Democrats to try "slow-bleed" strategy against troops

Little-Acorn

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2006
Messages
10,025
Reaction score
2,404
Points
290
Location
San Diego, CA
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.
 

Vintij

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2007
Messages
1,040
Reaction score
105
Points
48
Location
Anaheim, CA
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.
 

T-Bor

Active Member
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
752
Reaction score
101
Points
28
I call it TREASON.
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.
 

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
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.
You are beyond sick.
 

Bern80

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2004
Messages
8,094
Reaction score
722
Points
138
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.
 

maineman

Rookie
Joined
Dec 29, 2006
Messages
13,003
Reaction score
572
Points
0
Location
guess
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.
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.
 

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
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.
and that is the point.
 

maineman

Rookie
Joined
Dec 29, 2006
Messages
13,003
Reaction score
572
Points
0
Location
guess
and if they believe, as I do, that the war in Iraq is counterproductive to America's security, then they will take those next steps in good conscience.
 

Bullypulpit

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2004
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
382
Points
48
Location
Columbus, OH
There is no easy way out of the quagmire the Bush Administration created in Iraq. Regardless of what course America takes to draw down our presence there, Iraqis will continue to die. US troops will continue to die. And the civil war will continue unabated.

But let's take a closer look at Representative Murtha's plan. (John Murtha with the TWO Purple Hearts and more combat experience than all of the members of the Bush administration combined.)

His plan is for troop rotations to be strictly adhered to, with troops getting their full year at home before being rotated back into combat. Ensure that troops have training adequate to the task before them before they are ever sent into combat. Ensure that the troops have the equipment they need to conduct their mission. This is the heart of Murtha's plan, a plan the military supports.

If you want to see a "slow bleed" plan, go back to October 2003 when the insurgency in Iraq was getting its legs and equipment shortages were becoming a real issue. Representative David Obey proposed an amendment to shift $3.6 billion in the budget to cover the costs of improved equipment and other quality of life measures for US troops. The amendment was killed by the Republican majority, including the Republicans who actually called Murtha's plan a "slow-bleed plan"...Deborah Pryce (R-OH), Roy Blunt (R-MO), Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI), Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), and Adam Putnam (R-FL).

It was the Bush administration who wanted to wage war on the cheap and sent in too few troops, and then failed to adequately equip them for the mission they faced. With more than 3,000 US dead and more than 25,000 wounded, many maimed for life, it is clear that the Bush administration plans, or lack thereof, for the invasion and occupation of Iraq is the real "slow-bleed plan".
 

sitarro

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2003
Messages
5,186
Reaction score
1,028
Points
153
Location
USA
I must agree.... that comment was in very poor taste.
yea...well that piece of crap votes like you do and is is on your side maineman.....how's that for a reality check ace?
 

sitarro

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2003
Messages
5,186
Reaction score
1,028
Points
153
Location
USA
There is no easy way out of the quagmire the Bush Administration created in Iraq. Regardless of what course America takes to draw down our presence there, Iraqis will continue to die. US troops will continue to die. And the civil war will continue unabated.

But Chimpy's a "stay-the-course" kind of guy, and he'll keep pouring our blood and treasure down that rat-hole until he is removed form office, whether in '08, or sooner if Congress gets off their dead asses and impeaches the whole administration.
Did you say something Bully? No I guess not, at least nothing worth listening to. Nothing new here....some old farts parroting the idiot talking assholes in Washington and still with no alternatives but to cut and run like the p*****s that they have always been. Putin would be very proud of you boys.
 

sitarro

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2003
Messages
5,186
Reaction score
1,028
Points
153
Location
USA
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.
action? democrats????:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
 

Bullypulpit

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2004
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
382
Points
48
Location
Columbus, OH
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.
The public voiced its support in November of 2006. The public continues to support a timetable for bringing all the troops home by the end of 2008. So, what are they (Congress) waiting for...? A freakin' engraved invitation?
 

sitarro

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2003
Messages
5,186
Reaction score
1,028
Points
153
Location
USA
The public voiced its support in November of 2006. The public continues to support a timetable for bringing all the troops home by the end of 2008. So, what are they (Congress) waiting for...? A freakin' engraved invitation?
That election was a joke. The voting machines were rigged by the democrats, illegals were allowed to vote by the democrats, republican votes were thrown away, the chads were left hanging. The democrats made a special point to invited Castro, Putin, Chavez, Ahmadinejad, assorted mullas, Chiraq and they dug up Hitler, Krushev, Mussolini, they're beloved Arafat and of course Satan to vote for them also. How could you claim to have won such an obviously corrupt election?
 

Bullypulpit

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2004
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
382
Points
48
Location
Columbus, OH
That election was a joke. The voting machines were rigged by the democrats, illegals were allowed to vote by the democrats, republican votes were thrown away, the chads were left hanging. The democrats made a special point to invited Castro, Putin, Chavez, Ahmadinejad, assorted mullas, Chiraq and they dug up Hitler, Krushev, Mussolini, they're beloved Arafat and of course Satan to vote for them also. How could you claim to have won such an obviously corrupt election?
SO now who's whining about a stolen election? Loser.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top