February 14, 2007

Copperheads Decide on How to Define Screw 'Em

Lacking the moral courage to simply vote against the war in Iraq, House Democrats are instead working with anti-war groups--no doubt including the collection of Islamists and Marxists profiled here--to impose limitations that would reduce the number of U.S troops available for duty, putting American soldiers at risk as they plot their strategy for defeat:

The House strategy is being crafted quietly, even as the chamber is immersed this week in an emotional, albeit mostly symbolic, debate over a resolution expressing opposition to Bush's plan to "surge" 21,500 more troops into Iraq.

Murtha, the powerful chairman of the defense subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, will seek to attach a provision to an upcoming $93 billion supplemental spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan. It would restrict the deployment of troops to Iraq unless they meet certain levels adequate manpower, equipment and training to succeed in combat. That's a standard Murtha believes few of the units Bush intends to use for the surge would be able to meet.

In addition, Murtha, acting with the backing of the House Democratic leadership, will seek to limit the time and number of deployments by soldiers, Marines and National Guard units to Iraq, making it tougher for Pentagon officials to find the troops to replace units that are scheduled to rotate out of the country. Additional funding restrictions are also being considered by Murtha, such as prohibiting the creation of U.S. military bases inside Iraq, dismantling the notorious Abu Ghraib prison and closing the American detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

"There's a D-Day coming in here, and it's going to start with the supplemental and finish with the '08 [defense] budget," said Rep. Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii, who chairs the Air and Land Forces subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee.

Frankly, I'm not sure how we should respond when members of our own political class proudly declare that they are admitting to planning a "D-Day" against our own military.


Gaius, who has a son currently deployed in Iraq, is not happy:

They frankly do not care how much damage they do to the United States in their blind lust for political power, do they? They frankly don't care that they will, in effect, tie the hands of the military commanders with this strategy.

No, they don't, because in their eyes, victory is not an option.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at February 14, 2007 03:15 PM

"It would restrict the deployment of troops to Iraq unless they meet certain levels adequate manpower, equipment and training to succeed in combat."

Wow, that's about the most deceitful thing I have ever heard of. Masking cowardice as caring for soldiers while keeping needed reinforcements from Iraq. These people are evil pure and simple.

Question: Does Congress have the right to dictate to the Pentagon the definition of a fully manned, fully trained or properly equipped unit?

Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at February 15, 2007 11:43 AM

"A Military Times poll released in December revealed that only 35 percent of military members approved of the president's handling of the war - despite the fact that 46 percent of them are self-identified Republicans (down from 60 percent in previous Military Times polls) while just 16 percent are Democrats. According to a recent Zogby survey of troops serving in Iraq, 72 percent want American forces home within a year."

How do you figure you are supporting the troops and we are not?

Posted by: Lex Steele at February 15, 2007 03:43 PM

I would guess that a lot of the military members that don't approve of the president's handling of the war are unhappy because they want the gloves to come off. It still counts as disapproval, but probably not the same kind of disapproval you had in mind.

And if a majority want everybody home, maybe they want the job to get done.

Posted by: moon6 at February 15, 2007 06:38 PM

moon6 -- thanks so much for your civility. Why do you think 72% want American forces home within a year then?

Posted by: Lex Steele at February 15, 2007 06:58 PM

Probably because they've become convinced that the Democrats and other leftists are going to betray them again, and want to get out before this betrayal results on too many troops killed.

Posted by: Michael Lonie at February 15, 2007 07:38 PM

Michael, thank you too for your civility.

Consider this: the Dems had basically no influence in the war until last November. Bush got everything he asked for from Congress. However the war has gone nothing at all like his administration predicted. Most Dems were for the war, but over time we've had more and more concerns and just aren't seeing any signs of success. It seems like our position now is worse that when we deposed Saddam.

Posted by: Lex Steele at February 15, 2007 08:43 PM

"Why do you think 72% want American forces home within a year then?"

Well, I'm not sure exactly how that question was phrased or what the context was. I think if you ask someone over there "Would you like everyone to be home in a year?", of course the answer is going to be "yes". That doesn't mean they don't want to finish the job, and it doesn't mean they aren't willing to stay longer to finish the job.

Posted by: moon6 at February 16, 2007 12:07 AM


Thank you for your civility and courtesy, first of all. Reasoned differences will benefit us all.

While I tend to agree that the pacification of Iraq has not gone well (and the administration should bear full responsibility for that), I do believe that the preferred tactic of the Dems (retreat/cut and run) will result in a truly worse situation by any measure you would care to use.

And I think that the use of the verb "seems" is very appropriate. I am really uncertain about all reporting out of Iraq. After seeing past victories turned into defeats (Tet, Fallujah), who can really believe the general press?

Posted by: iconoclast at February 16, 2007 12:29 AM