Desperate to appease their loony base, Democrats appear ready to spend the entire day tomorrow debating H.R. 2956, which they call the "Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act." While the rhetoric surrounding the debate will be full of words like "pullout" and "withdrawal," and phrases like "bring the troops home now," the bill, even if passed, would do no such thing. If you read the language of the bill it only requires a reduction in the number of troops "to a limited presence by April 1, 2008" and "minimum force levels required to protect U.S. National Security interests after April, 1, 2008." This basically means that the Democrats' own bill would allow President Bush to leave as many troops in Iraq as he deems necessary for our security interests.
So, while the Democrats will frame the debate about this bill as one thing, it actually won't change much at all, and that means the only people who will suffer from the debate are the troops, all for the sake of a PR victory for the Democrats. The Democrats may call the bill the "Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act," but the debate might as well be called the "Embolden The Terrorists Stunt."
Posted by Matt at July 11, 2007 12:41 PM
Track
del.icio.us
digg it
IM
Facebook
Comments
Sounds to me that if the defeatist Democrats succeed, all they will accomplish is making more of our Troops sitting ducks for insurgents and other terrorists.
And still, none of the Defeatist Democrats or White Flag Republicans ever speak of winning.
Posted by:
Lew Waters at July 11, 2007 01:16 PM
Not sure if I've been banned for some reason as my last three posts have not materialized, but I thought I would try one more time...
Perhaps I haven't done my homework and I'm missing something, but why would anyone, republican or democrat vote against the Webb amendment, which, if I'm not mistaken, would give troops the turnaround time they deserve between deployments?
I know the military is stretched to a near breaking point, so it seems more than anything else, that those who voted against this amendment fear that if the troops were to recieve their appropriate down time, we wouldn't be able to maintain sufficient troop levels.
If there is another reason I would love to hear it because how can anyone claim to support the troops and then vote against this amendment.
Posted by: CAIndie at July 11, 2007 01:29 PM
Hey libs...
Do you really want to be a party to handing Iraq over to third world thugs, who plan on destroying America?
If we let them win in Iraq, what's to stop them from targeting our shores?
Also, are you willing to accept responsibility for the genocide that will surely follow our precipitous withdrawal from Iraq?
A few questions that I know you'll answer truthfully--NOT.
Posted by:
Leo Pusateri at July 11, 2007 01:49 PM
Do you really want to be a party to handing Iraq over to third world thugs, who plan on destroying America?
Just like your predecessors were the party that abandoned South Vietnam when North Vietnam violated the 1973 treaty and re-invaded?
(This is why I'm skeptical of any attempt to negotiate with any insurgent groups in Iraq, or the governments of Iran and Syria. What guarantee will there be that any of the above actually obey the terms of any negotiated agreement, after Coalition forces withdraw?)
Also, are you willing to accept responsibility for the genocide that will surely follow our precipitous withdrawal from Iraq?
Leo, they probably won't, just like their predecessors have never accepted their responsibility for the Viet commie's slaughter of some 800,000 of their countrymen, after the "re-unification" of Vietnam.
Posted by: Bigfoot at July 11, 2007 02:18 PM
Just to let you know, your link to that PDF file is broken.
Posted by: Paramedic Sarah at July 11, 2007 02:25 PM
I know the military is stretched to a near breaking point, - CAindie
The "military" is not even near a breaking point. The Army is a stretched a little thin, but the Air Force and Navy are hardly being used at all.
What the Dems are doing is purely grandstanding to appease their far left base. It is completely self serving and clearly demonstrates their "win-at-all-costs" approach to this current political climate. They could not care less about the troops, the Iraqis or the outcome of this battle.
Posted by: neocon at July 11, 2007 09:38 PM
"What the Dems are doing is purely grandstanding to appease their far left base."
"Desperate to appease their loony base..."
It sounds more like they are appeasing the American people, because over 70% favor withdrawing troops from Iraq by April 2008. At the same time, 55% of Americans believe that Congress should hear from Petraeus in September before developing a new Iraq policy.
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007%5C07%5C11%5Cstory_11-7-2007_pg7_47
Gar Wood
Posted by: Gar Wood at July 11, 2007 10:01 PM
After we win in iraq,I hope the liberal enemies of America willapologize to President George W. Bush, who we elected TWICE to protect us from the terrorists! Would you rather him not do his job?? Maybe the stupid liberals will portect us, NOT!
Once the war is safely in amercan hands, I would like the libs to apologize for:
1 twisting the war into the biggest "disaster in histroy" by liberal reporters/treasoners reporting only the killings, deaths, disasters, etc. instaed of anything good thats happening.Yeah libs, I'm sure the iraqis would want Saddam to come back,NOT! Idiots.
2 admit that President George W. Bush was right all along.We DONT need hunderds-of-thousands of troops,we DONT need a bunch of loser armchair-generals second-guessing our president,and we DO need to fight the terrorists in their own damn country so they don't come here!What about this is so hard for libs to understand??? Oh wait,nevermind its because libs are IDIOTS!
Posted by: rick4bush at July 11, 2007 10:40 PM
Also, are you willing to accept responsibility for the genocide that will surely follow our precipitous withdrawal from Iraq? - by: Leo Pusateri
That's what I'd like to know.
Posted by: Freedom1 at July 11, 2007 10:54 PM
I guess that's the beauty of advocating "victory at any cost", no matter what the expense in terms of civilian or military casualties, money and materiel expended, or geostrategic advantages that had to be overlooked: you never have to say you're sorry.
Seriously ask yourselves this question: at what cost? And if your answer is something on the order of: "we must press to victory no matter what", then I think it's fair to call you a wingnut.
By the same token the question could be turned around for another audience. Seriously ask yourselves this question: How obvious must progress be before you reconsider calling for immediate withdrawal? And if your answer is something on the order of: "it doesn't matter: it was an illegal war to begin with, and thus even tomorrow is too late", then I think it's fair to call you a moonbat.
I don't know what percentage the fringes constitute, but I think it's reasonable to assume that most people lie somewhere in the middle. I count myself in the middle even if no one else does. And for "us" it's not an either/or question.
Posted by: Ricorun at July 12, 2007 12:20 AM
Giant Badgers Terrorise Iraqi Port City. Seriously! LoL. (AFP story)
BTW, Iraq is already a regional war. In addition to Iran killing US troops in Iraq, here's an update on Syria's contribution to the slaughter in Iraq- Iraqi official says 200 explosive belts captured in truck crossing from Syria. (AP story)
Also, Turkey has amassed 140,000 troops along the Iraqi border. This is not good.
Global War Update:
Bloody Mosque Battle Ends: "With more than 80 people dead, the fighting is finally over at the Red Mosque in Islamabad." (via lgf) (AP story)
Religion of Peace Strikes Again in Algeria: "At least eight dead in a car bombing claimed by the Salafi Group for Preaching and Combat" (via lgf) (AP story)
Religion of Peace Strikes Again in Philippines: (via lgf) "Fourteen dead at the hands of the Abu Sayyaf jihadis in the Philippines, some of them beheaded": "Militants Kill 14 Philippine Marines, BEHEAD 10: Military." (AFP story)
Religion of Peace Strikes Again in Restive Thailand: "Four more dead in the south Thailand jihad." (via lgf) (AFP story)
Great News! Respected radio talk show host, Larry Elder understands the enemy - Islam. Larry Elder.com Today, Larry Elder discussed a disturbing story of an American elementary school in San Diego which sets aside 15 minutes of classtime to allow its Somali Muslim students to pray. The elementary school also segregates boys and girls. A listener to his show called in and said that she has 2 sons fighting this kind of thing overseas in Iraq, but is disgusted that we embrace it in America.
During the course of the discussion, Larry Elder made clear that Islam gives non-Muslims 3 options: convert to Islam, be subjugated by Islam, or be killed. He made clear that Islam condones violence against non-Muslims. He also acknowledged that the segregation of boys and girls is done because Islam views females as inferior to males. Larry made it crystal clear that in order to win this Global War, Muslims themselves must re-interpret the Qur'anic verses which condone violence against non-Muslims.
Larry Elder has a national audience. Today, America made progress in understanding the Global War!
Posted by: Freedom1 at July 12, 2007 01:08 AM
Sorry but some of you rhetoric using junkies are just as bad as the politicians who invent stupid phrases like"we'll fight em over there so we won't have to fight em over here"
Uhm, they're not a country... And if they were they'd be called Saudi Arabia - Our supposed oil buddies. Maybe you forgot that most of the hijackers from 9/11 were from there.
Additionally, there were only 19 hijackers.
Ask yourself if China was fighting us in this country how would that stop 19 of us from going over there and doing any sort of terrorism? They couldn't.
So why haven't they attacked us? They don't have to. In fact it would not be in their best interests to attack us now as it might revitalize this country and bring support back that we have lost with the world.
Just read anything written by anti-terrorist specialists and they'll explain it better than I did. but it's pretty basic & logical.
We've given the terrorists what they wanted. Instability in the U.S. - Loss of our freedoms, and now the perfect training ground for their forces right smack dab in Iraq.
They have absolutely no benefit to attacking us on our soil.
It makes me sick that Osama is still out there somewhere... or worse dead, and in an unmarked grave where he'll always be a symbol of defiance for Al Qaida.
We blew this whole thing in a big way, and now all the flag waving republicans are coming home to find they're approval ratings in the ditch and they're doing the same thing the chickens$$t democrats did - Swing with the majority.
These politicians are spineless. They'll do and say anything to hold onto power... The only people worse than them are the naive voters who believe the lies they spew...
Posted by: walcrowe at July 12, 2007 05:30 AM
We've been told time 7 again we cannot win this militarily. That the Iraqi government needs to stand up so we can stand down... rhetoric rhetoric blah blah.
The Government after 5 years has been unable to
stand up... they continue to kill each other in their ethnic civil war...
And now this...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070712/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_terror_threat
Nice going.
We've been distracted with Iraq for so long that Al Qaida according to US intel has rebuilt themselves along the Afghan border in strength equal to pre 9/11
Whether you believe we should be in iraq or not you have to at least agree that these idiots have no clue what they're doing and our brave troops, my family... your families... are paying a high price.
This administration does not deserve any respect.
They are paid goverment employees and personally
if I had a job performance like this... I'd be out on the street.
Still there's die hard supporters who cheer them on like a sports team when they're down...
Too bad they're no sports team. They're hired workers... not entertainers. They deserve to be scrutinized and judged based upon their performance like you or I at our own jobs.
Stop treating this like an us against them game and realize these clowns are wiping us out financially, and worse mortally.
Don't vote Democrat. They're idiots as well. Just stop rooting for these corrupt, brainless, soulless beings like they care about you...
Disgusting.
Posted by: walcrowe at July 12, 2007 05:54 AM
"The case for mistrusting Muslims": The latest terror plots are confronting tolerant Britons with uncomfortable choices.
By Theodore Dalrymple
[..] There are reasonable grounds for suspicion, of course. Surveys — for whatever they are worth — show a surprising, and horrifying, degree of sympathy, if not outright support, for the bombers on the part of the young Muslim population of Britain. They show that a large number of Muslims in Britain want the implementation of Sharia law and think that murdering British Jews is justified simply because they are Jews. And when an atrocity is perpetrated by a Muslim, they evince no passion remotely comparable to that aroused by, say, the work of Salman Rushdie.
On the other hand, day-to-day relations with Muslims are often polite and friendly, and large numbers of Muslim small businessmen depend upon such relations with their non-Muslim customers for a living. This could change.
One of the most sinister effects of the efforts of the bombers and would-be bombers is that they have undermined trust completely. This is because those under investigation turn out not to be cranks or marginals but people who are either well-integrated into society, superficially at least, or who have good career prospects. They are not the ignorant and uneducated; quite the reverse. Seven people detained in the latest plot worked in the medical profession.
Posted by: Freedom1 at July 12, 2007 07:09 AM
"why would anyone, republican or democrat vote against the Webb amendment, which, if I'm not mistaken, would give troops the turnaround time they deserve between deployments?" CAindie
Only a civilian with no military experience would ask such a STUPID question.
1. This is a political stunt and not designed to help the troops but hamstring the COMMANDER AND CHIEF!
2. Such legislation would prevent the deployment of military assets if needed in an emergency.
Case in point: After only 6 weeks returning from my first tour off Vietnam. I landed aboard the Carrier Midway for a training excercise. I was surprised at the location of the ship which should have been off of Catalina Island, but was steaming north off Santa Barbara. Upon landing I learned that the ship and all squadrons and personnel had been redeployed due to "military necessity". Upon arrival in Alameda, I was flown back to NAS Lemoore, packed my foot locker and drove back to the ship which departed within 12 hours of docking. We spend the next YEAR over the North.
Posted by: phnx at July 12, 2007 10:08 AM
Order Matt and Mark's book on Amazon or Barnes and Noble
Sounds to me that if the defeatist Democrats succeed, all they will accomplish is making more of our Troops sitting ducks for insurgents and other terrorists.
And still, none of the Defeatist Democrats or White Flag Republicans ever speak of winning.
Not sure if I've been banned for some reason as my last three posts have not materialized, but I thought I would try one more time...
Perhaps I haven't done my homework and I'm missing something, but why would anyone, republican or democrat vote against the Webb amendment, which, if I'm not mistaken, would give troops the turnaround time they deserve between deployments?
I know the military is stretched to a near breaking point, so it seems more than anything else, that those who voted against this amendment fear that if the troops were to recieve their appropriate down time, we wouldn't be able to maintain sufficient troop levels.
If there is another reason I would love to hear it because how can anyone claim to support the troops and then vote against this amendment.
Hey libs...
Do you really want to be a party to handing Iraq over to third world thugs, who plan on destroying America?
If we let them win in Iraq, what's to stop them from targeting our shores?
Also, are you willing to accept responsibility for the genocide that will surely follow our precipitous withdrawal from Iraq?
A few questions that I know you'll answer truthfully--NOT.
Do you really want to be a party to handing Iraq over to third world thugs, who plan on destroying America?
Just like your predecessors were the party that abandoned South Vietnam when North Vietnam violated the 1973 treaty and re-invaded?
(This is why I'm skeptical of any attempt to negotiate with any insurgent groups in Iraq, or the governments of Iran and Syria. What guarantee will there be that any of the above actually obey the terms of any negotiated agreement, after Coalition forces withdraw?)
Also, are you willing to accept responsibility for the genocide that will surely follow our precipitous withdrawal from Iraq?
Leo, they probably won't, just like their predecessors have never accepted their responsibility for the Viet commie's slaughter of some 800,000 of their countrymen, after the "re-unification" of Vietnam.
Just to let you know, your link to that PDF file is broken.
I know the military is stretched to a near breaking point, - CAindie
The "military" is not even near a breaking point. The Army is a stretched a little thin, but the Air Force and Navy are hardly being used at all.
What the Dems are doing is purely grandstanding to appease their far left base. It is completely self serving and clearly demonstrates their "win-at-all-costs" approach to this current political climate. They could not care less about the troops, the Iraqis or the outcome of this battle.
"What the Dems are doing is purely grandstanding to appease their far left base."
"Desperate to appease their loony base..."
It sounds more like they are appeasing the American people, because over 70% favor withdrawing troops from Iraq by April 2008. At the same time, 55% of Americans believe that Congress should hear from Petraeus in September before developing a new Iraq policy.
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007%5C07%5C11%5Cstory_11-7-2007_pg7_47
Gar Wood
After we win in iraq,I hope the liberal enemies of America willapologize to President George W. Bush, who we elected TWICE to protect us from the terrorists! Would you rather him not do his job?? Maybe the stupid liberals will portect us, NOT!
Once the war is safely in amercan hands, I would like the libs to apologize for:
1 twisting the war into the biggest "disaster in histroy" by liberal reporters/treasoners reporting only the killings, deaths, disasters, etc. instaed of anything good thats happening.Yeah libs, I'm sure the iraqis would want Saddam to come back,NOT! Idiots.
2 admit that President George W. Bush was right all along.We DONT need hunderds-of-thousands of troops,we DONT need a bunch of loser armchair-generals second-guessing our president,and we DO need to fight the terrorists in their own damn country so they don't come here!What about this is so hard for libs to understand??? Oh wait,nevermind its because libs are IDIOTS!
Also, are you willing to accept responsibility for the genocide that will surely follow our precipitous withdrawal from Iraq? - by: Leo Pusateri
That's what I'd like to know.
I guess that's the beauty of advocating "victory at any cost", no matter what the expense in terms of civilian or military casualties, money and materiel expended, or geostrategic advantages that had to be overlooked: you never have to say you're sorry.
Seriously ask yourselves this question: at what cost? And if your answer is something on the order of: "we must press to victory no matter what", then I think it's fair to call you a wingnut.
By the same token the question could be turned around for another audience. Seriously ask yourselves this question: How obvious must progress be before you reconsider calling for immediate withdrawal? And if your answer is something on the order of: "it doesn't matter: it was an illegal war to begin with, and thus even tomorrow is too late", then I think it's fair to call you a moonbat.
I don't know what percentage the fringes constitute, but I think it's reasonable to assume that most people lie somewhere in the middle. I count myself in the middle even if no one else does. And for "us" it's not an either/or question.
Giant Badgers Terrorise Iraqi Port City. Seriously! LoL. (AFP story)
BTW, Iraq is already a regional war. In addition to Iran killing US troops in Iraq, here's an update on Syria's contribution to the slaughter in Iraq- Iraqi official says 200 explosive belts captured in truck crossing from Syria. (AP story)
Also, Turkey has amassed 140,000 troops along the Iraqi border. This is not good.
Global War Update:
Bloody Mosque Battle Ends: "With more than 80 people dead, the fighting is finally over at the Red Mosque in Islamabad." (via lgf) (AP story)
Religion of Peace Strikes Again in Algeria: "At least eight dead in a car bombing claimed by the Salafi Group for Preaching and Combat" (via lgf) (AP story)
Religion of Peace Strikes Again in Philippines: (via lgf) "Fourteen dead at the hands of the Abu Sayyaf jihadis in the Philippines, some of them beheaded": "Militants Kill 14 Philippine Marines, BEHEAD 10: Military." (AFP story)
Religion of Peace Strikes Again in Restive Thailand: "Four more dead in the south Thailand jihad." (via lgf) (AFP story)
Great News! Respected radio talk show host, Larry Elder understands the enemy - Islam. Larry Elder.com Today, Larry Elder discussed a disturbing story of an American elementary school in San Diego which sets aside 15 minutes of classtime to allow its Somali Muslim students to pray. The elementary school also segregates boys and girls. A listener to his show called in and said that she has 2 sons fighting this kind of thing overseas in Iraq, but is disgusted that we embrace it in America.
During the course of the discussion, Larry Elder made clear that Islam gives non-Muslims 3 options: convert to Islam, be subjugated by Islam, or be killed. He made clear that Islam condones violence against non-Muslims. He also acknowledged that the segregation of boys and girls is done because Islam views females as inferior to males. Larry made it crystal clear that in order to win this Global War, Muslims themselves must re-interpret the Qur'anic verses which condone violence against non-Muslims.
Larry Elder has a national audience. Today, America made progress in understanding the Global War!
Sorry but some of you rhetoric using junkies are just as bad as the politicians who invent stupid phrases like"we'll fight em over there so we won't have to fight em over here"
Uhm, they're not a country... And if they were they'd be called Saudi Arabia - Our supposed oil buddies. Maybe you forgot that most of the hijackers from 9/11 were from there.
Additionally, there were only 19 hijackers.
Ask yourself if China was fighting us in this country how would that stop 19 of us from going over there and doing any sort of terrorism? They couldn't.
So why haven't they attacked us? They don't have to. In fact it would not be in their best interests to attack us now as it might revitalize this country and bring support back that we have lost with the world.
Just read anything written by anti-terrorist specialists and they'll explain it better than I did. but it's pretty basic & logical.
We've given the terrorists what they wanted. Instability in the U.S. - Loss of our freedoms, and now the perfect training ground for their forces right smack dab in Iraq.
They have absolutely no benefit to attacking us on our soil.
It makes me sick that Osama is still out there somewhere... or worse dead, and in an unmarked grave where he'll always be a symbol of defiance for Al Qaida.
We blew this whole thing in a big way, and now all the flag waving republicans are coming home to find they're approval ratings in the ditch and they're doing the same thing the chickens$$t democrats did - Swing with the majority.
These politicians are spineless. They'll do and say anything to hold onto power... The only people worse than them are the naive voters who believe the lies they spew...
We've been told time 7 again we cannot win this militarily. That the Iraqi government needs to stand up so we can stand down... rhetoric rhetoric blah blah.
The Government after 5 years has been unable to
stand up... they continue to kill each other in their ethnic civil war...
And now this...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070712/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_terror_threat
Nice going.
We've been distracted with Iraq for so long that Al Qaida according to US intel has rebuilt themselves along the Afghan border in strength equal to pre 9/11
Whether you believe we should be in iraq or not you have to at least agree that these idiots have no clue what they're doing and our brave troops, my family... your families... are paying a high price.
This administration does not deserve any respect.
They are paid goverment employees and personally
if I had a job performance like this... I'd be out on the street.
Still there's die hard supporters who cheer them on like a sports team when they're down...
Too bad they're no sports team. They're hired workers... not entertainers. They deserve to be scrutinized and judged based upon their performance like you or I at our own jobs.
Stop treating this like an us against them game and realize these clowns are wiping us out financially, and worse mortally.
Don't vote Democrat. They're idiots as well. Just stop rooting for these corrupt, brainless, soulless beings like they care about you...
Disgusting.
"The case for mistrusting Muslims": The latest terror plots are confronting tolerant Britons with uncomfortable choices.
By Theodore Dalrymple
"why would anyone, republican or democrat vote against the Webb amendment, which, if I'm not mistaken, would give troops the turnaround time they deserve between deployments?" CAindie
Only a civilian with no military experience would ask such a STUPID question.
1. This is a political stunt and not designed to help the troops but hamstring the COMMANDER AND CHIEF!
2. Such legislation would prevent the deployment of military assets if needed in an emergency.
Case in point: After only 6 weeks returning from my first tour off Vietnam. I landed aboard the Carrier Midway for a training excercise. I was surprised at the location of the ship which should have been off of Catalina Island, but was steaming north off Santa Barbara. Upon landing I learned that the ship and all squadrons and personnel had been redeployed due to "military necessity". Upon arrival in Alameda, I was flown back to NAS Lemoore, packed my foot locker and drove back to the ship which departed within 12 hours of docking. We spend the next YEAR over the North.