Don’t Make A Face
The wind might change and you’ll be stuck with it. That’s what Mom always said. AP, re new Dem enthusiasm on Iraq:
WASHINGTON (AP) - One senator said U.S. troops are routing out al-Qaida in parts of Iraq. Another insisted President Bush’s plan to increase troops has caused tactical momentum. One even went so far on Wednesday as to say the argument could be made that U.S. troops are winning.
These are not Bush-backing GOP die-hards, but Democratic Sens. Dick Durbin, Bob Casey and Jack Reed. Even Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services committee, said progress was being made by soldiers.
The suggestions by them and other Democrats in recent days that at least a portion of Bush’s strategy in Iraq is working is somewhat surprising, considering the bitter exchanges on Capitol Hill between the Democratic majority and Republicans and Bush. Democrats have long said Bush’s policies have been nothing more than a complete failure.
The Democrats’ choice to acknowledge the military’s progress in Iraq signals support for the troops, a message that voters want to hear. But they still heap criticism on Bush and his Iraq strategy, which promises to be a prominent issue in next year’s presidential election.
Some people, press and pols, can’t quite bring themselves to admit that Bush strategy might be winning: It’s a support for the troops thing. Whatever. But it turns out Mom was right. Wind changes, you’re stuck with the sourpuss.
All of Washington is waiting for the September assessment from Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq, and Ambassador Ryan Crocker about the Bush administration strategy. Bush has called the plan a “surge” because it poured thousands more troops into the country.
Not exactly. As I recall, several non-veto-proof Washington majorities have shown marked impatience. Meanwhile, here’s a good one:
In a conference call with reporters, Casey said one could make a good argument that U.S. troops have won the war, then accused Iraqi politicians and the Bush administration of not matching the intensity of the troops.
“The troops have met every assignment, they’ve beaten the odds time and again, they’ve done everything we’ve asked them to,” Casey said.
Bush admin hasn’t matched the intensity of the troops? As we used to say, back in the day: What you say is what you are.
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 9:50 am on Thursday, August 9, 2007
22 Responses to “Don’t Make A Face”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
August 9th, 2007 at 10:49 am
Anybody want to take bets on how long it is before the Dems start claiming the surge was their idea?
August 9th, 2007 at 10:52 am
I would say In about 20 minutes or so, Rebecca.
August 9th, 2007 at 11:28 am
Jules,
I think your link to the “Democrats Praise Military Progress” is bad.
Here’s what I got.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8QT56I80&show_article=1
August 9th, 2007 at 11:43 am
They’ll focus on the confirmation vote for Petraeus and say they wouldn’t have voted for him if they didn’t believe he could do the job.
August 9th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
If I remember right, it was…they were demanding more troops long before Petreaus asked. Of course, that was before Chimpy suggested it and it became The Worst Idea Ever.
To paraphrase Woody Allen, the Donks could never hold a belief that would have George Bush as an adherent.
August 9th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
And now these bastards have the audacity to state “of course the troops would do what we asked them”. They should be tarred and feathered.
And PA, I saw that coming too, Democrats will be saying “through our nimble stewardship of Bush’s reckless foreign policy we somehow got out of Iraq with a win. I wasn’t easy and I hope there aren’t any hurt feelings. But I hope we are a wiser more humble nation now that we have seen the damage a renegade go-it-alone administration can do…”
Just as today in admitting the troops are winning, not the strategy, the dem cong are cravenly avoiding giving Bush credit for choosing the right personnel who crafted the strategy. But then they blow it with a BDS slip at the end. Should Bush be wearing camo face paint in the oval office? Would that be outwardly intense enough?
“In a conference call with reporters, Casey said one could make a good argument that U.S. troops have won the war, then accused Iraqi politicians and the Bush administration of not matching the intensity of the troops.”
August 9th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
I’ve put together a timeline of betrayal, duplicity, and defeat strategies by the Caliphate Caucus for Critters regulars reference.
As stated by Jeffersonian…they were demanding more troops before Petreaus asked.
That is a great starting point. This article from the Washington Times has many of the Dem Cong including Reid, Biden, and Kerry and the GOPs Hagel on record supporting the war as a long term endeavor, supporting Surges, and then their quotes turning 180 degrees.
“Advocates of troop surge about-face in Congress”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20070131-121249-1084r.htm
January, 31, 2007
“Iraq: Top Dem Wants More Troops”
August 9th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
As the debate over Iraq intensifies, leading Democrat Silvestre Reyes is calling for the deployment of more U.S. troops.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16062351/site/newsweek/
December 5th, 2006
August 9th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
“Bush Seeks To Tamp Down GOP Revolt”
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_070118.htm
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Hagel: Policy Is “Alice In Wonderland” Hagel’s comments got a lot of play on television last night. The GOP senator, who is said to be considering a run for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination, was shown on the CBS Evening News calling the troop surge an “Alice in Wonderland policy.” He added, “What’s up is down and down is up. I think it’s a misguided policy that’s going to dig us deep into an already very dangerous bog that we can’t get out of.”
Silvestre Backed “Surge” Last Month The Washington Times reports in its “Inside The Beltway” column, “On Dec. 5, Newsweek magazine touted an interview with then-incoming House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Rep. Silvestre Reyes as an ‘exclusive.’ And for good reason. ‘In a surprise twist in the debate over Iraq,’ the story began, Mr. Reyes ’said he wants to see an increase of 20,000 to 30,000 US troops as part of a “stepped up effort to dismantle the militias.”‘ … Then came President Bush’s expected announcement last week, virtually matching Mr. Reyes’ recommendation and argument word-for-word — albeit the president proposed only 21,500 troops. Wouldn’t you know, hours after Mr. Bush announced his proposal, Mr. Reyes told the El Paso Times that such a troop buildup was unthinkable. ‘We don’t have the capability to escalate even to this minimum level,’ he said.”
August 9th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
“Murtha proposes bill to choke funding for surge”
1/15/2007
Washington Times
But Mr. Murtha told ABC, “We’re going to have extensive hearings, and we’re going to look at exactly how much money he has.”
“And we’re going to try to change the direction of this war,” he said.
Vice President Dick Cheney said any such effort would be “undercutting” U.S. forces. Moderator Chris Wallace, on “Fox News Sunday,” asked Mr. Cheney what he would say to “members of Congress who may try to block” the troop increase. “Would they be, in effect, undercutting the troops?”
“Well, I think they would be,” Mr. Cheney said. “We have these meetings with members of Congress, and they all agree we can’t fail; the consequences of failure would be too great. But then they end up critical of what we’re trying to do, advocating withdrawal or so-called redeployment of force, but they have absolutely nothing to offer in its place.”
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article16185.htm
August 9th, 2007 at 2:21 pm
“Pentagon chief blasts Iraq resolution”
1/26/2007
“At his first Pentagon news conference since taking office, Gates was asked his reaction to the debate in Congress over the effect of such a nonbinding resolution. “It’s pretty clear that a resolution that in effect says that the general going out to take command of the arena shouldn’t have the resources he thinks he needs to be successful certainly emboldens the enemy and our adversaries,” he said…
Gates was referring to Army Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, who was confirmed by the full Senate on Friday to replace Gen. George Casey as the top American commander in Iraq. Petraeus has said he needs all 21,500 extra troops that Bush has ordered to Iraq in order to quell the raging sectarian violence in Baghdad.
“I think it’s hard to measure that with any precision, but it seems pretty straightforward that any indication of flagging will in the United States gives encouragement to those folks,” Gates said, referring to the anti-government forces in Baghdad. He added that he was certain this was not the intent of those who support the congressional resolution.
“But that’s the effect,” he said.
Petraeus told the Senate Armed Services Committee at his confirmation hearing last week that he wanted the 21,500 additional troops in Iraq as quickly as possible. Gates said Friday that they had discussed this further and that the Pentagon would see if there are ways of speeding up at least some of the brigades.
“There some simply logistical constraints that make it difficult to do a lot” of acceleration, he said. “But I have asked people to look at it and see to what extent they could be — or some portion of it — accelerated.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16829400/
August 9th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
“Murtha’s plan to curb war funds flops”
2/24/07
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17322591/page/1/
“The story of Murtha’s star-crossed plan illustrates the Democratic Party’s deep divisions over the Iraq war and how the new House majority has yet to establish firm control over Congress. From the beginning, Murtha acted on his own to craft a complicated legislative strategy on the war, without consulting fellow Democrats. When he chose to roll out the details on a liberal, antiwar Web site on Feb. 15, he caught even Pelosi by surprise while infuriating Democrats from conservative districts…
The strategy he would craft was designed to calm the nerves of the party’s conservatives by fully funding the war, while placating the antiwar left by attaching so many strings to those funds that the president would not be able to deploy all the 21,500 additional combat troops he wanted.
To be sent to battle, troops would have to have had a year’s rest between combat tours. Soldiers in Iraq could not have their tours extended beyond a year there. And the Pentagon’s “stop-loss” policy, which prevents some officers from leaving the military when their service obligations are up, would end. Troops would have to be trained in counterinsurgency and urban warfare and be sent overseas with the equipment they used in training”
August 9th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
“Our muddled military”
The administration, not Congress, has mistreated the troops
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07060/765808-109.stm
Thursday, March 01, 2007
By John P. Murtha
“…At the beginning of the Iraq war, 80 percent of all Army units and almost 100 percent of active combat units were rated at the highest levels of readiness. Just the opposite is true today. Virtually all of our active-duty combat units at home and all of our guard units are at the lowest level of readiness.
My plan calls for the restoration of our military readiness to what it was before the war in Iraq. For the health and well-being of our military forces, I am requiring the Pentagon to uphold its own deployment and rotation guidelines that have been in existence for years.
The intense strain that this administration’s policies have placed on our service members is the problem. I am trying to fix what this administration has broken.”
August 9th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
“Petraeus Briefs Lawmakers Before Final House Vote on Iraq War Spending Bill”
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,268400,00.html
“Our troops are mired in a civil war with no clear enemy and no clear strategy for success,” House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said after leaving the briefing room. “This briefing reinforced our view that the solution in Iraq is a political solution.”
The emergency war supplemental bill that emerged from a conference committee between House and Senate Democrats on Monday includes a mandatory troop withdrawal schedule to start removing combat forces as early as July and no later than October. The bill also includes a goal of removing virtually all combat forces from Iraq by the end of March next year.
Leaving the briefing, Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C., the House majority whip, said the Democratic plan provided an “exit strategy that the president ought to be pleased to receive.”
Democrats are skeptical of the surge and are trying change to course in Iraq, saying the violence in Iraq is part of a civil war and represents no threat to the United States. Hoyer, however, acknowledged that the departure of troops may not end the threat to the United States.
“General Petraeus made it very clear that sectarian violence was the most disruptive element,” Hoyer said. “Al Qaeda obviously is a very significant presence at this point in time. As you know in the bill we specifically provide and reserve the right for troops to confront Al Qaeda.”
All lawmakers were invited to the general’s briefing, but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi did not attend nor did Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., chairman of the committee responsible for defense appropriations.
Pelosi’s staff cited a scheduling conflict for her absence. However, she and Murtha spoke by phone with Petraeus for 30 minutes on Tuesday, which she said was sufficient.
“I appreciated his report and his responses to my questions on security and political issues in Iraq,” Pelosi said in a statement about her and Petraeus’ phone conversation. “We share a conviction that the war in Iraq will not be resolved militarily, and I look forward to future reports from him on the effects of President Bush’s escalation plan.”
House speakers rarely attend members-only military briefings, but Republicans took no time in criticizing the speaker for her absence. Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio called Pelosi’s decision “shameful.” Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C., called it “insulting and disrespectful.”
“While Speaker Pelosi was able to jet-set around the globe to meet with Syrian leaders, she finds it inconvenient to meet with the U.S. commander in Iraq during his brief visit to Washington,” Wilson said.
The Democrats’ war funding bill requires monthly assessments from Petraeus on military progress in Iraq as the surge continues. Democrats have described these updates as crucial to Congress’ ability to measure success in Iraq. Pelosi’s absence could be seen by some as undercutting the importance of these monthly briefings.
August 9th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
Here are numerous instances of Murtha Calling Petreaus liar, and the US military liars as well…
Murtha on video saying al Qaeda is not involved in Iraq, General Petraeus is lying to the American public, and General Petraues came back to Washington not to brief Congress, but rather purely for political propaganda
http://towncommons.blogspot.com/2007/05/clueless-jack-murtha-will-republicans.html
August 9th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
Reid vows not to believe Petraeus if he reports progress in Iraq
Lets roll the tape of Reid telling the CNN reporter here asking Reid “how an 18-19 year old soldier who is risking his life or losing his life feels when they hear somebody like you back in Washington saying the saying they are fighting for a lost cause” to which Reid says “General Petreaus has said that. He has said the war can’t be won militarily. He’s the commander on the ground and he’s said it can’t be won militarily.” The CNN reporter stunned says “he said that?” Reid says, “well maybe it’s a choice of words but he said the war can’t be won militarily.”
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/04/24/video-reid-vows-not-to-believe-petraeus-if-he-reports-progress-in-iraq/
August 9th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
Murtha finds outlook bleak for Bush’s Iraq policy
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/pp/07032/758523.stm
Thursday, February 01, 2007
“I am not encouraged by what I saw,” he told Pennsylvania reporters, speaking via teleconference from his Washington office. “I came to the conclusion that the Shiites are not going to negotiate with the Sunnis, and unless that happens, we’re not going to solve the problem.”
When Mr. Murtha told Mr. Maliki that he is looking at ways of cutting congressional funding for the war, the prime minister said he would still get money to equip Iraqi troops.
“I thought that was kind of an arrogant response,” Mr. Murtha said.
August 9th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
Murtha: Dems could impeach
April 30, 2007
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=3E224DA1-3048-5C12-009132E0DA8BC723
Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) said Sunday that Democrats in Congress could consider impeachment as a way to pressure President Bush on his handling of the war in Iraq.
“What I’m saying, there’s four ways to influence a president. And one of them’s impeachment,” Murtha, chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”
August 9th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
Hagel: Bush impeachment an option
Republican senator blasts president’s go-it-alone stance on Iraq policy
The Associated Press
March 25, 2007
With his go-it-alone approach on Iraq, President Bush is flouting Congress and the public, so angering lawmakers that some consider impeachment an option over his war policy, a senator from Bush’s own party said Sunday
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17786158/
August 9th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
“We’re going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war. Senator Schumer has shown me numbers that are compelling and astounding.” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), speaking to reporters, April 12, 2007
“This war is lost.” Reid, April 19, 2007
http://www.time.com/time/columnist/article/0,8599,1613027,00.html
August 9th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
Then if none of these “strategies” work you can try to rescind the President’s war powers.
“Clinton: Revoke president’s war powers”
May 3, 2007
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-05-03-clinton-war-powers_N.htm
WASHINGTON — Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton announced Thursday that she’s joining forces with one of the Senate’s most skilled parliamentary infighters to try to rescind President Bush’s authority to wage war.
Clinton, a New York Democrat seeking her party’s presidential nomination, and Sen. Robert Byrd, a West Virginia Democrat who is the Senate’s longest-serving member, said they will seek a vote to rescind the authority Congress granted Bush to use force in Iraq in October 2002. If approved, the measure would require congressional reauthorization for troops to remain in Iraq, Clinton said.
AUDIO: ‘It’s getting harder and harder … to defend this strategy’
“We’re going to force a debate on the whole war,” she told reporters outside the Senate chamber. “We want to force the Congress to look at whether the president’s authority, which comes from Congress, should be rescinded.”
The Bush administration accused Clinton of playing presidential politics.
“Here we go again. The Senate is trying another way to put a surrender date on the calendar,” said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino. “Welcome to politics, ‘08 style.”
August 9th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
The Strategy of nothingness continued…
“…what will happen in Iraq if Democrats pressure Bush to withdraw U.S. troops on their schedule. Will Iraq collapse? Will Iraq become a Shiite-led nation? Will Iran move in? Will Iraq become a haven for terrorist groups?
At press conferences, reporters ask procedural questions about how the Democrats will respond to a likely Bush veto, but they do not ask about what the consequences will be — for Iraq or for America — should the Democrats get their way.
What will happen to Iraq? I asked Pelosi’s office. Spokesman Drew Hammill answered that Pelosi wants to see Iraq change its constitution and its ways. “What we hope is, that with these series of things, we don’t have to worry about that. We hope that Iraq will become a peaceful democratic country.”
When I asked the office of Sen. Dianne Feinstein what she believed would happen in Iraq, should the Senate measure prevail, her office e-mailed this quote: “Iraq is in chaos today. By setting a goal for redeployment, the Democratic plan says to the Iraqi government that you’ve got to make the political accommodations necessary. This, in my view, is the best chance for stability in Iraq.” Call the Democratic plan “cross your fingers.”
“Iraq’s Future in Dems’ Hands”
March 29, 2007
By Debra Saunders
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/03/iraqs_future_in_dems_hands.html