Feb 26 2007

Dems Surrender On Iraq Surrender

Published by at 8:24 pm under All General Discussions,Iraq

The Democrats caved today on their insane plans to run from Iraq, probably due to the fact the country was turning against them (polls here and here) and probably in no small part to the warning shot Joe Lieberman sent across their creaky bow today. Needless to say, it is the Democrats who are now in full retreat.

Democrats grasp for Iraq strategy amid US public disillusionment

Democratic leaders backed away from aggressive plans to limit President George W. Bush’s war authority, the latest sign of divisions within their ranks over how to proceed.

Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Monday he wanted to delay votes on a measure that would repeal the 2002 war authorization and narrow the mission in Iraq.

Senior Democrats who drafted the proposal, including Sen. Joseph Biden and Sen. Carl Levin , had sought swift action on it as early as this week, when the U.S. Senate takes up a measure to enact the recommendations of the bipartisan Sept. 11 commission.

Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, meanwhile, said she does not support tying war funding to strict training and readiness targets for U.S. troops.

The comments distanced her from Democratic Rep. John Murtha who has said he wants to use the U.s. Congress’ spending power to force a change in policy in Iraq, by setting strict conditions on war funding.

Well, that surely will teach the anti-war left how little clout they have with the national parties. Just as little as they have with the American people. And with endless stories coming out of Iraq regarding capturing al Qaeda, insurgents and Iranian weapons it is clear the surge – which has only barely just begun – is proving it has potential, if nothing else. It is a bit surprising Pelosi left Mad Murtha hanging out to dry like that, so it must be bad in the polls. Is America tired of the surrender party? Yep, to the point we expect them to pull a Vilsack and quit all together. And it could not come too soon. I think IHT said it best:

The developments on both sides of the Capitol reflected a new level of disarray in Democratic ranks on Iraq. Swept into power by voters clamoring for an end to the war, Democrats have seen their efforts falter under a reality more complicated than they found on the campaign trail.

Yeah, leading and actually doing something is a lot harder than being whiney little back benchers. The Dems hit reality did they? Seems it flumoxed them from the start. At least we know their reputation for poor national security judgement is a well earned one.

26 responses so far

26 Responses to “Dems Surrender On Iraq Surrender”

  1. kathie says:

    The Dems ran on a “new direction”. They never said what that new direction was, they made it up after they got elected. The President outlined a new direction, everyone thought more troops needed to be sent, until they were. Why are the Dems in disarray? Because the one person who has thought this war through and considered every possible plan was the president. The only plan left is to defund the troops and that is not very appealing for the Dems. So it was never about a plan but an election. They lost.

  2. TomAnon says:

    “It is a bit surprising Pelosi left Mad Murtha hanging out to dry like that, so it must be bad in the polls”

    Probably had to do that to get her fancy plane.

  3. dennisa says:

    The Democrats in Congress have created the expectation among the foaming-at-the-mouth Democratic base that they are going to do something about the Iraq conflict. They have ratcheted up the rhetoric, while in fact doing nothing. Perhaps their rhetoric should be more in line with what they actually can do. In any event, the base isn’t going to be too happy for long.

  4. Soothsayer says:

    Lid blown off Bush funding of a–Qaeda related Terror Groups

    Seymour Hersch reports, and Reagan Assistant Secretary of Defense Lawrence J. Korb confirms, that the Bush administration, acting at the behest of Bush’s Saudi masters (the same ones who spirited numerous bin Laden relatives out of the country post-9/11), has been funding Sunni terror groups aligned with al-Qaeda terrorists in an effort to counteract Iranian influence in the Middle East.

    We’ve now come full circle: Bush is funding the same folks who blew up the Twin Towers. If anyone else did this – it would make them an enemy noncombatant under the Military Commission Act.

    Let’s hear it for George and Dick.

  5. lurker9876 says:

    Seymour Hersch is as left wing as he can be.

    Just about every article he’s written about Iraq and Iran have been disproven.

  6. lurker9876 says:

    Trouble In Paradise

    Wonder what the democrats’ next move will be…

  7. roonent1 says:

    Soothsayer,

    You have made a name for yourself here as being misinformed on the facts by poor research. Or you may be doing it inentionally. Either way, you make yourself look rather silly and foolish with your fact lacking rants.

    It was Richard Clarke himself that authorized the the flights for Bin Laden’s family to leave the country. Clarke has stated this publicly several times. Richard Clarke, Bill Clinton’s boy did it, so once again you prove that you get low marks for fact gathering.

    BTW, Ken, I mean Lasso, I mean Soothsayer, no one is fooled by your different monikers. You are the same kool-aid drinking person.

  8. roonent1 says:

    Soothsayer,

    BTW since Ken, now Lasso has been banned here, you are down to one moniker. We all will be looking out for your new name(s) when they surface shortly.

    I asked you before why you do not start your own blog? Are you afraid AJ here would be much more successful then you? I think you are. Your blog would just be another of the thousands that get no traffic because their authors lack the skills to inform and entertain.

  9. Soothsayer says:

    Moroonent1:

    Clarke was a Bush employee at the time. What I said was that it was done at the behest of the Saudis. Disprove that if you can. And disprove that 13 of the 19 9/11 terrorists were Saudi Sunnis. The Saudi continue to fund Sunnis – and so does the Bush Administration. Look for Congressional oversight investigations soon.

    And I suppose Lawrence Korb is a leftist, too? You’re the ones drinking the Kool-Ade.

  10. Bill's Bites says:

    New Surrendercrat Strategy: Betray The Troops — Update 13…

    Words from the last of the sane Democrats: The Choice on Iraq I appeal to my colleagues in Congress to step back and think carefully about what to do next. — Sen. Joseph Lieberman Two months into the 110th Congress,…

  11. kathie says:

    Seymour Hersch says what ever fits his anti-Ameican thing at the moment. Let’s see, Bush is paying the Saudi’s to support the Sunni’s in Iraqi, or Bush was promised fee oil if he let the Saudi’s support Al Quada in Iraq. Or Bush is going to kill all the Shea and let the Saudi’s have Iraq. Bush is moments away from attacking Iran. He is mentally unstable he would do anything, you know he is an alcholic. He would even kill Americans if he got oil in exchange. I’m sure there are a thousand more Bush could, would, should that Hersch could think up. And I’m sure there is someone who could verify anything that was thought up. Even if he had to phone Sooth to do it.

  12. Dc says:

    The “dems” ran on the well covered scandals (Foley, Cunningham, Abramoff.), and the “culture of corruption” in ’06. They mostly avoided even mentioning Iraq as the campaigns went on as part of their central campaign platform and they were picking republican “lites” and centrists for candiates. They were “cleaning house” of corruption.

    The few anti-war, surrender at all cost, nutroots that did run on that message with Iraq out in front….like Lamont…weren’t even a factor in ’06. It was about Republican corruption, ie..the culture of corruption, about cleaning house…etc.

    Now, they claim they actually ran the DNC campaign platform on anti-war, withdrawing from Iraq..and that their election to majority in both houses was a mandate from the people to stop the President’s “surge”. More nutroot revisionist history—not only did most of them “not” run on such a platform…the “surge” wasn’t even an issue until after the elections were over.

  13. Dc says:

    Most governments within the ME/Gulf region, even those considered “moderate”, have within them a mixture of more modern western elments/structure, as well as ancient Islamic/religious/social structures. It is, as it has always been, the tension between these 2 that is most often the root of problems.

    The royal family of the house of saud is often a target of the religious elements within their own country. The imams, etc..who all oversee their duties in carrying out teaching/indoctrination and “law” in such places…are part of the government.

    Osama and Zawahiri both had their citizenship revoked and were expelled from their respective countries (SA and Egypt), long before 9/11 or the invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan ever happened. Osama issued his first Fatwa against the US in the 90s. Attacks by such people and groups against western targets have been going on for decades. This isn’t some recent phenom.

    In that regard… our goal is to embrace and align with those leaders, govs, nations, etc…who’s interest is in economic, social, religious and gov moderation, growth, tollerance and change ….NOT the extremist who only want to become more isolated, indoctrinated, intollerant and hostile.

    The place where most of the recruiting for jihad happens is in Europe. Specifically, at the universities in Europe. While your avg dirt eating, squat and nod islamic school to hate jews…are plentiful in places like SA, those kind of kids aren’t the kind AlQueda is looking for to carry out such missions. Nor would such a person have the means or even educational/social backround to do anything other than blow themselves up. They want educated people familar with western culture.

  14. Dc says:

    Soothie: “Bush is funding the same folks who blew up the Twin Towers.”

    Yea..the “sunni’s” did it. LOL.

    Lets review your use of logic and statistics here Soothie:

    See if I have this right:
    Fact: we gave money to some sunni group
    Fact: some hijackers on 9/11 were sunnis.

    Therefore…we funded the people (sunnis) who bombed us on 9/11.

    And your proof! Why Richard Clarke worked for Bush! (C). And the SA gov fly some of their people out after 9/11. ROTFL.

    Brilliant soothie. Another nutroots example of logic.

  15. Soothsayer says:

    The facts are, we have gien aid to Sunni terrorist organizations that are aligned against the Shia running Iran. Said Sunni groups are supporters of al-Qaeda, a Sunni based organization that was, as I recall, undeniably responsible for 9/11.

    If you had seen the interview with Korb, you would realize he confirmed exactly these facts.

  16. lurker9876 says:

    We shall see what other conservative bloggers have to say about Seymour Hersch and Lawrence Korb.

    There are some that claim themselves as conservatives, such as Joe Wilson and Larry Johnson. Joe Wilson’s a proven liar. Larry Johnson said no threat in July 2001; we were hit on 9/11. Right.

  17. lurker9876 says:

    Appeal for Courage – in response to the AstroTurfing show.

    If you are actively serving, sign up!

  18. lurker9876 says:

    Korb Your Enthusiasm!

    Reading the list of Korb’s articles, it’s no surprise!

    Korb Articles – also interviewed by Frontline.

    Why Lawrence Korb is Wrong on Iraq