GOP dismisses Iraq war protesters

Washington Times ^ | August 25, 2007 | By S.A. Miller

[JohnHuang2]

Congressional Republicans, still leery of an abrupt pullout from Iraq, are not swayed by out-of-state protesters bused in to criticize the lawmakers' support of the war.

Republicans targeted by a blitz of ads and protests by Americans Against Escalation in Iraq (AAEI) say the effort is blatantly partisan because Democrats opposed to a withdrawal are not in the liberal protesters' line of fire.

"My position is fundamentally the same as it was going into the [August] break," said Rep. Michael N. Castle, Delaware Republican, who weathered protests outside his Wilmington district office, TV ads and a march by about 30 demonstrators on his home — although he was not there at the time.

"I never believed in setting a date for withdrawal," Mr. Castle said, echoing others who await a mid-September progress report by Army Gen. David H. Petraeus to decide how to proceed with the war.

[DakotaRed]

“Democrats — including the party’s 2008 presidential hopefuls — recently began acknowledging military successes in Iraq while bemoaning the Iraqi government’s failures. It allows them to avoid criticism for naysaying U.S. military achievements while still advocating a speedy pullout.”

Politicizing from the Democrats?

[MaxMax]

Soon the Dems will be grandstanding behind the war and explaining
that they've been taken out of context all along.

Why not, they do it all the time.

[NTHockey]

WHAT A LIAR! I have called him out several times and he will not respond to supporters. He is a total loser. Delaware might as well have zero representation in Washington - a liberal, a Marcel Marceau clone who always votes with the Libs and this RINO. I am glad that I am moving out to a more conservative state - still looking.

Just as the RATs will do, they will all jump on the bandwagon. This from LA Slime - it is archived but I’m someone can post the article.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-warvote15feb15,1,1046604,full.story
____________________________________________________________To: freedomdefender
“Rep. Mike Castle is one of about two dozen House Republicans who are expected to vote in favor of the resolution.”

20 posted on 02/15/2007 12:03:04 PM PST by newzjunkey (WSJ: BofA aims new credit card at illegals! http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1783883/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

---

To: All
The WA Times lists these among the Republicans AGAINST the surge:

Rep. Howard Coble, North Carolina,
Rep. Wayne Gilchrest, Maryland,
Rep. Michael Castle, Delaware,
Rep. Jim Ramstad, Minnesota,
Rep. Ric Keller, Florida,
Rep. Philip S. English, Pennsylvania,
Rep. Ron E. Paul, Texas,
Rep. Steven C. LaTourette, Ohio,
Rep. Fred Upton, Michigan and
Rep. Walter Jones, North Carolina.Rep. Jim Marshall, Georgia Democrat, OPPOSES the resolution on the grounds it may harm the troops.

Source: WA Times

21 posted on 02/15/2007 12:09:11 PM PST by newzjunkey (WSJ: BofA aims new credit card at illegals! http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1783883/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

[syriacus]

The tunnel-visioned Democrats are stuck on stupid.

Democrats want to abort a free, but troublesome, Iraq
just as they abandoned a free, but troublesome, Vietnam and a free, but troublesome, Republic of (South) Korea

Because of their kneejerk inability to see the "big picture," they will create more problems than they solve.

They want to repeat the mistakes of the Truman administration-- abandon our allies, give away our hard-won military advantages, cut our military budget and reduce our troop strength.

History has taught us that REWINNING freedom for a country can be a far more deadly undertaking than winning its freedom the first time had been.

If we abandon Iraq, we will, most likely, have to go back to REWIN its freedom because of humanitarian reasons and because we DO have interests in that part of the world.

Contrary to Murtha's shallow thinking refreeing a country is not an easy thing.

An overview of the beginnings of the Korean War
Korea's war for RE-INDEPENDENCE

Even casual students of history know that, in 1945, we freed South Korea (the Republic of Korea) from the Japanese. Those same students know that four years later, in 1949, the Truman administration abandoned the politically and socially unstable (and militarily weak) South Korea. At home, Truman had drastically cut the military budget.* The US military was left with outdated equipment and was severely undermanned.

As predicted by many people, South Korea was invaded (in June 1950).

At left is a map (click to enlarge) showing that all but a small area of South Korea was occupied by the North Koreans in the first 3 months of the Korean War.

In July 1950, Truman sent troops BACK to S. Korea. I repeat again --- Rewinning freedom for South Korea was not an easy task.
The closest troops were in nearby Japan but were at low levels of combat readiness. (They were, essentially, "peacetime" troops. WWII had ended 5 years before.)
Also, the weather impeded and diverted some planned landings in Korea.
South Korea's best air base (Suwon) was close to its border with North Korea and was busy handling US evacuations until it was overrun by the North Koreans. In the beginning of the war, US aircraft had to keep returning to Japan to refuel and replenish munitions.

The premature removal of US troops from South Korea led to the Korean War ,

Almost 8,000 Americans died in Korea in the first 3 months of the effort to REWIN South Korea's freedom [aka, the "Korean War"]

30,000 Americans died in the first 30 months of that war which would not have occurred if we had not abandoned S. Korea in 1949.

By the time of the Korean Armistice in July, 1953, tens of thousands of Koreans had been killed and millions were displaced.

By the time of the Korean armistice, the severest censorship in memory had been imposed on news out of Korea. The military draft was in full swing.

* With the expectation that the US monopoly on atomic weapons would guarantee peace, President Harry Truman had insisted on reducing the annual defense budget to a less-than-bare-bones level of about $13 billion, hardly sufficient for any serious operations. (http://www.afa.org/magazine/june2000/0600korea.asp)

[syriacus]

Truman's defense cutbacks after WWII.

Nevertheless, reductions continued, adversely affecting U.S. conventional defense readiness.

Both Truman and [Defense Sec.] Johnson had a particular antipathy to Navy and Marine Corps budget requests.

Truman had a well-known dislike of the Marines dating back to his service in World War I, and famously said, "The Marine Corps is the Navy's police force, and as long as I am President that is what it will remain. They have a propaganda machine that is almost equal to Stalin's."

Indeed, Truman had proposed disbanding the Marine Corps entirely as part of the 1948 defense reorganization plan, a plan that was abandoned only after a letter-writing campaign and the intervention of influential congressmen who were Marine veterans.

Under Truman defense budgets through FY 1950, many Navy ships were mothballed, sold to other countries, or scrapped. The U.S. Army, faced with high turnover of experienced personnel, cut back on training exercises, and eased recruitment standards. Usable equipment was scrapped or sold off instead of stored, and even ammunition stockpiles were cut.

The Marine Corps, its budgets slashed, was reduced to hoarding surplus inventories of World War II era weapons and equipment.

It was only after the invasion of South Korea by the North Koreans in 1950 that Truman sent significantly larger defense requests to Congress ...