House Democrats Embarassed

[Black Dog]

Looks like the stage is getting set for a bug-out.

Rice Optimistic on U.S. Troop Draw Down

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says the United States will probably not need to maintain its current troop levels in Iraq "very much longer," though she declined to provide a precise timetable for reduction in U.S. forces.

Remarkable. Republicans say that Democrats calling for a U.S. withdrawl are "cowards" (Schmidt) or members of the "extreme liberal wing" (McClellan) who are "comforting the enemy" (Rumsfeld), even as the administration is laying the ground for just such an action. My prediction? There will be a significant reduction in U.S. troop strength next year, but a significant number (I'd bet on a force of around 80,000 U.S. troops) will remain indefinitely. That way the Republicans can declare victory, even while maintaining enough of a prescence to duck charges of "cutting and running."

[sharkman]

Blackdog, you claim the administration is laying the groundwork for a complete withdrawl as the democrats wish, then later in your comments admit you don't believe so, stating you estimate a force of 80,000 troops will remain. Again, the dems want a complete withdrawl(except when asked to vote on it!), and they're not going to get it.

As to whether the dems protests are aiding the enemey, why don't we look to Veitnam for the answer, since the anti war movement loves to draw parallels between the two. Here's something I found on the subject:

It is simply a fact that Democrats like Murtha are encouraging the Iraqi insurgents when they say the war is going badly and it's time to bring the troops home. Whether or not there is any merit to the idea, calling for a troop withdrawal — or "redeployment," as liberals pointlessly distinguish — will delay our inevitable victory and cost more American lives.

Anti-war protests in the U.S. during the Vietnam War were a major source of moral support to the enemy. We know that not only from simple common sense, but from the statements of former North Vietnamese military leaders who evidently didn't get the memo telling them not to say so. In an Aug. 3, 1995, interview in The Wall Street Journal, Bui Tin, a former colonel in the North Vietnamese army, called the American peace movement "essential" to the North Vietnamese victory.

"Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m. to follow the growth of the American anti-war movement," he said. "Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses."

[Black Dog]

lackdog, you claim the administration is laying the groundwork for a complete withdrawl as the democrats wish, then later in your comments admit you don't believe so, stating you estimate a force of 80,000 troops will remain. Again, the dems want a complete withdrawl(except when asked to vote on it!), and they're not going to get it.

Did I say complete withdrawl? No.

As for the shot at the Dems not backing their own wishes for a complete withdrawl, that's just false as well. No Democrat has called for an immediate pull out.

It is simply a fact that Democrats like Murtha are encouraging the Iraqi insurgents when they say the war is going badly and it's time to bring the troops home. Whether or not there is any merit to the idea, calling for a troop withdrawal — or "redeployment," as liberals pointlessly distinguish — will delay our inevitable victory and cost more American lives.

Huh? Pulling Americans out of harm's way will cost lives? But I expect such logical contortions from someone who prefaces their opinion with "It is simply a fact..." (while neglecting to provide any supporting evidence).

Also: "inevitable victory"? How is such a victory to be measured?

Anti-war protests in the U.S. during the Vietnam War were a major source of moral support to the enemy. We know that not only from simple common sense, but from the statements of former North Vietnamese military leaders who evidently didn't get the memo telling them not to say so. In an Aug. 3, 1995, interview in The Wall Street Journal, Bui Tin, a former colonel in the North Vietnamese army, called the American peace movement "essential" to the North Vietnamese victory.

"Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m. to follow the growth of the American anti-war movement," he said. "Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses."

Give me a break. Neither the North Vietnemese or Iraqi insurgents need any "moral support" for their fight. What you need to realize is that it was the conduct of the war by the U.S. that lost Vietnam and is losing Iraq, not some long hairs holding signs.

(By the way, what about the Iraqi lawmakers who just announced that killing Americans is part of Iraqis' "legitimate right of resistance"? I'll wager those folks have a lot more clout than a thousand Cindy Sheehans.)

[Shady]

No Democrat has called for an immediate pull out

Well of course there can't be an immediate pull out. You can't instantaneously remove 150,000 soldiers + equipment from their theater of operation. But we all know what they mean. Start removing people immediately, so that everyone can be gone as soon as possible. Which would be a horrible mistake. But apparently, that doesn't matter.

[sharkman]

No, I'm afraid I can't give you a break today. What the North Vietamese or Iraqui terrorists 'need' is not the issue. That the anti-war movement is aiding them is plain to see, even a former officer admitted it. If you can't bring yourself to see it, it doesn't change the facts.

Huh? Pulling Americans out of harm's way will cost lives?(Blackdog)

Uh, yah, although the fact that it's Iraqi lives seems to lessen the concern. But you seemed to misunderstand the quote: CALLING FOR a troop withdrawl will delay victory and cost lives.(Since they'd then be there longer.)

Here's Murtha himself: I believe before the Iraqi elections, scheduled for mid December, the Iraqi people and the emerging government must be put on notice that the United States will immediately redeploy.  All of Iraq must know that Iraq is free.  Free from United States occupation.  I believe this will send a signal to the Sunnis to join the political process for the good of a “free” Iraq. 

My plan calls: 

To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces.

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/pa12_...051117iraq.html

(/quote)

Murtha himself called for an immediate withdrawl. 

[Black Dog]

Well of course there can't be an immediate pull out. You can't instantaneously remove 150,000 soldiers + equipment from their theater of operation. But we all know what they mean. Start removing people immediately, so that everyone can be gone as soon as possible. Which would be a horrible mistake. But apparently, that doesn't matter.

I'm really sick of all these faith-based theories. This is a good example: we're told that pulling out the U.S. troops would be a horrible mistake. But we're not told why.

Oh I know: "civil war". Too bad there's already a civil war underway.

No, I'm afraid I can't give you a break today. What the North Vietamese or Iraqui terrorists 'need' is not the issue. That the anti-war movement is aiding them is plain to see, even a former officer admitted it. If you can't bring yourself to see it, it doesn't change the facts.

Here's another one. We're told the opponnents of the war are "aiding" the insurgency, but we're not told how. Now, call me crazy, but I'd say the prescence of a foreign army on your countries soil and the death of thousands of your countrymen at their hands is motivation enough. I'd be pretty happy if I thought my support of Iraqi's legitimate resitance to the occupier made a difference to them. But it doesn't.

Uh, yah, although the fact that it's Iraqi lives seems to lessen the concern.

May I point out your quote:

Whether or not there is any merit to the idea, calling for a troop withdrawal — or "redeployment," as liberals pointlessly distinguish — will delay our inevitable victory and cost more American lives.

But you seemed to misunderstand the quote: CALLING FOR a troop withdrawl will delay victory and cost lives.(Since they'd then be there longer.)

Nope. They'll be there as long as they are going to be there. Calling for their withdrawl won't change the length of their deployment.

Murtha himself called for an immediate withdrawl.

The distinction between withdrawl and redeployment is important. The foremer means a complete pull out, the latter a shift in manpower and priorities.

Murtha's plan:

To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces. 

To create a quick reaction force in the region.

To create an over- the- horizon presence of Marines. 

To diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq 

[Guest eureka]

That half million US soldiers in Vietnam were whipped because of protests several thousand miles away?

Give us all a break.

[moderateamericain]

actually if you wanna compare attrition we killed about 10 of them for every 1 of us. However you can slaughter an enemy until you rot, if you do not accomplish your goal it was for not. And i dont think losing vietnam had anything to do with protest at home. It may have been detrimental to morale but the real reason we lost that war, is we fought it with one arm tied behind are back.

[sharkman]

I guess you guys know better about whether anti war protests aided the enemy better than the north Vietnamese officer quoted above. What a crock, eh? Who does he think he is, just because he actually FOUGHT in the war he thinks he knows a thing or two. LOL

[moderateamericain]

I guess you guys know better about whether anti war protests aided the enemy better than the north Vietnamese officer quoted above.  What a crock, eh?  Who does he think he is, just because he actually FOUGHT in the war he thinks he knows a thing or two.  LOL 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

im trying to figure out what your talking about here? Care to quote?

[sharkman]

As to whether the dems protests are aiding the enemey, why don't we look to Veitnam for the answer, since the anti war movement loves to draw parallels between the two.  Here's something I found on the subject:

It is simply a fact that Democrats like Murtha are encouraging the Iraqi insurgents when they say the war is going badly and it's time to bring the troops home. Whether or not there is any merit to the idea, calling for a troop withdrawal — or "redeployment," as liberals pointlessly distinguish — will delay our inevitable victory and cost more American lives.

Anti-war protests in the U.S. during the Vietnam War were a major source of moral support to the enemy. We know that not only from simple common sense, but from the statements of former North Vietnamese military leaders who evidently didn't get the memo telling them not to say so. In an Aug. 3, 1995, interview in The Wall Street Journal, Bui Tin, a former colonel in the North Vietnamese army, called the American peace movement "essential" to the North Vietnamese victory.

"Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m. to follow the growth of the American anti-war movement," he said. "Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is for you Moderateam. It's originally from the Wall Street Journal. The colonel doesn't claim the American anti-war movement defeated the U.S. army(I don't know how you could possibly draw that conclusion Eureka), but that it encouraged them in the face of defeats on the battlefield.

[moderateamericain]

As to whether the dems protests are aiding the enemey, why don't we look to Veitnam for the answer, since the anti war movement loves to draw parallels between the two.  Here's something I found on the subject:

It is simply a fact that Democrats like Murtha are encouraging the Iraqi insurgents when they say the war is going badly and it's time to bring the troops home. Whether or not there is any merit to the idea, calling for a troop withdrawal — or "redeployment," as liberals pointlessly distinguish — will delay our inevitable victory and cost more American lives.

Anti-war protests in the U.S. during the Vietnam War were a major source of moral support to the enemy. We know that not only from simple common sense, but from the statements of former North Vietnamese military leaders who evidently didn't get the memo telling them not to say so. In an Aug. 3, 1995, interview in The Wall Street Journal, Bui Tin, a former colonel in the North Vietnamese army, called the American peace movement "essential" to the North Vietnamese victory.

"Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m. to follow the growth of the American anti-war movement," he said. "Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is for you Moderateam. It's originally from the Wall Street Journal. The colonel doesn't claim the American anti-war movement defeated the U.S. army(I don't know how you could possibly draw that conclusion Eureka), but that it encouraged them in the face of defeats on the battlefield.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

ahh thanks.

[BHS]

Blackdog:

I'm really sick of all these faith-based theories. This is a good example: we're told that pulling out the U.S. troops would be a horrible mistake. But we're not told why.

Just to threadjack for a moment;

new thread

Now, getting back to the topic at hand - if you cared to get your news outside the accepted viewpoint parameters defined by the Toronto Star and The Daily Kos, you'd find that there are hundreds and hundreds of pro-war political pundits who've made the case ad nauseum that you're claiming hasn't been made.

[Montgomery Burns]

Black Dog:

The House late Friday overwhelmingly rejected calls for an immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq, a vote engineered by the Republicans that was intended to fail.

Democrats derided the vote as a political stunt.

...

Democrats said it was a political stunt and quickly decided to vote against it in an attempt to drain it of significance.

"A disgrace," declared House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-California. "The rankest of politics and the absence of any sense of shame," added Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the No. 2 House Democrat.

Once again, the left is blinded by ideology. How hypocritical that they whine about this vote when the contemptible Harry Reid pulled that outlandish stunt of locking the press out of Congress for secretive "talks" about the "lies" that Bush told the poor poor Democrats who were so easily tricked by that dumb chimp Bush.

The Republicans, rightfully, got fed up with the childish games of the Dems and called their bluff.

No wonder that the Dems in Congress have a 25% approval rating. Thankfully the grownups are in charge.

[Montgomery Burns]

WaPo: Traitorous Democrats continue to be out of touch with the American public

Democrats fumed last week at Vice President Cheney’s suggestion that criticism of the administration’s war policies was itself becoming a hindrance to the war effort. But a new poll indicates most Americans are sympathetic to Cheney’s point.

Seventy percent of people surveyed said that criticism of the war by Democratic senators hurts troop morale — with 44 percent saying morale is hurt “a lot,” according to a poll taken by RT Strategies. Even self-identified Democrats agree: 55 percent believe criticism hurts morale, while 21 percent say it helps morale.

The results surely will rankle many Democrats, who argue that it is patriotic and supportive of the troops (LMAO---MB) to call attention to what they believe are deep flaws in President Bush’s Iraq strategy. But the survey itself cannot be dismissed as a partisan attack. The RTs in RT Strategies are Thomas Riehle, a Democrat, and Lance Tarrance, a veteran GOP pollster.

Their poll also indicates many Americans are skeptical of Democratic complaints about the war. Just three of 10 adults accept that Democrats are leveling criticism because they believe this will help U.S. efforts in Iraq. A majority believes the motive is really to “gain a partisan political advantage.”

Probably mostly neocons surveyed.

Don't these Yanks know that it is ILLEGAL to enforce broken ceasefires and numerous broken UN resolutions?

Don't they know it is IMMORAL to overthrow massmurdering dictators and give tens of millions of people a chance at freedom and democracy?

Americans. They're so dumb.

[Black Dog]

Now, getting back to the topic at hand - if you cared to get your news outside the accepted viewpoint parameters defined by the Toronto Star and The Daily Kos, you'd find that there are hundreds and hundreds of pro-war political pundits who've made the case ad nauseum that you're claiming hasn't been made.

I wonder: are these the same chaps who were predicting a quick and bloodless conflict, with U.S. troops welcomed with rose petals?

I mean, take a sampling of the headlines from Iraq on any given day and you'd hardly be left with the impression that the U.S. is the Thin Khaki Line standing between order and total chaos in Iraq.

[Shady]

Another thing House Democrats should be embarassed over. This is what liberalism has brought us! We can't even call a freaking Christmas tree a Christmas tree anymore. Look at this people! Especially the liberals. This is what you've become. Take a good hard look in the mirror.

Hastert Wants 'Christmas,' Tree Together

If it's a spruce tree adorned with 10,000 lights and 5,000 ornaments displayed on the Capitol grounds in December, it's a Christmas tree and that's what it should be called, says House Speaker Dennis Hastert.

Hastert, R-Ill., in a letter to the Architect of the Capitol, recommended that the annual Capitol Holiday Tree, as it has been called the past several years, be renamed the Capitol Christmas Tree.

"I strongly urge that we return to this tradition and join the White House, countless other public institutions and millions of American families in celebrating the holiday season with a Christmas tree," Hastert wrote to Architect Alan Hantman.

His office said the tree began to be referred to as the Holiday Tree in the 1990s. Spokesman Ron Bonjean said the reasons were unclear.

Link

Enough is enough. If you people don't like Christmas, fine, don't celebrate. But don't think you people can ruin the good times of everyone else.

I wonder: are these the same chaps who were predicting a quick and bloodless conflict, with U.S. troops welcomed with rose petals?

Well, the toppling of Saddam's regime was quick and relatively bloodless. I don't think any serious military leader ever said it would be "bloodless". Afterall, war is never bloodless. However, the post-regime era obviously has not been bloodless, but when put into perspective, which the left seems to have lost, has been relatively minimal. And it's a fact that 80% of Iraqi's have welcomed U.S. troops. Yes, the 20% nazi like population that benefited from Saddam's torturous rule has not been very receptive. Oh well. We'll see how far that gets them. Of course, they've been getting aid from the American left as well as the American and World media for quite a while now. It'd be interesting to see how they'd be doing without all the help. I'm sure people like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi must laugh his head off at the way the left is pretty much doing his work for him. I'm sure he could probably sit back and let the left take care of getting the evil infidel American's out of Iraq. It'll probably save him a lot of time and effort, and probably blood.

[Black Dog]

Hastert Wants 'Christmas,' Tree Together

Well it's nice to see the Christian States of America defending pagan symbols like the Christmas tree.

And it's a fact that 80% of Iraqi's have welcomed U.S. troops

Citaton?

Iraqis favour immediate U.S. pullout

Only a third of the Iraqi people now believe that the American-led occupation of their country is doing more good than harm, and a solid majority support an immediate military pullout even though they fear that could put them in greater danger, according to a new USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll.

more

The first survey of Iraqis sponsored by the U.S. Coalition Provisional Authority after the Abu Ghraib prison scandal shows that most say they would feel safer if Coalition forces left immediately, without even waiting for elections scheduled for next year. An overwhelming majority, about 80 percent, also say they have “no confidence” in either the U.S. civilian authorities or Coalition forces.

[Shady]

Well it's nice to see the Christian States of America defending pagan symbols like the Christmas tree

I'm not sure what you mean by the "Christian States of America". However, I'm glad you agree that a Christmas tree isn't a religious symbol. You're making progress.

As for Iraq, it's a fact that the vast majority of Iraqi's initially viewed and greeted American troops as liberaters. It's even stated in your year and half old survey. Greeting takes place at the beginning of something. I'm not sure if you're aware of that.

From your year and a half old survey:

The poll shows that most continue to say the hardships suffered to depose Saddam Hussein were worth it

Half say they and their families are better off than they were under Saddam. And a strong majority say they are more free to worship and to speak

"I'm not ungrateful that they took away Saddam Hussein," says Salam Ahmed, 30, a Shiite businessman. "But the job is done. Thank you very much. See you later. Bye-bye."

[Black Dog]

I'm not sure what you mean by the "Christian States of America".

The religious right makes the claim that the U.S. is a Christian nation. Indeed, the U.S. does have the highest rate of religious belief of any western nation.

Plus, the furor over the use of the term "Holidays" is driven by the removal of the term "CHRISTmas".

However, I'm glad you agree that a Christmas tree isn't a religious symbol. You're making progress.

The tree itself isn't the issue, clearly. The name is.

One the same note:

Busted!

Although Fox News hosts Bill O'Reilly and John Gibson have lambasted what they see as a "secular" "war on Christmas," Fox News' own online store advertises "Holiday" ornaments rather than "Christmas" ornaments, as apparently first noted on the weblog Daily Kos. The items are grouped under the category "Holiday Ideas."

[Shakeyhands]

too bad... they fixed it.....

http://www.mediamatters.org/static/img/fox...ents-113005.jpg

http://shop.ecompanystore.com/foxnews/FOX_...&view=all&ID=71

[Shady]

Plus, the furor over the use of the term "Holidays" is driven by the removal of the term "CHRISTmas".

Exactly. But Christmas isn't just celebrated as a religious holiday by religious people. Also, it's recognized as a NATIONAL holiday, so it's ridiculous that decorations related to said recognized NATIONAL holiday have to be called something different.

[Montgomery Burns]

It was all poltical rhetoric by the Democrats (except for those 3 idjits) as they continue to do everything in their power to see Iraq's democracy fail.

Just wait. It is going to get worse in the next few days as the Dec 15 Iraqi election approaches. The Democrats will do everything they can to undermine it.

Btw, does anyone know when the Kosovo Quagmire will end? What Christmas was Clinton talking about when he said, "the troops will be home by Christmas" when he attacked Kosovo without the authorization of Congress and the Holy Sainted UN?

[newbie]

Btw, does anyone know when the Kosovo Quagmire will end?  What Christmas was Clinton talking about when he said, "the troops will be home by Christmas" when he attacked Kosovo without the authorization of Congress and the Holy Sainted UN?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, but Clinton went in with NATO and was successful. On June 30, 1999, the UN Security Council approves a resolution that authorizes the plan for peace in Kosovo by a vote of 14-0. http://www.infoplease.com/spot/kosovo-timeline1.html

[Montgomery Burns]

Btw, does anyone know when the Kosovo Quagmire will end?  What Christmas was Clinton talking about when he said, "the troops will be home by Christmas" when he attacked Kosovo without the authorization of Congress and the Holy Sainted UN?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, but Clinton went in with NATO and was successful. On June 30, 1999, the UN Security Council approves a resolution that authorizes the plan for peace in Kosovo by a vote of 14-0. http://www.infoplease.com/spot/kosovo-timeline1.html

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

June 30, 1999? A little late, no?