Jan 11 2007

WaPo Not Bully On Democrats Surrender Plans

Published by at 12:04 am under All General Discussions

The Washington Post is not very confident the political suicide pact the Democrats have embarked upon is going to work for them. In fact, the tone is more of one that their gamble is going to rebound terribly on the Democrats – and fast:

Democratic reaction to Bush’s prime-time speech last night was overwhelmingly negative, setting the stage for a series of legislative moves that will play out over the next few months. Democratic leaders are under strong pressure from grass-roots activists to deny funding for any more troops in Iraq, but some elected officials worry about the long-term consequences if Democrats are blamed for pushing a troop withdrawal that results in possible collapse in Iraq.

Until recently, Democratic leaders avoided embracing a possible cutoff in funding for additional troops in Iraq, but growing frustration with what they see as the president’s decision to ignore the voters’ will has stiffened opposition on Capitol Hill to the administration’s new plan. Nowhere is that clearer than in the House, where Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has pushed for direct confrontation with the White House.

As I said in the post below – the cards have been played and the dems are holding a pair of twos to Bush’s straight. The will of the people was not escalating a terrible defeat in Iraq. America wanted change with the hope of success. The pessismist party (the P-Party, for what they do in the face of challenges) is really going to get pounded. Bush laid out a way to focus our efforts with the Iraqis on 80% of the problem and keep the commitment that Iraq control their country by November. And the Dems are saying we will not allow our troops the opportunity to succeed. Recall my Democrat Contract with Al Qaeda I penned in February 2006 and the promise I said the Dems would keep on Iraq:

SEVENTH, in an effort to demonstrate our sincere apologies for the actions of President Bush towards Al Qaeda, we plan to return the State of Iraq to the despot dictator of Al Qaeda’s choice by calling for the immediate withdrawal of our military forces to the safety of European soil. We encourage Al Qaeda to do what they please with the Iraqi people.

The Pessimist Party wants to surrender to Al Qaeda at all costs. Pelosi’s delusions of granduer are amazing.

Pelosi tasked Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee on defense and the party’s leading voice for withdrawing troops, and House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) to report back as early as today on legislative language that would stop an escalation of troops, said Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.), a member of Murtha’s subcommittee.

She’ll wake up to reality soon enough. I need only remind people the only Democrat name Bush mentioned (in fact the only name in Congress) in his speech tonight – Joe Lieberman.

Lieberman is the example of the Democrats’ deep delusions. He lost his Democrat primary to an ardent ‘surrender at all cost’ pessimist in the true form of the modern democrat, Ned Lamont. And then he went on to pound Ned Lamont in the statewide election in a three way race. The Democrats obviously ignored the entire lesson from deep blue, Democrat State of Connecticut. Dangerous withdrawal from Iraq was NOT a voter preference. If the Dems want to pretend to listen to the voters they need look no farther than the man who will derail any and all efforts to lose Iraq to Al Qaeda from his senate seat.

The dems will pay a heavy price for this silliness. They will try and fail to stop Bush from winning in Iraq. And when Bush’s plans turn the tide and increase security, they will have established themselves as the party too afraid to try and stand up to our enemies. The 2008 election cycle will be determined by November 2007, if not sooner. The Dems are all in, with only a loss to Bush or a loss to Al Qaeda as their two options. Either way they lose. At least under one option American wins, with Bush. And we all know the American people are going to be rooting for America – not the Pessimist Party and Al Qaeda. An amazing act of political suicide. Now we know, first hand, what happened to the Whigs.

12 responses so far

12 Responses to “WaPo Not Bully On Democrats Surrender Plans”

  1. crosspatch says:

    Uh, oh. All the stops might come out now. Lets hope this isn’t true.

  2. crosspatch says:

    Heh, this is pretty interesting. While I was on an errand this evening, I heard on the radio an interview with Leon E. Panetta of the ISG. He was talking about the surge of troops. He was complaining that “not a single general” they talked to suggested a surge and was implying that the ISG never suggested a surge. Then I noticed this post over at Sweetness and Light that highlights exactly where the ISG *did* recommend a surge. The two most significant place (in order of significance, in my opinion, not in order of appearance in the document):

    “We could, however, support a shortterm redeployment or surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad, or to speed up the training and equipping mission, if the U.S. commander in Iraq determines that such steps would be effective.”


    “While this process is under way, and to facilitate it, the United States should significantly increase the number of U.S. military personnel, including combat troops, imbedded in and supporting Iraqi Army units.”

    Interesting how the ISG members suddenly forget what they themselves suggested and turn up in the media to criticize an administration who uses some of their recommendations.

  3. crosspatch says:

    Oh, and keep in mind that Panetta’s words might be true to some extent. They probably never asked the *current* commanders of US forces in Iraq and Baghdad.

  4. Terrye says:

    I told the locals that a vote for Ellsworth was a vote for Pelosi. No they said, he is not like those other Democrats. It seems that Pelosi thinks a vote for Ellsworth was a vote for her too. The liars.

    It was not a month ago that Reid was suggesting a troop surge himself.

  5. lurker9876 says:

    AJ, I wonder if Bush selected November because it’s shortly after fiscal year of 2008 and that’s when the Democrats have more power to defund the military budget to be diverted to their favorite social programs?

  6. Retired Spook says:

    I’ve read lots of comments from Libs on a number of different forums, and it seems they all fall into one of three catagories: the ones who actually WANT us to lose because we deserve to be taken down a peg; the ones who say they want to win but advocate actions that would result in us losing (and don’t seem to understand the conflict in those positions); and those who think we’ve already lost and see it as an acceptable outcome. Personally, I see the third group as the largest and most dangerous, but the common thread holding them all together is the word “LOSE”, and it is what has held the Left together for the last 60 years. Ever since WWI they’ve seen the logical outcome of any military conflict, even ones that they initially supported, in terms of “exit strategy”, not victory. It is one of the great political ironies of our time that Harry Reid called President Bush a “loser”.

    We have the toughest, smartest, best trained and best equipped military force in the history of the planet. Losing is NOT ACCEPTABLE and the possibility of losing should not even be an option, especially a piddly little, low intensity conflict like Iraq.

  7. Retired Spook says:

    Sorry, that should have been “ever since WWII”.

  8. Barbara says:

    Well, you have to remember Panetta is a Clintonite. Would they know what the truth is if it jumped up and bit them? I don’t think they are even acquainted with the truth never having met it.

    Fact of life. Democrats vote en block no matter what the issue. Party first, country last.

  9. The Macker says:

    Retired Spook ,
    Good analysis of Lib categories.

    Panetta, like most of the ISG, is minimally qualified to comment on this mix of problems.

  10. prometheusbound says:

    Your poker metaphor is not particularly apt. Even many republicans agree that Bush doesn’t have any options after this. The more appropriate metaphor would be that Bush drawn an unsuited 3 and a 9, it’s his turn to pay the big blind, and the big blind covers every last chip he has. I would LOVE to see this effort successful, but I simply have no confidence in Bush. “Winning” at this point is impossible. If this mission is successful, it will merely be the difference between the overall Iraq war being a “miserable failure” and a “colossal failure.”

    Libs don’t want to see America fail, they just want the drunk guy to stop driving the car so fast. Progressives knew what a catastrof*@# this would be, and unfortunately there is no relief in being right. There is only relief in knowing that the rest of America is now realizing what a blunder Iraq has been and the solace of knowing that we may soon get out of there.

  11. hastingspete says:

    Worth dropping in and plugging into the mindset of the 12% who think this is winnable and this plan is the way forward. We indeed have a great military – but it hasn’t won this conflict, have they? And 20,000 troops, or more accurately, about 1500 extra at any point in time on the ground in Baghdad, won’t make the pivotal difference you wish.

    If this was a pivotal moment, indeed, in our civilization, then this seems an altogether inappropriately small effort, doesn’t it? If you aren’t willing to do what needs to get done, instead of this face-saving and sad little gesture, then you might as well have listened to the wise and balanced Baker Commission, instead of willingly ignoring literally every major recommendation.

    So where are we? Bush is bleeding Republican support, he’s put himself out there, and leaves few options if this one fails. Our opponents will know this and will hammer us. And we will continue to see no progress.

    In a year’s time (less, probably) we will be back here again and you all will be wondering who “lost” Iraq. Hint: it’s not the moms who were protesting four years ago in the streets against this war. It’s the grossly imcompentent “MBA manager” sitting in the White House.

    God save us all.

  12. Barbara says:

    “If this was a pivotal moment, indeed, in our civilization, then this seems an altogether inappropriately small effort, doesn’t it? If you aren’t willing to do what needs to get done, instead of this face-saving and sad little gesture, then you might as well have listened to the wise and balanced Baker Commission, instead of willingly ignoring literally every major recommendation. ”

    Is this the same Baker (that shifty s.o.b.) who helped steal the election in 2000? My how we change our minds. Suddenly he becomes all wise and all knowing. But then the dems do that when someone agrees with them. No matter what has gone on before if that someone agrees with them they suddenly aquire a halo and super knowledge of the ages. What an appalling situation for anti semitics to gather together do their best to bring down their enemy. In your case Bush and the Jews and in his case just the Jews.

    “We indeed have a great military – but it hasn’t won this conflict, have they?”

    What does that mean? We have a great military but its not good enough? But you people love the military. You have said so constantly. But then, I forgot, they are children. Right? So how could children win a war? You people swivel like a toy top changing your story and your theme song to fit your BDS. Anything Bush is for you are against even to the point of being against the US.

    “In a year’s time (less, probably) we will be back here again and you all will be wondering who “lost” Iraq.”

    Ah, the libs and their pessimism. What would we do without it. This is just wishful thinking on your part. We are perfectly capable of winning this war and could have won it years ago if we were a little more ruthless. Or even fought this war the way wars have always been fought before the bleeding hearts became so vocal. And when the Iraqi army and police take over they will not be in the business of winning hearts and minds like we have been. They will get rid of the insurgents and al quaeda rather quickly in a deadly sort of way. As the Ethiopians knew it is best to kill al quaeda in the field than to bother with the bleeding hearts left and the media giving them freebies and “fair” trials.

    Frankly before we “lose” the war I am for bombing the hell out of Bagdad and Anbar. Not leaving anyone in charge or potentially in charge who is detrimental to western ideals or who would use the oil or the strategic location of this region against us.