Re: Democrats' Shameful Ruse Intended to Shirk Responsibility for Iraq Policy

On Feb 24, 9:07 am, "Serena" <lunallena...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Feb 23, 2:22 pm, "Harry Dope" <HarryIsACom...@aol.com> wrote:> Democrats' Shameful Ruse Intended to Shirk Responsibility for Iraq Policy

> > Every day, the Democrats' moves on Iraq become more shameful.

>

> > In October 2002, both houses of Congress did exactly that with open eyes

> > and large majorities. Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a Democratic member of the

> > Senate Intelligence Committee who had access to all the relevant information

> > at the time, said, "I have come to the inescapable conclusion that the

> > threat posed to America by Saddam's weapons of mass destruction is so

> > serious that despite the risks - and we should not minimize the risks - we

> > must authorize the president to take the necessary steps to deal with that

> > threat."

>

> These cries and claims against Saddam Hussein went back even further.

> The democrats were claiming this since before 1998!

>

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GagguViz3rg

>

> > Now, more than four years later, the Democrats want out of the resulting

> > war. Most, such as Rep. John Murtha, want to do so for a simple reason: They

> > think the war is lost. If you believe that, then getting out is the most

> > reasonable and honorable and patriotic policy.

>

> And how did they get to this point?

>

> It was during the period approaching the democratic primary. Anti-war

> Howard Dean had been gaining in the polls and moved ahead of Kerry. It

> was at this point that John Kerry decided that politics was more

> important than his past words and his past votes.

>

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZoazlVwmeZc

>

> It was at this point that John Kerry came out against the war which

> he himself voted for. Kerry did this sudden U-turn because he figured

> it was working for Howard Dean. Edwards then followed. Then Hillary.

> Lieberman never changed his mind. It was at this point and for that

> reason the democrats are in the situation they are in today.

> The democrats have invested in our defeat. They invested in defeat for

> political gain.

>

>

>

> > Congress has the power to do that by cutting off the funds. But Democrats

> > will not, because it is politically dangerous.

>

> And this shows us that

>

> a) they are not being truthful about the importance of a victory

> against the terrorists in Iraq. That they are playing games with our

> national security and the future security of your own parents and/or

> children and mine for political gain

>

> OR

>

> b) They really believe that this war is as bad as they claim but

> refuse to stop it and actually hope that many many more thousands of

> deaths will occur between now and the next election which they think

> will help them gain seats so they continue the war.

>

> Instead, they are seeking> other ways, clever ways. The House is pursuing a method, developed by Murtha

> > and deemed "ingenious" by antiwar activist Tom Andrews of Win Without War,

> > to impose a conditional cutoff of funds, ostensibly in the name of

> > protecting the troops. Unless the troops are given the precise equipment,

> > training and amount of rest Murtha stipulates - no funds.

>

> This "slow bleed" strategy and their rhetoric are solely for the

> purpose of encouraging the enemy while making it more impossible for

> the American troops to have the equipment necessary to defend

> themselves thus increasing the number of troop deaths before the next

> election. They would also hope by doing this that our troops will pull

> out of Iraq in defeat. The democrats have invested themselves in a

> defeat in Iraq for political gain.

>

>

>

>

>

> > Unfortunately for the Democrats, Murtha is not disingenuous enough to have

> > concealed the real motives for these ostensibly pro-readiness, pro-troops

> > conditions. He has chosen conditions he knows are impossible to meet - "We

> > have analyzed this and we have come to the conclusion that it can't be

> > done'' - in order to make the continued prosecution of the war very

> > difficult, if not impossible, for the commanders in the field.

>

> > But think of what that entails. It leaves the existing 130,000 troops out

> > there without the reinforcements and tactical flexibility that the

> > commander, Gen. David H. Petraeus, says he needs to win.

>

> > That's the House approach: micromanage the war (which is probably

> > unconstitutional) and use their "slow bleed" strategy to choke off our

> > military's ability to fight. The Senate's approach is as dizzyingly absurd

> > as the House's is deceptively pernicious.

> > Murtha's ruse is so transparent that even Senate Armed Services Committee

> > Chairman Carl Levin, who opposes the war, will not countenance it: "I think

> > that sends the wrong message to our troops."

>

> Their anti-war rhetoric resulted in increased attacks against our

> troops. I challenge you to look at the dates of increased attacks...

> compare them to the date-line of election 2004. You will see the

> attacks increased at the point that Kerry decided he wanted to gain in

> the polls ahead Howard Dean.

>

> Sadly, the blood of many American soldiers and many Iraqis are on the

> hands of the democratic party. The majority of them died since the

> democratic primary and their continued rhetoric only results in more

> deaths. The terrorists actually hear them and think "this is it. The

> camel's back could be broke on the next attack. They are going home

> and Iraq will be ours!"

>

> For this reason I know the democrats could care less about the lives

> of American troops, the lives of Iraqi children. The democrats will

> accept the death of many people and they will accept the defeat of

> America if it means they will regain power in Washington DC. They

> tried it before. It was called Vietnam.

>

>

>

>

>

> > Levin has a different idea - change the original October 2002

> > authorization. "We'll be looking at modification of that authorization in

> > order to limit the mission of American troops to a support mission instead

> > of a combat mission," says Levin. "That is very different from cutting off

> > funds."

>

> > While this idea is not as perverse as Murtha's, it is totally illogical.

> > There is something exceedingly strange about authorizing the use of force -

> > except for combat. That is an oxymoron. Changing the language of

> > authorization means - if it means anything - that Petraeus will have to

> > surround himself with lawyers who will tell him, every time he wants to

> > deploy a unit, whether he is ordering a legal "support" mission or an

> > illegal "combat" mission.

>

> > So the House wants to hang our 130,000 troops in the theater of operations

> > out to dry and the Senate wants a do-over. Here is the Democratic way to

> > fight terrorists, and to do it without taking responsibility for the

> > outcome.

>

> The democrats cannot afford to allow the US to win. It would make them

> look too bad after all they said and have done regarding the war in

> Iraq since that turning point just before their 2004 primary. They

> have to save face by hoping we will be defeated and they will continue

> to say "we're losing we're losing" everyday to make people believe

> it's true. And they could cause that defeat to happen. They could

> cause it with their words of encouragement... encouraging the enemy.

> They are too invested in defeat. And if we lose the democrats will own

> that defeat.- Hide quoted text -

>

> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

>

> - Show quoted text -

Congress has the power to do that by cutting off the funds. But

Democrats

will not, because it is politically dangerous

Amen to that

On Feb 24, 8:41 am, "Serena" <lunallena...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Feb 24, 9:07 am, "Serena" <lunallena...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>

> > On Feb 23, 2:22 pm, "Harry Dope" <HarryIsACom...@aol.com> wrote:> Democrats' Shameful Ruse Intended to Shirk Responsibility for Iraq Policy

> > > Every day, the Democrats' moves on Iraq become more shameful.

>

> > > In October 2002, both houses of Congress did exactly that with open eyes

> > > and large majorities. Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a Democratic member of the

> > > Senate Intelligence Committee who had access to all the relevant information

> > > at the time, said, "I have come to the inescapable conclusion that the

> > > threat posed to America by Saddam's weapons of mass destruction is so

> > > serious that despite the risks - and we should not minimize the risks - we

> > > must authorize the president to take the necessary steps to deal with that

> > > threat."

>

> > These cries and claims against Saddam Hussein went back even further.

> > The democrats were claiming this since before 1998!

>

> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GagguViz3rg

>

> > > Now, more than four years later, the Democrats want out of the resulting

> > > war. Most, such as Rep. John Murtha, want to do so for a simple reason: They

> > > think the war is lost. If you believe that, then getting out is the most

> > > reasonable and honorable and patriotic policy.

>

> > And how did they get to this point?

>

> > It was during the period approaching the democratic primary. Anti-war

> > Howard Dean had been gaining in the polls and moved ahead of Kerry. It

> > was at this point that John Kerry decided that politics was more

> > important than his past words and his past votes.

>

> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZoazlVwmeZc

>

> > It was at this point that John Kerry came out against the war which

> > he himself voted for. Kerry did this sudden U-turn because he figured

> > it was working for Howard Dean. Edwards then followed. Then Hillary.

> > Lieberman never changed his mind. It was at this point and for that

> > reason the democrats are in the situation they are in today.

> > The democrats have invested in our defeat. They invested in defeat for

> > political gain.

>

> > > Congress has the power to do that by cutting off the funds. But Democrats

> > > will not, because it is politically dangerous.

>

> > And this shows us that

>

> > a) they are not being truthful about the importance of a victory

> > against the terrorists in Iraq. That they are playing games with our

> > national security and the future security of your own parents and/or

> > children and mine for political gain

>

> > OR

>

> > b) They really believe that this war is as bad as they claim but

> > refuse to stop it and actually hope that many many more thousands of

> > deaths will occur between now and the next election which they think

> > will help them gain seats so they continue the war.

>

> > Instead, they are seeking> other ways, clever ways. The House is pursuing a method, developed by Murtha

> > > and deemed "ingenious" by antiwar activist Tom Andrews of Win Without War,

> > > to impose a conditional cutoff of funds, ostensibly in the name of

> > > protecting the troops. Unless the troops are given the precise equipment,

> > > training and amount of rest Murtha stipulates - no funds.

>

> > This "slow bleed" strategy and their rhetoric are solely for the

> > purpose of encouraging the enemy while making it more impossible for

> > the American troops to have the equipment necessary to defend

> > themselves thus increasing the number of troop deaths before the next

> > election. They would also hope by doing this that our troops will pull

> > out of Iraq in defeat. The democrats have invested themselves in a

> > defeat in Iraq for political gain.

>

> > > Unfortunately for the Democrats, Murtha is not disingenuous enough to have

> > > concealed the real motives for these ostensibly pro-readiness, pro-troops

> > > conditions. He has chosen conditions he knows are impossible to meet - "We

> > > have analyzed this and we have come to the conclusion that it can't be

> > > done'' - in order to make the continued prosecution of the war very

> > > difficult, if not impossible, for the commanders in the field.

>

> > > But think of what that entails. It leaves the existing 130,000 troops out

> > > there without the reinforcements and tactical flexibility that the

> > > commander, Gen. David H. Petraeus, says he needs to win.

>

> > > That's the House approach: micromanage the war (which is probably

> > > unconstitutional) and use their "slow bleed" strategy to choke off our

> > > military's ability to fight. The Senate's approach is as dizzyingly absurd

> > > as the House's is deceptively pernicious.

> > > Murtha's ruse is so transparent that even Senate Armed Services Committee

> > > Chairman Carl Levin, who opposes the war, will not countenance it: "I think

> > > that sends the wrong message to our troops."

>

> > Their anti-war rhetoric resulted in increased attacks against our

> > troops. I challenge you to look at the dates of increased attacks...

> > compare them to the date-line of election 2004. You will see the

> > attacks increased at the point that Kerry decided he wanted to gain in

> > the polls ahead Howard Dean.

>

> > Sadly, the blood of many American soldiers and many Iraqis are on the

> > hands of the democratic party. The majority of them died since the

> > democratic primary and their continued rhetoric only results in more

> > deaths. The terrorists actually hear them and think "this is it. The

> > camel's back could be broke on the next attack. They are going home

> > and Iraq will be ours!"

>

> > For this reason I know the democrats could care less about the lives

> > of American troops, the lives of Iraqi children. The democrats will

> > accept the death of many people and they will accept the defeat of

> > America if it means they will regain power in Washington DC. They

> > tried it before. It was called Vietnam.

>

> > > Levin has a different idea - change the original October 2002

> > > authorization. "We'll be looking at modification of that authorization in

> > > order to limit the mission of American troops to a support mission instead

> > > of a combat mission," says Levin. "That is very different from cutting off

> > > funds."

>

> > > While this idea is not as perverse as Murtha's, it is totally illogical.

> > > There is something exceedingly strange about authorizing the use of force -

> > > except for combat. That is an oxymoron. Changing the language of

> > > authorization means - if it means anything - that Petraeus will have to

> > > surround himself with lawyers who will tell him, every time he wants to

> > > deploy a unit, whether he is ordering a legal "support" mission or an

> > > illegal "combat" mission.

>

> > > So the House wants to hang our 130,000 troops in the theater of operations

> > > out to dry and the Senate wants a do-over. Here is the Democratic way to

> > > fight terrorists, and to do it without taking responsibility for the

> > > outcome.

>

> > The democrats cannot afford to allow the US to win. It would make them

> > look too bad after all they said and have done regarding the war in

> > Iraq since that turning point just before their 2004 primary. They

> > have to save face by hoping we will be defeated and they will continue

> > to say "we're losing we're losing" everyday to make people believe

> > it's true. And they could cause that defeat to happen. They could

> > cause it with their words of encouragement... encouraging the enemy.

> > They are too invested in defeat. And if we lose the democrats will own

> > that defeat.- Hide quoted text -

>

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

>

> > - Show quoted text -

>

> Congress has the power to do that by cutting off the funds. But

> Democrats

> will not, because it is politically dangerous

>

> Amen to that- Hide quoted text -

>

> - Show quoted text -

Correct..

because they do not want to take the responsibility for the conned-

Republicons own made-in the-republicon-national-committee Iraq

Failure.

They want to be sure to give the Republicons all the glory for the

Republicons' own Iraqi Failure.

Want to be sure that credit for the Iraqi Failure is given where it is

due..

Due to the last 12 years of Republicon congressional and executive

Failure.

It's all yours babycakes. Eat hearty.