Democrats Will Fight ... For Surrender

A slight majority of Congressional Democrats have shown that they do have some fight in them, unfortunately only when it comes to seeing how quickly they can pull off a behind the lines surrender while our troops continue to fight our enemies in Iraq. They have sealed their fate and any notion that they support our troops must come off the table now.

Fresh from meetings with the terror supporting Muslim Brotherhood, Democrat Majority Leader Steny "I'm No Stonewall" Hoyer said, "Our troops are mired in a civil war with no clear enemy and no clear strategy for success". But critical observers realize there is indeed an enemy in Iraq in the form of al-Qaeda and other insurgent groups opposed to anything resembling a free state within the Middle East.

Petraeus told reporters sectarian killings in Baghdad were only a third of what they were in January, before Bush began sending in additional U.S. forces. He added that progress in the troubled western Anbar province was "breathtaking," and that he thought Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was "doing his best" at leading the country.

But "the ability of al-Qaida to conduct horrific, sensational attacks obviously has represented a setback and is an area in which we're focusing considerable attention," Petraeus said.

Petraeus said he would not touch on the "minefield of discussions about various legislative proposals," but he noted that the new strategy in Iraq was just beginning. He said he planned to provide more details in early September.

Despite briefings, Hoyer also said Petraeus convinced him the issue in Iraq was political, not militaristic, which may be true when you are open to having tea with terrorists. Perhaps he'll invite them to the US, he can take them on a tour of the World Trade Towers ... ooo, never mind. But then why should Hoyer care about that? he's not from New York and pushed a bill laced with treason in exchange for pork.

Today an American Army takes the field of battle while bleeding from a knife wound, having been stabbed deeply in the back by a Democrat Party that warms to terrorists in Syria and the broader Middle East.

The question now is not are they patriotic ... it is, whose side are they actually on? Clearly it isn't the side of our loyal forces waging war in Iraq. The bodies of Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy are likely rolling in their graves: Kennedy as in JFK, of course - Teddy is most likely drunk and off somewhere rolling in the hay, assuming the most Scotch-besotten member of today's Democrat Party can still get it up.

Clearly what none of the Democrats are up for is a fight with America's enemies. The Democrat Party is no longer worthy of American votes. McGovern's folly taught them nothing, their on going legacy is worthy of nothing but America's pity. Today the once proud Democrat Party has once again emerged as America's greatest shame.

Today, tyrannical, terrorist supporting governments will be celebrating, our soldiers will be fighting and possibly dying for a necessary cause ... and the cowards who comprise the leadership of the Democrat Party will be sleeping in, preparing for another round of the worst in pandering politics and placing blame for a war they voted for and almost immediately began to not support.

Traitors they are all.

Others blogging via Memeorandum

Comments

[Hard Right]

BTW Mr. Hoyer, not all the troops are there yet and 30% lower means something to that 30%, now doesn't it. That's it, continue to ignore how even Sunnis once fighting with the terrorists are turning against them and participating in the govt more than ever. Just keep saying we are losing enough and the American peasants (as Dems see them) will believe what you want them to.

What's funny is that the Dems think the American people are with them and that they are a hit.

2008 will be an ugly wake up call for them.

As for the Dem traitors, they should be dealt with accordingly.

[BringThemHome]

Democrats don't want our troops used as sitting ducks in someone else's sectarian-driven civil war. How is that anything but supporting the troops? Do you contend that the 60% of Americans who want to have our troops withdrawn from Iraq by the end of next year all fail to support the troops as well? Is the only way to support the troops to make sure they fight in an endless war, one which even General Petraeus admits doesn't have a military solution?

It's been over four years. The American military soundly defeated Saddam Hussein's regime. If the Iraqis insist on embroiling themselves in a years-long, and possibly decades-long, civil war, why should we keep American troops there as open targets? The troops did their job. We should let them come home.

[Bill Faith]

The Reid/Pelosi/Murtha Iraq plan in simplified form:

1)Predict failure
2)Do whatever it takes to make the predictioncome true
3)Blame it on George Bush

What we are watching, people, is absolute moral bankruptcy in action. Reid and Pelosi are contributing to American deaths in Iraq just as surely as Kerry and Fonda did in Viet Nam. May they burn in eternal Hell.

(Wow, two winger comments in a row before your resident trolls got here? Is the tide turning?)

[Bill Faith]

Oops, spoke too soon. Gotta get up pretty early in the morning to get ahead of your trolls.

I guess telling the jihadis that all they have to do is run up the death toll enough and we'll cut and run is "supporting the troops." I remember how good "support" like that felt when I was in Nam and I can't imagine it feels any better now. At least the VC didn't follow us home.

Can't help but wonder, BringThemHome, how much experience do *you* have at helping win a war and watching Congress turn around and surrender anyway?

[Buzzy]

Iraq is "choosing" to embroil itself in a sectarian civil war about as much as France "choose" to embroil itself in WWII.

[Darth Malice]

Start jailing MSM and Dems now Buzzy,for our survival.

[mike]

see the polls yesterday? the MAJORITY of americans agree with the dems and harry reid. the american people DON'T support this debacle in iraq!!

[Darth Malice]

Even if that were so,the majority is not always right.By the way if we lose in Iraq,who wins?

[BobInStamford]

Laura Bush= Ted Kennedy + Antidepressants. That woman is scary!!

The surge is working, heroes! Keep up the good work!

[Darth Malice]

Ted Kennedy + Rosie O=Hillary

[scarshapedstar]

"Traitors they are all."

Hemingway you ain't.

[Charles Warren]

Bill Faith, stop babbling that 'backstab' foolishness.

It wasn't our war to fight in Vietnam any more than it is in Iraq. It was South Vietnam's war to fight. And we 'lost' because we made it our war to fight for them. The hard truth is that the South Vietnamese government and armed forces never matched the dedication, skill, courage, and committment of the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong. And that had nothing to do with Jane Fonda. We were carrying losers and the American people got fed up with it.

The American people realize that to 'win' this war means changing the Iraqis into a whole other kind of people and WE CAN'T DO THAT. Sectarian war is something that just plain has to burn itself out and that process can take decades, even generations. Are we supposed to police an internal sectarian war forever ? I know you war supporters can't think above the slogan level but the American people can. And if the 'terrorists' have no domestic support, then why can't the Iraqi government control any provinces ?

[seekeronos]

"see the polls yesterday? the MAJORITY of americans agree with the dems and harry reid. the american people DON'T support this debacle in iraq!!"

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

Sure, Mike. And which polls were these? the New York Times polls of 1,000 carefully screened coastal dwelling liberals? Or those polls of the Americans living in flyover country who enjoy a bit of NASCAR along with respecting thier parents, honoring the Flag, and doing a little bit more than paying lip service to loving this nation?

[Buzzy]

But it was our war to fight in VietNam. One of the last decent Democratic Presidents acknowledged that the USA was a part of SEATO (South East Asia Treaty Organization)and the communists from North Vietnam were invading that nation just as North Korea had invaded South Korea in 1950. Our loss in VietNam was completely due to the efforts of the anti war movement and not due to military losses in the war. Strange that the anti war movement always backs communists and fascist governments over democratic governments.

Just like now, the bloodshed in Iraq is much less sectarian and more about two terrorist groups who hate the fact that Iraq is now governed by a democratically elected government. Iran wants control as does the fascist Baath party of Saddam and both hate the concept of a free people making decisions about their future for themselves.

When you see Nancy Pelosi kissing up to the Syrian President and demanding the US abandon the democratic government of Iraq you're just seeing Hanoi Jane Fonda aiming a Chinese AAA gun and kissing up to the communist North Vietnamese soldiers who are celebrating killing yet another US pilot. When you hear Harry Reid declaring the war in Iraq is lost you're seeing the face of Islamofascism licking its lips at the prospect of filling yet more mass graves in Iraq with the bodies of innocent Kurds, Sunnis and Shi'a who only want what we've had in the US for more than 200 years, freedom.

Why does the Democratic leadership find it so easy to love those who hate us and impossible to help those who want freedom.

In 1940 when FDR started assisting Britain in her "darkest hour" with supplies he was making a stand for freedom against the brutal fascist Nazis. Our nation has a long long history of standing beside those who face oppression from brutal enemies but those days are gone. The party of FDR now stands united with the fascists and communists demanding that the US abandon those who cherish their hard won freedom. Yet they call themselves patriots. I know what FDR, JFK, and even LBJ would call them.

[Legalize]

Michelle Malkin whores it up. Think she's wearing bloomers? God I hope so: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tt_YcQlYxyY&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwonkette%2Ecom%2Fpolitics%2Fmichelle%2Dmalkin%2Fmalkins%2Dsite%2Dnow%2Drequires%2Dadult%2Did%2Dcheck%2D255240%2Ephp

I'm not sure if this is one of Michelle's "witty" political rants, or a fetish video she filmed for her clearly not homosexual husband. I'm really hoping for the former. One thing is for sure: Malkin has zero physical presence.

[southdakotaboy]

Well what I'm wondering is how the Dems are going to be able to justify going into Darfur or anyother place to stop genocide. What is genocide other than one side really whipping up on another. What we on the right need to do is have all the same signs and stunts that the left used ready to go if they try. It will really be funny to try and watch the Dems justify things when they get their own words thrown back at them.

[nowinger]

Going in to help stop genocide as a peace keeping force for a short term duration is nothing like toppling a regime, setting up the government you think the country should have and occupying the country for an indefinite period of time.

Will you wingers never tire of using false analogies and lies to prop up your false ideologies?

[templar knight]

Well, I'll say this, after this business in Iraq is over, I hope you liberals won't expect to receive any support from the American people for any kind of intervention for the next several years. The taste for military intervention of any kind(Darfur or any other) has been poisoned to the extent that virtually no one will support it. I know I won't. Not that I supported the Iraqi equation here, but now nothing. Let the World handle its own problems, and let the US bow out.

[nowinger]

I don't have a problem with that. The West spends too much time trying to help people who won't help themselves and who created their own problems and not enough time on our own problems. I have no problem sticking to diplomacy and sanctions rather than using troops, even in cases where innocent people are being harmed. The only reason anybody stepped into the Bosnia issue is because it was too close to Europe for comfort.

[Hard Right]

"see the polls yesterday? the MAJORITY of americans agree with the dems and harry reid. the american people DON'T support this debacle in iraq!!"

Ah yes one of many BIASED polls from the MSM. Yet another reason to ignore polls.

That's it No Brain, keep pretending we are only going there to keep peace...with kind words? No. By killing those who try to fight. You know, like we did in kosovo-also a civil war. See, I remember how you leftards behaved over Somalia. When our soldiers defended themselves your kind screamed about the deaths of "innocent" civilians...deliberately ignoring that not only were they not innocent, but they were helping those trying to kill our soldiers. BTW, you lefties wanted us out of there too-especially when it was Bush Sr. that got us involved there. So in other words, you haven't the stomach to fight-period.

As for Iraq, I love how desperate you are to proclaim it a civil war. That way you have an excuse to be against it. Too bad it's really a terrorist supported insurgency by a minority of the populace against an honestly elected government by the people. That's not a civil war.

Lastly, it makes me laugh derisively when the left says they had nothing to do with us leaving the SV to be slaughtered. Typical leftists, never taking responsibility for their actions.

[southdakotaboy]

Nonwinger, peace keeping missions are a quagmire waiting to happen. There is no goal other than the ill defined one of "stopping the killing". If we don't try and change the government, as soon as we leave they will be right back at each others throats. If the killing continues on a smaller scale with carbombs and such we will be losing. One of the two sides will realize that all they have to do is keep building IED's and the Dems will run away. People on the left need to understand that they have shown the bad guys of the world how to defeat the Dems, just keep up a car bombing campaign and the Dems will give up.

[nowinger]

Blah, blah blah. First it was terrorists from outside the country, then it was a small band of Saddam's soldiers, then it was an insurgency but it was in its last throes, now its Iran's fault.

It's worth mentioning that if we hadn't downplayed the scope of the insurgency for poltiical reasons in the beginning it MIGHT have been tamped down before it got out of control. Instead, we denied it existed until it was widespread and self sustaining. Another in a long line of strategic and tactical miscalculations. The military historians will be studying this debacle as a test case for what NOT to do forever.

[nowinger]

Bush has no plan in Iraq and he never did. His idea is to keep the troops there until things sort themselves out, that could take decades. Iraq is going to be a bloodbath whenever we leave, today, tomorrow, five years, ten years. The ONLY reason Bush went with the surge is because he didn't want to admit the Baker report was right and that his strategy of the last four years wasn't worthy of a high school kid. There is no positive solution in Iraq that exists at this time. Staying there until the Iraqis grow up and learn how to function in a democracy is ridiculous, that isn't our business.

[southdakotaboy]

I have a kind of this funny picture in my head of the reaction the rest of the world leaders would have if Bush just announced that we were pulling all of our troops back to the US world wide. He could then say that the troops would guard our borders and any money we saved would be used to provide medical insurance for the poor.
Any bets on how fast it would take the first major wars to breakout? My guess would be either N and S Korea or Serbia would go off on the people in Kosovo.

[nowinger]

My bet would be India vs. Pakistan or Syria vs. Israel.

[Hard Right]

"Bush has no plan in Iraq and he never did."

Oh yeah, I trust that you're a military planner and actually know what you're talking about. (roll eyes)

[nowinger]

"It will be a cakewalk and they will great us as liberators and their oil will pay for the war" does not a plan make.

Or, is your idea that after four years Baghdad is still not safe and they get 4 hours of electricity a day in many areas was part of the MASTERPLAN?

[David M]

Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 04/26/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention.

[Hard Right]

"It will be a cakewalk and they will great us as liberators and their oil will pay for the war"

Yeah, that was their plan allright. Good lord you're dim.

[Fred Beloit]

noyyywinger, when are you going to call for getting "our troops" out of Korea and Germany? We've been there for over 45 years. Or don't you care?

[nowinger]

1. Invading based on wrong intelligence.
2. Invading with too few troops to secure the country.
3. Firing all Ba ath party members
4. Disbanding the army
5. Flying in plane loads of cash.
6. Ignoring looting
7. Downplaying the insurgency.
8. Developing constitution that exacerbated ethnic and religious conflicts.
9. Expecting Chalabi to have internal Iraqi support
10. Failure to manage military and civlian contractors
11. Failure to rebuild/restore basic services.
12. Unrealistic estimate of Iraqi infrastructure and oil production capacity
13. Failure to train enough translators
14. Failure to train Iraqi troops after 4 years
15. Failure to tamp down on corruption in Iraqi gov.
16. Failure to tamp down on Shia militias

Some plan.

[southdakotaboy]

Nonwinger, Yes Pakistan and India would go off like a Roman Candle.

[Raging_Dave]

Notice how the Leftists never have a plan other than surrendering. They can only whine, seethe, complain, and attempt to destroy, then tuck their tails and run away.

Your sniveling is noted, nowinger. Now, other than "RUN AWAY! RETREAT! SURRENDER!" what actual plan do you offer up?

[nowinger]

Some situations are too far gone to have a good outcome, that's life. The Iraq situation is one of those times. It is too late for a wholly positive outcome due to Bush's four years of blundering, poor planning and worse execution. The best we can do is minimize the damage we've done to Iraq, the ME and our own military and stature. I am not qualified to come up with an alternate plan, I don't know enough about Maliki, I don't know if the failure to train Iraqi troops is because they are untrainable or because our training program was stupid and poorly conceived like everything else. I see on problem demanding that the Iraqis take the lead in negotiating with the Sunnis or that they be held to some benchmarks in return for our continued presence. However, I believe the situation is unsalvagable unless we commit to at least 10 more years there.

[Phoenix]

the MAJORITY of americans agree with the dems and harry reid. the american people DON'T support this debacle in iraq!!

Posted by: mike | Thursday, April 26, 2007 at 08:03 AM

What? For one thing, Harry Reid can't even agree with himself. For another: Majority does not equal 'RIGHT'.

[nowinger]

Bush has demonstrated he's incapable of managing the Iraq situation, an open ended commitment of troops until things get better is not a plan for victory, its a denial of one's own failure. He has had four years to demonstrate his 'commander in chief' capabilities and his prowess as a war president. He's failed on all accounts. Bush's new big idea on Iraq: a war czar! Why does he want a war czar? So the White House can keep ALL of the military leaders quiet about the truth on the ground.

It's time to return control of the war to adults.

[mkultra]

We must stay in Iraq. We must protect the Iraqi government. You know, the Iraqi government that is currently dominated by Sadr and SCIRI. We must ensure that Supreme Council for the ISLAMIC REVOLUTION in Iraq will continue its domination of the civilian government. We must also fight to make sure that Sadr is able to maintain his vice-like grip over the Iraqi interior ministry.

We must make Iraq safe for the Shia militias. We must continue to make no effort to disarm these militias. We must continue to give Maliki a pass as he refuses to make any effort to curtail the power of the Shia militias.

More to the point, we must also keep fighting in Iraq in order to enable the Shia theocrats to consolidate their power in the South. If we were to leave, the imposition of Sharia law in the South, and potentially all of Iraq, might be impeded. If we were to leave, the Shia terrorists might actually have to fight the Sunni guerillas themselves, instead of letting the United States do their dirty work for them.

Finally, if we were to leave, the significant footholds that Iran has achieved in Iraq could be jeopardized. Iran, through its surrogates, has become the de facto power broker in Iraqi politics. If we were to leave, Iran's influence over the Iraqi govenrment might easily be diminshed.

We have to stay and fight so that an Iranian-style ISLAMIC REVOLUTION in Iraq can finally be achieved. We must stay. We must. We must achieve victory.

[Phoenix]

No. It's time to realize we need a presence in the Middle East. Nothing anyone can say makes that NOT a reality.

[Fred Beloit]

Noyyyinger's got a list, a very pretty list, a most marvelous list, a bright shiny list, a wackheaded, uninformed list, a most LIBeral and LABial list. Such a list could be compiled for any and every war, that's why I have used the term wackheaded, because she probably thinks such a list could only be made for this war. I have a rather different list, noyyyinger, and this is only a partial list: 1. Failure to seize all arms in Iraq at whatever the cost in casualties. 2. Failure to institute a system to accurately register all vehicles and to seize and imprison any family whose vehicle was used in a car-bombing unless they filed a stolen car report immediately. 3. Failure to state that all persons not wearing Iraq Army uniforms but conducting warfare by any means are not covered by the Geneva Convention and will be deemed to have no rights whatever but only privileges granted individually by the Coalition. 4. Death penalty for any person wearing an unauthorized uniform, such as a police uniform. I'm sure many others here could add to my list and I certainly invite them to do so (with Dan's permission of course, and I must state clearly I do not now have such permission).

[Phoenix]

Mkultra,

What in the hell are you reading: "How to Win Friends and Influence People"?

How about some sources for your information?

[Phoenix]

Good stuff, Fred. But watch the female stuff. BobinStamford gets excited and starts squealing Trailer-Trashish.

[Fred Beloit]

Phoenix, I believe our dear friend is attempting to be ironic.

[Hard Right]

3. Firing all Ba ath party members

Been covered. Didn't happen dumbass.

[Hard Right]

Little Bitch in Stamford is just upset his long haired boyfriend won't put out. Looking at LBiS, can't say I blame him.

[nowinger]

LOL, so you want to imprison a family whose car is used in a car bombing in a country where rival factions kidnap officials of rival government agencies, in a country where it isn't safe to go to the supermarket but you want them to file a timely stolen car report? OMG that is rich. We couldnt keep track of THREE BILLION is cash, yet you think we could have kept track of a vehicle registration system??? Yep, winger thinking at its best. It is true that mistakes are made in war and many unanticipated events occur, but Bush compounded this failure by refusing to admit mistakes or make any relevant changes to his strategy.

Death penalty for an unauthorized uniform? How are you going to determine its unauthorized froma government that denied then confirmed then jailed then disappeared the famous Jamil Hussein????

[Fred Beloit]

Phoenix, by "dear friend" I meant mkdulltra. You are right about the Boob, though. The only reason I used the fem thing was to try to get noyyyinger a little fired up.

[nowinger]

What were the original debaathification orders?
L. Paul Bremer, the U.S. administrator of Iraq, issued two sweeping orders in May 2003: one outlawed the Baath Party and dismissed all senior members from their government posts; the other dissolved Iraq's 500,000-member military and intelligence services. In November 2003, Bremer established a Supreme National Debaathification Commission to root out senior Baathists from Iraqi ministries and hear appeals from Baathists who were in the lowest ranks of the party's senior leadership. The party's foremost leaders--some 5,000 to 10,000 individuals--were not permitted to appeal their dismissals.

How many Baathists were dismissed?
Bremer's first order led to the firing of about 30,000 ex-Baathists from various ministries. Some 15,000 were eventually permitted to return to work after they won their appeals, says Nibras Kazimi, a former adviser to the debaathification commission and currently a visiting Iraq scholar at the Hudson Institute. All military officers above the rank of colonel were barred from returning to work, as were all 100,000 members of Iraq's various intelligence services.

What changed?
In April 2004, Bremer announced that debaathification had been "poorly implemented" and applied "unevenly and unjustly," and said he supported a plan to allow "vetted senior officers from the former regime" back into the military services. At the time, the Iraqi insurgency was picking up speed, and some argued that a blanket purge of Baathists and the dismissal of the Iraqi army were at least partially to blame. Baathists "who do not have blood on their hands," and who were "innocent and competent" could play a role in Iraq's reconstruction, then-coalition spokesman Dan Senor announced on April 24, 2004. Two months later, Bremer dissolved the Supreme National Debaathification Commission, but the panel, with support from some members of the interim government, continues to operate. Interim Prime Minister Allawi backed the return of vetted ex-Baathists to the security services after his appointment in June 2004.

[Fred Beloit]

noyyyinger, you go girl. Let's see. I turn in my home work, or even work work. There is a mistake in it. I am told this. Now I must admit it and apologize before I am given any more to do. Your excellence in military affairs is only exceeded by your understanding of leadership. AS for the rest of your comment? You seem to be getting the idea.

[Hard Right]

Ya gots me No Winger. I was thinking security forces.

[southdakotaboy]

We on the right need to realize that people on the left think the worst about us already so lets give them a taste of how bad things really could be. I say lets go into the newsrooms and make a few changes. The left says we are censoring things so lets just get going on that. Lets get some of those college professors into Gitmo, come on people this could be alot of fun if we put our minds to it.