Jun 02 2006

Democrats Still Trying To Surrender

Published by at 12:48 pm under All General Discussions,Iraq

Kerry was for the war before he was against it.  And I am sure he was for winning it, before he was against winning it (even though the war is all over now and we are on a peace keeping mission at the behest of Iraq):

Kerry, who voted to give President Bush authorization to use force against Saddam Hussein in 2002, said he would attach an amendment to this summer’s defense appropriations bill calling for a total withdrawal of U.S. combat troops by the end of this year. But he acknowledged that the idea would be unpopular. “I know I’m not going to get the majority of my own caucus.”

No one likes flip-flopping quitters John.  Want to know what worries me?  Kerry is consistently wrong on just about everything, so when he says things like this I get worried:

Emphasizing that a nuclear-armed Iran would be “a very serious threat to the U.S. and our allies,” Kerry contended that the most conservative estimates are that Tehran is at least five years away from developing atomic weapons.

The situation in Iran must be much worse than we thought.

2 responses so far

2 Responses to “Democrats Still Trying To Surrender”

  1. MerlinOS2 says:

    Obviously if the country is being stablilized, we move troops to the areas of least stability as the locals take over control in areas they can deal with. It is a good use of forces availability. Local control of stable areas, plus increased pressure on problem areas makes a good move. Put your forces where they can have the multiplier effect. It puts even more pressure on the lesser strength of the opposition forces. A good move and a wise move. Redeploy to give strength to strength. Release forces to attack the weakeness. Works for me. Give them a go.

  2. MerlinOS2 says:

    In all engagements we have ever been involved with the rules of engagement have been the crux of the worst problamatic distaste that I can ever invision.

    It seems that somehow we have to lower our standards of taking out the bad guys as we approach doing some good.

    As the country as a nation, has less of a threat, we somehow figure that we should arbitrarilily reduce the capability of our troups to progress the war since it is now more political than tactical. This is not a good choice and it is wrongheaded and a less than optimal position. Like most political decisions it is too soon and premature. We can only hopefully have those making those choices refrain from such wrongfull thinking.