Democrats to try "slow-bleed" strategy against troops

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Little-Acorn, Feb 15, 2007.

  1. Little-Acorn
    Offline

    Little-Acorn Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2006
    Messages:
    8,345
    Thanks Received:
    2,021
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Ratings:
    +5,841
    I know the newly-elected Democrat majorities in the House and Senate really, really want me to like them. Yeah, right. But they keep making it SO hard.

    This appears to be their latest attempt to garner my approval. Unfortunately, it has failed. I'm sure they're heartbroken.

    -----------------------------------

    http://opinionjournal.com

    From "Best of the Web" by James Taranto

    'A Slow-Bleed Strategy'

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0207/2751.html

    "Top House Democrats, working in concert with anti-war groups, have decided against using congressional power to force a quick end to U.S. involvement in Iraq, and instead will pursue a slow-bleed strategy designed to gradually limit the administration's options," reports The Politico:

    *** QUOTE ***

    Led by Rep. John P. Murtha, D-Pa., and supported by several well-funded anti-war groups, the coalition's goal is to limit or sharply reduce the number of U.S. troops available for the Iraq conflict, rather than to openly cut off funding for the war itself.

    The legislative strategy will be supplemented by a multimillion-dollar TV ad campaign designed to pressure vulnerable GOP incumbents into breaking with President Bush and forcing the administration to admit that the war is politically unsustainable.

    As described by participants, the goal is crafted to circumvent the biggest political vulnerability of the anti-war movement--the accusation that it is willing to abandon troops in the field. That fear is why many Democrats have remained timid in challenging Bush, even as public support for the president and his Iraq policies have plunged.

    *** END QUOTE ***

    So the idea is to keep the troops in harm's way but take all steps possible to prevent them from prevailing, in the hope that the Democrats will benefit politically from American defeat. According to a press release this morning from the House Republican Conference, yesterday the Web site MoveCongress.org
    http://www.movecongress.org/content/index.php announcing an event this morning, declared:

    *** QUOTE ***

    Chairman Murtha will describe his strategy for not only limiting the deployment of troops to Iraq but undermining other aspects of the president's foreign and national security policy.

    *** END QUOTE ***

    This language has since disappeared from the site, but a reader first alerted us to it late yesterday afternoon.

    You don't have to agree with the president's policies to find this appalling. If Murtha thinks he has a better way, let him run for president next year and make the case. To pursue a strategy of subversion instead is cowardly and despicable.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. glockmail
    Offline

    glockmail BANNED

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    7,700
    Thanks Received:
    433
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The beautiful Yadkin Valley
    Ratings:
    +438
    I call it TREASON.
     
  3. Vintij
    Offline

    Vintij Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2007
    Messages:
    1,040
    Thanks Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Anaheim, CA
    Ratings:
    +105
    I dont agree with the presidents policy but i agree that there are better ways to adress iraq than the "slow bleed" technique. Its a giant waste of money.
     
  4. T-Bor
    Offline

    T-Bor Active Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2006
    Messages:
    752
    Thanks Received:
    101
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +101
    If we dont send any more troops and all the troops that are there get wipped out by Roadside bombs then the war must end right ? Sounds like a good plan to me.
     
  5. maineman
    Offline

    maineman BANNED

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    Messages:
    13,003
    Thanks Received:
    572
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    guess
    Ratings:
    +572
    you overuse that word about as much as you do "ironic"
     
  6. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    You are beyond sick.
     
  7. maineman
    Offline

    maineman BANNED

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    Messages:
    13,003
    Thanks Received:
    572
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    guess
    Ratings:
    +572
    I must agree.... that comment was in very poor taste.
     
  8. Bern80
    Offline

    Bern80 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,094
    Thanks Received:
    720
    Trophy Points:
    138
    Ratings:
    +726
    It just really goes to show how chicken &#!+ the dems are. As a point of fact if they really wanted to end this war they have that ability afforded to them in the constitution. They have the constitutional authority to withdraw funding. One has to wonder (well not really) if they want out so bad why they don't just do that.
     
  9. maineman
    Offline

    maineman BANNED

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    Messages:
    13,003
    Thanks Received:
    572
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    guess
    Ratings:
    +572
    I think they need to build more public support for such an action. They cannot act in a vacuum... this non-binding resolution is the first step, but it will not be the last.
     
  10. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    and that is the point.
     

Share This Page