Skip to comments.Democrats' War Opposition Not a United Front
Posted on 11/20/2005 7:44:58 AM PST by yoe
Last week's emotional congressional debates over Iraq demonstrated the rise of antiwar sentiment among Democrats and the challenge the party faces in converting that impulse into a unified alternative to President Bush.
Twin confrontations over Iraq, in the House and the Senate highlighted by a ferocious House debate that followed a call by Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) to immediately begin removing American troops showed that the center of gravity among Democrats is rapidly moving toward proposals to accelerate the withdrawal of American troops from the war.
[snip] According to one Democratic source, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) has dropped plans to seek a vote in early December on adopting a Democratic Conference position in support of Murtha's plan. Murtha has said his proposal could lead to a complete withdrawal of American troops in about six months and the establishment of a "quick-reaction force in the region."
[snip] Fearful that the proposal would generate too much opposition among moderate Democrats, Pelosi now plans for the conference only to discuss and debate it, the source said.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
"Pelosi looks at her audience in the mirror and giggles".
In case you didn't get the DemocRAT memo, the talking point phrase of the weekend is "Congress is catching up with the "american" people." For those who don't use recreational drugs, this talking point is designed to give the public the impression that the "american" people are a lot smarter than the polticians and that they, the politicians, now "hear you" about wanting to cut and run from Iraq. Don't be fooled by this.
As a joke, and it was a joke that didn't sit well with my boss all the time, we'd post modified agendas for upcoming meetings...
Example: We will be meeting to schedule a meeting where we will decide blah, blah, blah... etc.
I think that she didn't like it because our modified agendas were sometimes closer to the truth than the published agendas.
What this tells us is that the democrats were prepared to
push forward their agenda of withdrawal but the Murtha
resolution came too early and the administration caught
them in the assembly trenches.
Now they have no choice but to stay undercover and try and gin up more discontent.
It's a race to see wheather the administration can complete
the work of creating a free Iraq, or if the democrats can
force an early withdrawal with the commitant collapse of
the whole interprise, which they can then use as justification for their traitorous actions.
So we're supposed to listen to Murtha...a veteran of Vietnam, a war we lost. Just because he is a Vietnam veteran does NOT give him the expertise to decide how to win the war. We want to listen to people who have LEARNED from the mistakes of Vietnam and want to WIN.
The Dems talk about a "quick-reaction force in the region." ..hello...we will take people out, leaving a small group that will be even MORE vulnerable to attack and death. More and more reason to see that the Dems should NEVER be elected during a time of war.
No, you're not.
The La Slimes might be though, unless they're purposely forgetting to include all of the facts.
The Mutha's are crying for a quick reaction force and therefore a SMALL force.
The McCA-holes and Bidens are calling for more troops and therefore BIG force.
It's sad when you have a Mcclellan as the mouthpiece to defend your policies.
After spending a grand total of four months in Vietnam, the length of time required to fraudulently obtain three purple hearts and thereby an excuse to 'cut and run', warrior Kerry now tries to pass himself off as a military planner. I doubt that anyone in either party pays attention to anything this buffoon says.
That's what got me about the implicit phoniness of this mythical force. Where would they be kept and how would they be supported (and targeted for terrorist attacks themselves)?
More certainly, as soon as they were sent in to fight the now much-larger civil war, by the first day the Democrats would be calling for a publicly-declared exit strategy or immediate withdrawal.
Exactly!! Where are the media's probing questions about HOW the Dems are going to follow through on this. The Dems have NEVER had a plan except to try to destroy Bush's presidency....even if that means losing the war and destroying the morale of the troops.
I was flipping through the channels and ended up on MSNBC for a few minutes. THe blonde anchor-woman had asked the journalist in the field if the debate back home had had any effect on the morale of the troops. The reporter said "No" because the troops in Iraq firmly felt that what the American people were hearing about the war was NOT what they were experiencing. That the troops saw daily progress and despite the loss of comrades, felt their mission was important and succeedful.
The blonde anchor woman couldn't get off THAT topic fast enough and seemed pissed...she didn't want to hear that kind of talk.
How about President Bush's benchmarks? Let's see....we've had two VERY successful elections in Iraq and are awaiitng a third. These "benchmarks" that the terrorist tried HARD to stop and that the Dems ALL said couldn't be done on time, HAVE been completed on time.More and more Iraqis are begin trained to secure their own nation....
We DO have an EXIT strategy...it's just that the Dems hate Bush so much they'll say ANYTHING to undermine it so they can blame him for failure..even if what they say is what CAUSES us to fail.
A most powerful statement.
..sounds almost surreal. ...political strategists, LOL! HA! HA!
I notice that Rangel isn't trying to bring back the draft anymore. I guess that tactic didn't win him any points.