Dems Lack Guts To Stop The War

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
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
 

maineman

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

maineman

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

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
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:
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
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
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.


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"
 

maineman

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

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.
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
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.
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
 

maineman

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

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.
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
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.
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
 

maineman

Rookie
Joined
Dec 29, 2006
Messages
13,003
Reaction score
572
Points
0
Location
guess
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
not so...I disagree with your characterization. You are wrong about me and I have proven that time and time again.
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
not so...I disagree with your characterization. You are wrong about me and I have proven that time and time again.
When? Dems would rather have the terrorists win in Iraq if it means they secure all the political power in DC

If that means the US military is forced to leave (when they do not want to) the Dems can bash the military for dcades by reminding the voters how the US military cannot win a war

Then, Dems can cut the funding every year and fund more money to their social programs that accomplish nothing

Yes, the Dems have put party ahead of their country and the proof is their for all to see
 

CTRLALTDEL

Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2006
Messages
221
Reaction score
40
Points
16
Location
Bay Area
"When? Dems would rather have the terrorists win in Iraq if it means they secure all the political power in DC"


Are you saying Shiites and Sunnis will just ROLL OVER AND PLAY DEAD while "terrorists" take over thier country???
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
"When? Dems would rather have the terrorists win in Iraq if it means they secure all the political power in DC"


Are you saying Shiites and Sunnis will just ROLL OVER AND PLAY DEAD while "terrorists" take over thier country???
Dems could care less what happens to the people of Iraq

They cannot vote in our elections so Dems say the hell with of them
 

trobinett

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2004
Messages
1,832
Reaction score
162
Points
48
Location
Arkansas, The Ozarks
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.
A non-partisan observation, your sig is quite appropriate.

If you don't support the mission, you don't support the military.

Is that such a hard concept to get your brain around?
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
A non-partisan observation, your sig is quite appropriate.

If you don't support the mission, you don't support the military.

Is that such a hard concept to get your brain around?
Libs support the war when the war was going well - now they are running away when the going its hard

Libs have more positions then a Bill Clinton intern
 

Creek_George

Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2007
Messages
333
Reaction score
49
Points
16
Location
Northern Minnesota In A Cabin
Ya have to look at this...as how America looks at it.

At this moment in time...we can be suduced in a way out..just we were getting to this mess.

Secondly if a Lib as you put it was in office.."Gore"...we wouldn't be in Iraq right now in the first place...That's a given...a fact.

Thirdly...any Lib..let alone a Con who ended this blunder on the spot with complete withdrawl would be wearing the same shoes...

We're just stalling what the true shape of Iraq is gona be..We can stay there..and this will never end.

Have not most had a good ass kicking in there life...You know when it's time to stop throwing the punches...What are we missing here?

Last night I watched 2003 transcripts of Bush..and Cheney...it was all progress...but that was far from the truth on what was going on there on the ground at that time.

Yes..I find it bullshit that any career politian will use "withdrawl" to get a vote...but at the same feel covered in bullshit with Bush's terror war....what a fiasco..(shaking my head).

The Republican Party can save itself now...by doing now...what even a elected Republican/Democrat would do if elected...Get the hell outa there....I don't see alot of Cons running with any better ideas....

We handed Iraq to Iran..on a silver platter...we lost...

Can someone tell me what we've accomplished?....If you can answer that one question...and if to say Saddam was removed from power just don't/won't cut it with me...sorry..:(....Big Buzzer Sound...(smile).

You're already blaming the next Lib President...they need there vote...They have to harness this Iraq blunder....(smile)...Political Parties thrive on another party failure.

Iraq is not gona even be our ally after this...What pull will we have left?

I just hope Bush don't make Iran a reason to keep us there....Next catchy slogan would be..."Operation Irani Freedom"....I've read through the grapevine that due to the Iranian influence...we could be there a VERY LONG TIME if some get there way.....So maybe there is no rush to fixing this mess in Iraq....for now.

Good feed back folks...just wanted to throw my two bits in...and my cold beer is for all ya guys & gals....Most at this board..can agree..to disagree....We need a little more peace in this world...That's the man we want in office...Easier said..than done though..:(

Keep Rockin..:)
 

maineman

Rookie
Joined
Dec 29, 2006
Messages
13,003
Reaction score
572
Points
0
Location
guess
A non-partisan observation, your sig is quite appropriate.

If you don't support the mission, you don't support the military.

Is that such a hard concept to get your brain around?
so...no matter what foolish and counterproductive mission total assholes in washington send our brave men to attempt to accomplish, american citizens must agree with those missions or they, automatically, do not support the troops? can you really be that stupid or is it some affectation?
 

CTRLALTDEL

Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2006
Messages
221
Reaction score
40
Points
16
Location
Bay Area
A non-partisan observation, your sig is quite appropriate.

If you don't support the mission, you don't support the military.

Is that such a hard concept to get your brain around?


So if our boneheaded Govt. sends our troops on a mission over a cliff to die, we should support that as well knowing it would lead to thier deaths?? :eusa_wall: :eusa_wall:
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
So if our boneheaded Govt. sends our troops on a mission over a cliff to die, we should support that as well knowing it would lead to thier deaths?? :eusa_wall: :eusa_wall:
It is always refreshing to see the love and support the left has for the US military

Then libs walk around straching their pointy heads trying to figure out why the military votes in huge numbers for the Republicans
 

maineman

Rookie
Joined
Dec 29, 2006
Messages
13,003
Reaction score
572
Points
0
Location
guess
It is always refreshing to see the love and support the left has for the US military

Then libs walk around straching their pointy heads trying to figure out why the military votes in huge numbers for the Republicans
but you didn't answer his question: are you suggesting that patriotic Americans remain silent when the civilian leaders of our government send our military on suicidal, counterproductive missions that make us less safe? Is that how you suggest we all show our "support" for the troops?
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top