Feb 14 2007

Bizarre Democrats In Turmoil: Want To “Bleed” Our Troops

Published by at 10:39 am under 2008 Elections,All General Discussions,Iraq

The Democrats’ obsession with surrendering Iraq to our mortal enemies, al Qaeda, has become something of a tragic comedy of late. Without the Congressional or National support for surrender on one side colliding with their rabid, overwrought and out of control anti-war base demanding some action now (just like al Qaeda is demanding) on the other, the result is some strange and bizarre pretzel logic (my apologies to Steely Dan). For example, the Dems are afraid to debate non-binding resolutions which commit funding to support our troops. This is not going unnoticed in the country. So instead of having the debate and letting the chips fall were they may, they have come up with a new, and very sick sounding, strategy:

Democrats Plan “Slow-Bleed” Strategy
As the House debate on a non-binding resolution against the President’s Iraq strategy gets underway, House Democratic leaders are making it clear the anti-surge vote (expected Friday) is only the beginning. USA Today notes House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said yesterday, “A vote of disapproval will set the stage for additional Iraq legislation, which will be coming to the House floor.” Pelosi offered no explanation of what that legislation might be, and media accounts in several major news outlets including all three network newscasts didn’t delve into the issue.

But this morning, the DC-insider publication The Politico offers an outline of the Democratic strategy. “Top House Democrats,” it reports, “working in concert with anti-war groups, have decided against using congressional power to force a quick end to US involvement in Iraq, and instead will pursue a slow-bleed strategy designed to gradually limit the administration’s options.” Led by Rep. John P. Murtha and “supported by several well-funded anti-war groups, the coalition’s goal is to limit or sharply reduce the number of US troops available for the Iraq conflict, rather than to openly cut off funding for the war itself.”

Murtha should know better. But to strangle the military is to repeat the disaster of Mogadishu during the Clinton years. That was another time Democrat ‘leadership’ limited the type and number of forces that could be used, forcing our people to attempt misions using the wrong mix of talent and weapons. And this is all this “slow bleed” will accomplish. It will leave our troops stranded without key personell and material. What if the need is for new medical supplies and a rotation of doctors and nurses? Doesn’t matter – Murtha will ‘bleed’ our forces into submission. What if the troops need new armor our more Strikers to provide better defense? Doesn’t matter, Pelosi will simply ‘bleed’ the military into submission.

The liberal hate of the mliltary is now barely being contained. Obama talked of ‘wasted’ lives in Iraq, and now the dems have come up with a way to make them useful to their political desires. Our troops can now ‘waste’ their lives in a demonstration of how Congress can bleed our military as payback to a President they have some serious emotional issues over. If our brave men and women in uniform need to die to send a message to Bush – so be it [in the minds of the liberals]. And this is how sickly warped they have become. It is not acceptable to ‘bleed’ our mliitary in defense of our country in an attempt to change the face of the ME for all time, but it is OK to ‘bleed’ our military for political purposes. Pathetic. Either suport them or not, don’t ‘bleed’ them to death slowly. Cowards.

19 responses so far

19 Responses to “Bizarre Democrats In Turmoil: Want To “Bleed” Our Troops”

  1. Soothsayer says:

    The reason – and the ONLY reason – our troops are bleeding – is that an incompetent and dishonest President – aided by an incompetent Secretary of Defense and Vice President – sent the troop’s into harm’s way on a fool’s errand, based on inaccurate facts and nonexistent threats.

    Once the troops are removed from Iraq, the bleeding will cease.

  2. Carol J says:

    Dear God! This is the insanity I have warned my husband about for the last FIVE YEARS. He doesn’t believe me…YET. I think he will now have to change his mind. I have played back the words of John Kennedy to him, and told him that this is the very LAST REAL Democrat there ever will be. I honestly don’t think this party will ever get back to where they once were. They are hopelessly lost now.

    And yet, George Bush still INSISTS that these people are “patriots” despite their disagreements with him. I WHOLE-HEARTEDLY DISAGREE!! This is more than an “attack” on him as a person…MUCH more! This is an attack on all the voters who DO support our troops and a definate attack on the OFFICE of President. It is, above all, a VICIOUS attack by our own Congress on the troops they claim to support! Someone called Rush Limbaugh this morning and basically asked if President Bush was lying when he “absolved” the Dems of their treachery against him. The little weasel was sucking after forgiveness, while at the same time, he was further insulting the President by asking if he was lying…AGAIN!!! Damn these people and their disgustingly perverted logic!

    We need to put the word out on these people. They will bring this country to its knees to satisfy their lust for power! PERIOD!!

  3. Democrats AND al-Sadr Scared of Surge…

    al-Qaeda retreats, al-Sadr run and hides,the Democrats scramble to stop this progress, al-Maliki gets tough, all in a coordinated effort with our military and coalition forces that are implementing the presidents new strategy….

  4. lassoingtruth says:

    Killing two birds with one stone here. AJ, and national Clear Channel
    morning talk host Mike McConnell (to name but one example) have been distorting the truth about Iraq for a long time-McConnell, since Clear Channel funded an Iraq tour in 2004 providing neoconservative tlak hosts a stage forum from which to regurgitate
    lies emanating from Bush and Co. An MSNBC poll of Iraqis
    in 2004 exposed the lies: Sunni and Shia overwhelmingly supported
    insurgent attacks on American troops,at the same time McConnell
    (and Strata and Limbaugh and Hannity) were saying the vast
    majority of Iraqis hated the insurgents and sided with us.

    Today, in tune with Strata, McConnell said he has not been as
    embarrassed to be an American since the Carter era with its
    retreating, cowering unconfident attitudes. He cited the Democratic
    manuevers but also mentioned the “bailers” among the citizens
    who elected them as being the sources of his “embarrassment.”
    He also yesterday and today tied in the reports of US servicemen
    and media members such as Martha Raddatz who tell of a noticeable
    “decline” in enthusiasm among both the US soldiers (who notice
    the US “retreaters” and advocated of “bailing on an ally,” and tell
    of a similar decline in will to co-operate with Americans, then,
    among Iraqis, worrying what will happen to them when we bail.

    The truth is, as early as 2004 any Iraqi who collaborated with US
    forces was risking his life, proven by the MSNBC and Zogby and
    Pew Polls of Iraqis-and if there is a decline lately, it must be
    from perhaps 20% sympathetic to 10%-and 20% was never
    enough to thwart an insurgency.

    This, too, ignores as does AJ repeatedly the dominant civil
    war reality aspect of the Iraq debacle. It far overshadows any
    threat to Iraq of the 10% Al Qaeda which compose the anti-
    American insurgency.

    The US forces have always been in an untenable unwinnable

    Realizing now, what should have been realized and not lied about in 2004, the Democrats and GOP heroes such as conservatives
    Hagel and Jones are acting to save US lives.

  5. dennisa says:

    “Murtha should know better.”

    I wouldn’t expect him to act any other way. Good to know what the anti-war types are up to.

  6. The Macker says:

    “Once the troops are removed from Iraq, the bleeding will cease. “-
    Let me remind you that the “bleeding” was underway before our troops were in Iraq.

    Your comments go downhill from there.

  7. lassoingtruth says:


    Your comment went downhill immediately. You attributed Soothsayer’s quote to me. And misinterpreted his quote to boot.

    He was obviously referring primarily to US blood. Easy to
    see if Strata’s myopia strikes you as incisive and moving.

  8. The Macker says:

    Lasso & Sooth,
    Sorry for the mixup.

    US blood was sacrificed before the Iraq operation. But the Left willfully refuses to acknowledge a connection between Iraq and global terrorists or Iraq’s WMD intentions.

  9. lassoingtruth says:

    It has come to “intentions” to justify a pre-emptive, immoral war, so designated by the Pope and the vast majority of other world religious leaders, incidentially. Any Middle East leader of a nation worth his salt has “intentions” of protecting himself against Israel’s (Olmert-
    confessed) WMDs, weapons never put under a treaty demanded of others, incidentially.

    As for terrorists, Saddam gave 25,000 dollars to the families
    of those Palestinian families whose homes were bulldozed in a guilt-by-association punishment by the Israeli government. And
    Hamas and Hezbollah are designated NON-terrorist by European nations with,let us say, fewer of their pols bought off by the

    But Macker I’m not sastisfied with calling your bluff. I’m raising you and taunting you. IRAN, which has given the Pals in question
    much more than Saddam did, is the winner of the war you still defend.

  10. Soothsayer says:

    Let me remind you that the “bleeding” was underway before our troops were in Iraq

    OUR TROOPS were not bleeding until the ill-advised invasion, unless you are talking about the 9/11 attacks by Saudi nationals and assorted al-Qaeda terrorists, none of whom were invovled with Iraq.

  11. The Macker says:

    Morality of war depends on the material facts as well as the principles. Bush had more information than the religious leaders did and he had the ultimate responsibility for our safety.

  12. The Macker says:

    Olmert heads a democracy,so can be trusted with WMD.

  13. The Macker says:

    The Euros were in a poor position to “designate” any group “non terrorist,” given the Oil For Food scam, their endemic anti-semitism and their large disadvantaged and restless Muslim slum populations.

  14. The Macker says:

    ” ill-advised invasion,” – That line doesn’t work on this site.

  15. Sensible Mom says:

    Democrats Don’t Support The Troops…

    They don’t want to appear like they’re willing to “abandon the troops in the field” so they’ve decided to work with anti-war (aka anti-military) groups to do just that by changing the rules for readiness. Not that they’re concerned in the least …

  16. lassoingtruth says:

    “Anti-semitism” charges don’t work on THIS site,Macker.

    Israel has rabbinical law, deports Jews who marry Arabs and
    consigns Arabs to certain areas, forbidding even the sale
    of land by Jews to them in many areas. It is not a democracy
    but an oppressive state with a Jewish supremacist ideology
    in command. And because of the Israeli Lobby’s grip
    on buying politicians and media here, and smearing any
    believers in democracy for the Palestinians as “anti-semites”
    threatening,as Measheimer and Walt’s study shows,their
    very livelihoods, America is in far worse position than Europe
    to delineate between terrorist and freedom fighter.

    Ask many “self-hating Jews” like Norman Finklestein &
    Tony Judt who also face the wrath of the Lobby and are so
    characterized .

  17. gumshoe says:

    get te joooooos!
    it’s the joooooooooos!!!

  18. Soothsayer says:

    ” ill-advised invasion,” – That line doesn’t work on this site.

    Well, I can see why you support the war, Macker, it’s been so friggin’ successful. 3,50o troops dead, 20,000 injured, an Iran-Hezb’Allah-Hamas loving government installed and spending 363 tons of US currency without receipts, and a trillion dollars poured down a rathole in the desert we could have funded Social Security for 75 years with. Stunningly effective job by Bush-Cheney.

  19. Soothsayer says:

    get te joooooos!
    it’s the joooooooooos!!!

    They found OJ not guilty! (snark)