« Walking While BlondeApologism Rules »

Surrender Enthusiasts Surrender

WASHINGTON (AP) — Democratic leaders backed away from aggressive plans to limit President Bush’s war authority, the latest sign of divisions within their ranks over how to proceed.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Monday he wanted to delay votes on a measure that would repeal the 2002 war authorization and narrow the mission in Iraq …

“Iraq is going to be there — it’s just a question of when we get back to it,” Reid said, predicting it would be “days, not weeks” before the Senate returned to the issue. The war reauthorization legislation also appears to lack the 60 votes it would need to pass the Senate.  

Iraq will in fact be there.  Thanks to 150,000 American troops and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who are fighting for it.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., meanwhile, said she doesn’t support tying war funding to strict training and readiness targets for U.S. troops.

The comments distanced her from Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., who has said he wants to use Congress’ spending power to force a change in policy in Iraq, by setting strict conditions on war funding.

Pelosi said she supports holding the administration to training and readiness targets, but added: “I don’t see them as conditions to our funding. Let me be very clear: Congress will fund our troops.”

Asked whether the standards should be tied to a $100 billion supplemental war spending measure — as Murtha has proposed — Pelosi demurred, saying it was up to the panel that drafts funding bills.

Capitulation.  It’s a rout.  They’re stripping off their uniforms and trying to act normal.  A lot like the Mahdi Army just did.  

Topics: Uncategorized

  Posted by Jules Crittenden at 2:17 am on Tuesday, February 27, 2007

10 Responses to “Surrender Enthusiasts Surrender”

1. alphie Says:
   February 27th, 2007 at 3:07 am

   Looks like the Democrats are in their last throes.

   Is the “Mission Accomplished” banner back from the dry cleaners yet?

   It’s so hard to get those pesky blood stains out.

2. saltydog Says:
   February 27th, 2007 at 4:58 am

   Once again, the toad shows his utter ignorance in all things military, the Navy in this instance. I’d try to inform his ignorance, but I know all his little gray cells are already taken up with rote lessons.

   The rout couldn’t be because the American people were justifiably appalled with the idea of Congress being the ones to slowly bleed our forces in Iraq, now could it? Toad?

3. alphie Says:
   February 27th, 2007 at 6:11 am

   I don’t think a death wish is an actual mililtary strategy, salty.

   Congress (and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs) are concerned that America itself is now practically undefended because of the erosion of our armed forces.

   And we are currently unable to offer any meaningful military assistance to any of our allies should they need it.

   I’m not quite sure why the wingnuts are happy about the sorry state of the U.S. military and applaud any delays in the attempt to fix it, so I’ll just chalk it up to the usual reason - the pleasure you guys take in the destruction of anything.

4. John-of-Argghhh Says:
   February 27th, 2007 at 7:52 am

   Alphie - depends on how you define meaningful military assistance, now doesn’t it?

   We have oh, 75% of the Navy available. And about 80% or so of the combat aircraft of the Air Force. That’s a lot of bombs and missiles.

   Given that generally, early on, what we provide “mostest, bestest, and fastest” is airpower, I think that indeed we can provide meaningful military assistance. And in many cases that’s what they want more than anything else.

   True, any significant ground presence, and especially the logistics to support it, is going to be problematic.

   We could flip the coin however, and point out that if our allies were stepping up to the plate more - even if only in Afghanistan - there would be more available for their use.

   I would submit that many of our allies, for good reasons and ill, did the analysis that said they’d rather watch us bleed in Iraq than help us preserve forces for their use.

   Their call.

5. John-of-Argghhh Says:
   February 27th, 2007 at 7:58 am

   Oh - and Alphie - you don’t hang about at my place much. The wingnut collection there whines about everything! Not enough medical care for the troops, lack of strategic investment in replacing the worn-out gear, bitching about trying to fight this war on the cheap, we bitch about it all.

   Because it’s hard to kill people, break things, and control what’s left in the rubble (which is what we like best, after all, as you so sagaciously noted) when you don’t have all the lastest and greatest gear.

   Oh, and we want pay raises, too! And our amenities are nowhere *nearly* obscene enough to keep us in an indolent torpor between the chances we get to kill people, break things, and make the rubble bounce.

   And this comment is mostly me having fun, rather than really tweaking what you said. That’s what my first comment was for.

   Hi Jules! Yer lucky I don’t have the time to make you regret giving me a password… 8^ )

6. The Dem Congs Stumble at No Man’s Blog Says:
   February 27th, 2007 at 8:42 am

   [...] That is, maybe after we take care of this important 9/11 Commission stuff, the flunky failed to add.  “We’re going to keep on going at it until the administration changes course,” the man says.  Going at what? I ask.  What, pray tell, have you done?  I’m reminded of a Jules Crittenden article I read this past weekend in which the columnist described the most recent House resolution on the war in Iraq as a “strong, uncompromising, forceful non-binding resolution with a self-negating caveat.”  (The term “Dem Cong” that I used in the title of this post was coined by Crittenden in the article “We were neck deep in the Big Muddy, and the big fool said to push on.”  Read it.  It’s excellent.) [...]

7. The_Real_JeffS Says:
   February 27th, 2007 at 10:01 am

   The Dhimmicrats at the State level are steaming at full speed; at least two states are working on some sort of anti-war or anti-Bush resolution right now.

   I’m watching the Washington State Dhimmicrats and anti-war loons melt down, and savage Senator Murray (herself anti-war and nearly a total moonbat) in the process. The pity is, I can’t decide on whether I should complain to my representative (who is not involved in that fiasco), or just sit back with a can of beer, and enjoy the spectacle.

   I’m not quite sure why the wingnuts are happy about the sorry state of the U.S. military and applaud any delays in the attempt to fix it, so I’ll just chalk it up to the usual reason - the pleasure you guys take in the destruction of anything.

   *Snort*

   alphie, you wouldn’t know a military unit ready for war if it came up and kicked you in the ass. But that’s cool……we have freedom of speech, and that includes the right for you to make a fool of yourself in public. That we derive endless amusement from your silliness is gravy.

8. SFBert Says:
   February 27th, 2007 at 11:59 am

   When it comes to US military readiness, ALWAYs take the word of right-wing bloggers over the Generals.

9. El Cid Says:
   February 27th, 2007 at 2:33 pm

   WASHINGTON - Strained by the demands of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, there is a significant risk that the U.S. military won’t be able to quickly and fully respond to yet another crisis, according to a new report to Congress.

   The assessment, done by the nation’s top military officer, Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, represents a worsening from a year ago, when that risk was rated as moderate.

   The report is classified, but on Monday senior defense officials, speaking on condition on anonymity, confirmed the decline in overall military readiness. And a report that accompanied Pace’s review concluded that while the Pentagon is working to improve its warfighting abilities, it “may take several years to reduce risk to acceptable levels.”

   Pace’s report comes as the U.S. is increasing its forces in Iraq to quell escalating violence in Baghdad. And top military officials have consistently acknowledged that the repeated and lengthy deployments are straining the Army, Marine Corps and reserve forces and taking a heavy toll on critical warfighting equipment.

   The review grades the military’s ability to meet the demands of the nation’s military strategy - which would include fighting the wars as well as being able to respond to any potential outbreaks in places such as North Korea, Iran, Lebanon, Cuba or China.

   There is more to read, but read it in context, not what you choose to imply.

   http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,126681,00.html?wh=wh

   More to come….

10. saltydog Says:
    February 28th, 2007 at 8:21 pm

    The toad knows a lot about the military–and especially the history of the US military. And I’m very impressed with his concern for our allies–the allies who have spit on us every single step of the way. Frankly, if they truly get into trouble now, it will be because they stood in our way instead of standing with us. I wouldn’t spend one dollar, or one American life to help those who have sold our enemies arms and supplies and used our country as political fodder. If they believe so much in the reality they posit, let them live in it.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.