Dems Lack Guts To Stop The War

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by red states rule, Feb 24, 2007.

  1. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572
    The Dems do not have the balls to do what is needed if they REALLY believe all is lost in Iraq

    As usual, Defeatocrats are all talk and no action


    No Way To End A War
    By Charles Krauthammer

    WASHINGTON -- The United States has fought many wars since 1941, but never again declared one. Abroad, no one declares war anymore either, perhaps because it has the anachronistic feel of an aristocratic challenge. Whatever the reason, today Congress doesn't declare war; it "authorizes'' the "use of force.''

    In October 2002, both houses of Congress did exactly that with open eyes and large majorities. Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a Democratic member of the Senate Intelligence Committee who had access to all the relevant information at the time, said, "I have come to the inescapable conclusion that the threat posed to America by Saddam's weapons of mass destruction is so serious that despite the risks -- and we should not minimize the risks -- we must authorize the president to take the necessary steps to deal with that threat.''

    Now, more than four years later, the Democrats want out of the resulting war. Most, such as Rep. John Murtha, want to do so for a simple reason: They think the war is lost. If you believe that, then getting out is the most reasonable and honorable and patriotic policy.

    Congress has the power to do that by cutting off the funds. But Democrats will not, because it is politically dangerous. Instead, they are seeking other ways, clever ways. The House is pursuing a method, developed by Murtha and deemed "ingenious'' by anti-war activist Tom Andrews of Win Without War, to impose a conditional cutoff of funds, ostensibly in the name of protecting the troops. Unless the troops are given the precise equipment, training and amount of rest Murtha stipulates -- no funds.

    Unfortunately for the Democrats, Murtha is not disingenuous enough to have concealed the real motives for these ostensibly pro-readiness, pro-troops conditions. He has chosen conditions he knows are impossible to meet -- "We have analyzed this and we have come to the conclusion that it can't be done'' -- in order to make the continued prosecution of the war very difficult, if not impossible, for the commanders in the field.

    But think of what that entails. It leaves the existing 130,000 troops out there without the reinforcements and tactical flexibility that the commander, Gen. David H. Petraeus, says he needs to win.

    Of course, the Democrats believe that the war cannot be won. But if that's the case, they should order a withdrawal by cutting off the funds. They shouldn't micromanage the war in a way that will make winning impossible. That not only endangers the troops remaining in the field, it makes the Democrats' the-war-is-lost mantra a self-fulfilling prophecy.

    Murtha's ruse is so transparent that even Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, who opposes the war, will not countenance it: "I think that sends the wrong message to our troops.''

    Levin has a different idea -- change the original October 2002 authorization. "We'll be looking at modification of that authorization in order to limit the mission of American troops to a support mission instead of a combat mission,'' says Levin. "That is very different from cutting off funds.''

    While this idea is not as perverse as Murtha's, it is totally illogical. There is something exceedingly strange about authorizing the use of force -- except for combat. That is an oxymoron. Changing the language of authorization means -- if it means anything -- that Petraeus will have to surround himself with lawyers who will tell him, every time he wants to deploy a unit, whether he is ordering a legal "support'' mission or an illegal "combat'' mission.

    If Levin wants to withdraw our forces from the civil war in the cities to more secure bases from which we can continue training and launching operations against al-Qaeda, he should present that to the country as an alternative to (or fallback after) the administration's troop surge. But to force it on our commanders through legalisms is simply to undermine their ability to fight the war occurring on the ground today.

    Slowly bleeding our forces by defunding what our commanders think they need to win (the House approach) or rewording the authorization of the use of force so that lawyers decide what operations are to be launched (the Senate approach) is no way to fight a war. It is no way to end a war. It is a way to complicate the war and make it inherently unwinnable -- and to shirk the political responsibility for doing so.


    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/house_approach_is_to_slowly_bl.html
     
  2. maineman
    Offline

    maineman BANNED

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    Messages:
    13,003
    Thanks Received:
    572
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    guess
    Ratings:
    +572
    all you do is cut and paste. do you have anything of substance to say for yourself or must you ALWAYS rely on others to do your talking for you? :eusa_wall:
     
  3. maineman
    Offline

    maineman BANNED

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    Messages:
    13,003
    Thanks Received:
    572
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    guess
    Ratings:
    +572
    and the "war" is inherently unwinnable and has been from the very first day. We set loose the forces of sectarian strife that Saddam had kept in check. We do not have the wherewithall or understanding to stop it. We need to admit we fucked up...and get ready to leave so that we can BEGIN to fight the war we should have been fighting all along.
     
  4. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572
    Ah, MM - our gentle ray of sunstroke once again fails to address the lack of guts of Dems, and instead attacks the perosn who has the nerve to bring up the subject
     
  5. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572


    Yes, MM once again shows his support for the US military. Now they are losers and are not worth the time and effort of the Dems

    Way to go MM!

    In the next election MM wil have this on his Yugo

    "Support Our Stupid Troops - Kerry 08"
     
  6. maineman
    Offline

    maineman BANNED

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    Messages:
    13,003
    Thanks Received:
    572
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    guess
    Ratings:
    +572

    you really need to understand the difference between supporting the military and supporting the missions that the administration sends them on.

    It seems to me that, each and every time, you get confused by that.
     
  7. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572
    That is like saying you support the Colts

    but hate football

    Of course, Dems have been openly showing their contempt for the military since the war started. Only the kook left (like you) have been defending them
     
  8. maineman
    Offline

    maineman BANNED

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    Messages:
    13,003
    Thanks Received:
    572
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    guess
    Ratings:
    +572

    no...it's like saying I support the Patriots but hate the fact that Belicheck is asking them to go out on the field wearing scuba outfits and blindfolds and expecting them to win a game. I have never shown my contempt for the military...it is YOU who have shown contempt for military veterans and denigrated their service if they don't think exactly like you do about this war.
     
  9. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572
    Once again sonny, you have defending and kissed the ass of those Dems who have insulted and slimed the troops. You have put your party ahead of your country and your nations military
     
  10. maineman
    Offline

    maineman BANNED

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    Messages:
    13,003
    Thanks Received:
    572
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    guess
    Ratings:
    +572
    not so...I disagree with your characterization. You are wrong about me and I have proven that time and time again.
     

Share This Page