streets of Ramadi, in Iraq's bloody Al Anbar Province. As Sgt. Frazier's grieving mother was being presented with a carefully folded American flag, the Congress of the United States was debating a meaningless "non-binding resolution" attacking the commander in chief.
Heroes aren't athletes who set new sports records or Hollywood actors who make "daring" films or politicians who make bold promises. Heroes are people who place themselves at risk for the benefit of others. Joshua Frazier was certainly such a man. Unfortunately, there are far too few members of Congress who fit the definition. ...
Sgt. Frazier is one of more than 2,500 U.S. military personnel killed in action in Iraq. Speaker Nancy Pelosi claims the resolution being debated by the House of Representatives is a measure that "will continue to support and protect" U.S. military personnel. Yet, she also says it shows "Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on Jan. 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq." How this does anything but damage U.S. and Iraqi morale and embolden America's adversaries is beyond comprehension.
"The American people have lost faith in President Bush's course of action in Iraq," Pelosi said Tuesday as the resolution was introduced. She said the president's plan "is based on the judgment that the way out of Iraq lies in sending more troops in," adding, "our experience has proven just the opposite."
At the risk of pointing out the obvious, "our experience," in Pelosi's words, has proven that pulling U.S. forces out before the war is won is a formula for disaster. In Korea, the decision to withdraw U.N. troops to the 38th parallel resulted in stalemate and today's despotic, nuclear-armed regime in Pyongyang. In Vietnam, the congressional cut-off of funds in December 1974 precipitated the North Vietnamese communist takeover of the entire country less than five months later. The combined losses in both wars -- more than 108,000 Americans killed in action -- should be an object lesson for this Congress. Pulling out, holding back, withdrawing support, "de-funding" the war -- whatever it's called -- is tantamount to squandering lives.
Is that where this Congress is heading? Are the lives of courageous young American volunteers like Joshua Frazier worth so little to our Congress that they would ignore our peril for perverse personal political profit? ...
|
