Guest Blogging: Democrats In Disarray
Hat-tip: Captain's Quarters/Red State
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/01/AR2005120101491.html?nav=rss_world
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi's embrace Wednesday of a rapid withdrawal from Iraq highlighted the Democratic Party's fissures on war policy, putting the House's top Democrat at odds with her second in command while upsetting a consensus developing in the Senate.
For months now, Democratic leaders have grown increasingly aggressive in their critiques of President Bush's policies in Iraq but have been largely content to keep their own war strategies vague or under wraps. That ended Wednesday when Pelosi (D-Calif.) aggressively endorsed a proposal by Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq as soon as possible, leaving only a much smaller rapid-reaction force in the region.
The Democrats wouldn't even be happy with said rapid-reaction force. They'd prefer we pull out completely, abandoning Iraq to the animals within. This is a cut-and-run strategy. It's gaining steam in their party. And anyone who's a Democrat should be both embarrassed and sickened at this blatant act of cowardice. Rep. Murtha, while I respect him for his service to this nation, I have no respect for him in the halls of Congress. This man has proposed a surrender without saying surrender. That's what his strategy is. And this is why we can't allow this party to EVER have control of national security ever again until their straighten themselves out.
The move caught some in the party by surprise. It threw a wrench into a carefully calibrated Democratic theme emerging in the Senate that called for 2006 to be a "significant year of progress" in Iraq, with Iraqi security forces making measurable progress toward relieving U.S. troops of combat duties. Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said last month that "it's time to take the training wheels off the Iraqi government."
What's more, House Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) issued a statement Wednesday that was in marked contrast to Pelosi's. "I believe that a precipitous withdrawal of American forces in Iraq could lead to disaster, spawning a civil war, fostering a haven for terrorists and damaging our nation's security and credibility," he said.
The division within their party is clear. The extreme liberals, and their willing pawns, favor an exit. Now. Or is it more like yesterday? Then there are the people in the party like Rep. Hoyer that are urging patience and steadfastness in the face of the enemy. This division isn't new. Thomas brought this up way back in August when the first signs of the Democrats collective dyke on Iraq started to fracture.
http://sydandvaughn.blogspot.com/2005/08/dnc-insanity-they-have-no-cohesion.html
Marshall Wittmann, a former Republican political strategist now with the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, said Pelosi may have resurrected her party's most deadly liability -- voters' lack of trust in the party on national security.
"If Karl Rove was writing the timing of this, he wouldn't have written it any differently, with the president of the United States expressing resolve and the Democratic leader offering surrender," Wittmann said, referring to Bush's top adviser. "For Republicans, this is manna from heaven."
This was the nail in the coffin for the Democrats in 2004. America looked at what they didn't accomplish while Pres. Clinton was in office from 1992-2000, remembered what happened on Sept. 11th, and walked away from that party. Now, many people will cry foul at that last statement, but it's true. Yes, Sen. Kerry did receive a whopping number of votes in 2004, but he was still about 4 million shy of beating the president. And for 2004, the party platform--the main one--was "stay the course." America, now, doesn't pull the cut-and-run garbage so emphasized by John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and their ilk from the Vietnam era.
David Sirota, a Democratic strategist in Montana long critical of the party leadership's timidity, fired back: "It is not surprising that a bunch of insulated elitists in the Washington establishment -- most of whom have never served in uniform -- would stab the Democratic Party in the back and attack the courage of people like Vietnam War hero Jack Murtha and Nancy Pelosi for their stand on Iraq."
Mr. Sirota, Jack Murtha is calling for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. He made a similar call last year. And he was key in convincing Pres. Clinton to pull out of Somalia. Somalia was key because that was when bin Laden made his infamous "paper tiger" statement, and was emboldened to come after America directly. And neither of these people are courageous. They're opportunists. I've checked Rep. Murtha's polling numbers in Pennsylvania. They aren't looking good. He was appealing to his solid liberal base with this move. Pelosi's numbers aren't fairing too well, either, and both of these people are up for reelection next year. This is political posturing, and nothing more. There's no courage involved in striking a position of cowardice.
For Democrats, Iraq presents a political quandary. Americans have clearly turned against the war, with a growing majority disapproving of the president's handling of the conflict and saying the invasion was not worth the costs. What they want done is far less clear.
Shame on the Post for injecting this into the story. Poll numbers for the president may be down, but America is still with the administration that our troops fighting over in Iraq is better than our troops fighting in Hoboken, or Tampa Bay, or LA. And to those that sya it wasn't worth the cost, I submit this: Could the US have survived more attacks like 9/11? Could our financial institutions have stayed steady? I doubt we would have. This nation would be in shambles right now if we have even a half dozen more 9/11s hit us. So, honestly, I think the cost is quite low in comparison.
House Republican leaders, meanwhile, are touting a bipartisan poll in November by RT Strategies that found half of registered voters support a withdrawal of troops only when the nation's goals are met, compared with 15 percent who want an immediate withdrawal and 29 percent who want a specific, public timetable for withdrawal. But a Pew Research Center poll in October found that 52 percent favored a withdrawal timetable, while 43 percent opposed one. An additional 1 percent said that U.S. troops should get out now.
Some Democrats continued yesterday to finesse their position. At a White House appearance after an event honoring civil rights leader Rosa Parks, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) said: "If you just continue along the road we're going now without a more concrete transfer of responsibility -- a target schedule by which you begin to turn over provinces, by which you specifically begin to shift the responsibility -- I think a lot of people fear that it's going to be more of the same."
He added: "I'm not asking even for the specific timetable of withdrawal. I'm asking for a specific timetable of transfer of authority."
Sen. John "Surrender Monkey" Kerry doesn't get it. There will be no timetable. There will be no troop pull-out timetable. There will be no "turn over the province" timetable. We're not tipping our hands to the enemy. We did it in Vietnam, and the country fell to a communist regime the moment we puled out. We're not going to allow Iraq to fall into terrorist hands, and allow those animals to basically rebuild Afghanistan, pre-9/11. At this point, this is what the majority of people in the Democrat Party is saying. Thomas posted a number of quotes, either from press statements or their websites, from prominent Democrats urging that the US cut-and-run.
http://sydandvaughn.blogspot.com/2005/11/more-hilarious-than-three-stooges.html
Pelosi hesitated for nearly two weeks before endorsing Murtha's call for the withdrawal of 160,000 U.S. troops, while she and her aides assessed the political fallout from his action. "What he has said has great wisdom," Pelosi said of her colleague on Wednesday. "While the president is digging a hole, Mr. Murtha is speaking from the light of day about the realities in Iraq, and so yes, I am supporting Mr. Murtha's proposal."
Her pronouncement Wednesday, more than anything, was proof that "the frustrations of the activist wing of the Democratic Party have boiled over," said a prominent Democratic pollster, who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of angering clients.
Aides to Pelosi said yesterday that they are confident she and Murtha speak for a broader group. Since Murtha announced his position, he has received 14,000 e-mails, faxes and phone calls, 80 percent in support, aides said. Over Thanksgiving week, Murtha received a standing ovation in a Dallas Starbucks.
I didn't know that three votes on a resolution calling for the immediate withdrawal of troops was "a broader group" with the same desires. That resolution failed miserably, and neither Pelosi nor Murtha voted in favor of it. It's similar to Rep. Rangel's constant call for a reinstitution of the draft, but him consistently voting against it. And the last time I checked, in a nation of over 380 million people, 14,000 doesn't constitute a majority. Further, the Post screws up another "fact." The standing ovation Murtha received was not over his comments regarding a pull-out of our troops. When he brought that up, most people seemed uncomfortable by the idea, and they sat on their hands. They didn't applaud him for it.
The sheer fact of the matter is on one side, you have the Kerry camp that says no one in his party is calling for a withdrawal, and on the Pelosi side, they are calling for it. There is ZERO cohesion in this party over what to do with Iraq. Can anyone imagine if Kerry had been elected. Would the same sort of indecision be going on in the center ring? (Actually, it wouldn't be going on because they would have already pulled the troops out of Iraq upon his inauguration.) This circus the Democrats are perfomring in right now is bad. It's bad for their party, in terms of what image they projecting for the nation. But it's bad for the nation as a whole because we see that the Democrats really don't have the heart or the fortitude to stand up to these violent animals, and win this war. And the more they pull stunts like this, the more America realizes one stark reality.
This party can't be trusted to protect this nation. They can't do it because they can't even stand united--one way or another--over a vital issue such as this phase of our global war on terrorism. Further, they refuse to even acknowledge the successes we have had. They disregard them as right-wing propaganda. Tell that to the Iraqi voters with their purple fingers. Tell that to the Sunnis who have stopped their efforts of making waves, and have joined in on the building of a new, free nation. Tell that to the native insurgency who finally laid down their arms after the elections held earlier this year. Tell that to the women in Iraq that have the freedom to vote, to go to school, and can walk around in relative safety without having to worry about the trio of thugs that used to run that country.
No, the successes are real. Iraq is learning to stand on it's own two feet. What's phony about this is the Democrat's howls when we state that they don't care about the troops or the security of this nation. Well, I'm sorry, but at the Asylum, we call a spade a spade.
Mistress Pundit
Hat-tip: Captain's Quarters/Red State
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/01/AR2005120101491.html?nav=rss_world
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi's embrace Wednesday of a rapid withdrawal from Iraq highlighted the Democratic Party's fissures on war policy, putting the House's top Democrat at odds with her second in command while upsetting a consensus developing in the Senate.
For months now, Democratic leaders have grown increasingly aggressive in their critiques of President Bush's policies in Iraq but have been largely content to keep their own war strategies vague or under wraps. That ended Wednesday when Pelosi (D-Calif.) aggressively endorsed a proposal by Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq as soon as possible, leaving only a much smaller rapid-reaction force in the region.
The Democrats wouldn't even be happy with said rapid-reaction force. They'd prefer we pull out completely, abandoning Iraq to the animals within. This is a cut-and-run strategy. It's gaining steam in their party. And anyone who's a Democrat should be both embarrassed and sickened at this blatant act of cowardice. Rep. Murtha, while I respect him for his service to this nation, I have no respect for him in the halls of Congress. This man has proposed a surrender without saying surrender. That's what his strategy is. And this is why we can't allow this party to EVER have control of national security ever again until their straighten themselves out.
The move caught some in the party by surprise. It threw a wrench into a carefully calibrated Democratic theme emerging in the Senate that called for 2006 to be a "significant year of progress" in Iraq, with Iraqi security forces making measurable progress toward relieving U.S. troops of combat duties. Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said last month that "it's time to take the training wheels off the Iraqi government."
What's more, House Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) issued a statement Wednesday that was in marked contrast to Pelosi's. "I believe that a precipitous withdrawal of American forces in Iraq could lead to disaster, spawning a civil war, fostering a haven for terrorists and damaging our nation's security and credibility," he said.
The division within their party is clear. The extreme liberals, and their willing pawns, favor an exit. Now. Or is it more like yesterday? Then there are the people in the party like Rep. Hoyer that are urging patience and steadfastness in the face of the enemy. This division isn't new. Thomas brought this up way back in August when the first signs of the Democrats collective dyke on Iraq started to fracture.
http://sydandvaughn.blogspot.com/2005/08/dnc-insanity-they-have-no-cohesion.html
Marshall Wittmann, a former Republican political strategist now with the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, said Pelosi may have resurrected her party's most deadly liability -- voters' lack of trust in the party on national security.
"If Karl Rove was writing the timing of this, he wouldn't have written it any differently, with the president of the United States expressing resolve and the Democratic leader offering surrender," Wittmann said, referring to Bush's top adviser. "For Republicans, this is manna from heaven."
This was the nail in the coffin for the Democrats in 2004. America looked at what they didn't accomplish while Pres. Clinton was in office from 1992-2000, remembered what happened on Sept. 11th, and walked away from that party. Now, many people will cry foul at that last statement, but it's true. Yes, Sen. Kerry did receive a whopping number of votes in 2004, but he was still about 4 million shy of beating the president. And for 2004, the party platform--the main one--was "stay the course." America, now, doesn't pull the cut-and-run garbage so emphasized by John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and their ilk from the Vietnam era.
David Sirota, a Democratic strategist in Montana long critical of the party leadership's timidity, fired back: "It is not surprising that a bunch of insulated elitists in the Washington establishment -- most of whom have never served in uniform -- would stab the Democratic Party in the back and attack the courage of people like Vietnam War hero Jack Murtha and Nancy Pelosi for their stand on Iraq."
Mr. Sirota, Jack Murtha is calling for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. He made a similar call last year. And he was key in convincing Pres. Clinton to pull out of Somalia. Somalia was key because that was when bin Laden made his infamous "paper tiger" statement, and was emboldened to come after America directly. And neither of these people are courageous. They're opportunists. I've checked Rep. Murtha's polling numbers in Pennsylvania. They aren't looking good. He was appealing to his solid liberal base with this move. Pelosi's numbers aren't fairing too well, either, and both of these people are up for reelection next year. This is political posturing, and nothing more. There's no courage involved in striking a position of cowardice.
For Democrats, Iraq presents a political quandary. Americans have clearly turned against the war, with a growing majority disapproving of the president's handling of the conflict and saying the invasion was not worth the costs. What they want done is far less clear.
Shame on the Post for injecting this into the story. Poll numbers for the president may be down, but America is still with the administration that our troops fighting over in Iraq is better than our troops fighting in Hoboken, or Tampa Bay, or LA. And to those that sya it wasn't worth the cost, I submit this: Could the US have survived more attacks like 9/11? Could our financial institutions have stayed steady? I doubt we would have. This nation would be in shambles right now if we have even a half dozen more 9/11s hit us. So, honestly, I think the cost is quite low in comparison.
House Republican leaders, meanwhile, are touting a bipartisan poll in November by RT Strategies that found half of registered voters support a withdrawal of troops only when the nation's goals are met, compared with 15 percent who want an immediate withdrawal and 29 percent who want a specific, public timetable for withdrawal. But a Pew Research Center poll in October found that 52 percent favored a withdrawal timetable, while 43 percent opposed one. An additional 1 percent said that U.S. troops should get out now.
Some Democrats continued yesterday to finesse their position. At a White House appearance after an event honoring civil rights leader Rosa Parks, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) said: "If you just continue along the road we're going now without a more concrete transfer of responsibility -- a target schedule by which you begin to turn over provinces, by which you specifically begin to shift the responsibility -- I think a lot of people fear that it's going to be more of the same."
He added: "I'm not asking even for the specific timetable of withdrawal. I'm asking for a specific timetable of transfer of authority."
Sen. John "Surrender Monkey" Kerry doesn't get it. There will be no timetable. There will be no troop pull-out timetable. There will be no "turn over the province" timetable. We're not tipping our hands to the enemy. We did it in Vietnam, and the country fell to a communist regime the moment we puled out. We're not going to allow Iraq to fall into terrorist hands, and allow those animals to basically rebuild Afghanistan, pre-9/11. At this point, this is what the majority of people in the Democrat Party is saying. Thomas posted a number of quotes, either from press statements or their websites, from prominent Democrats urging that the US cut-and-run.
http://sydandvaughn.blogspot.com/2005/11/more-hilarious-than-three-stooges.html
Pelosi hesitated for nearly two weeks before endorsing Murtha's call for the withdrawal of 160,000 U.S. troops, while she and her aides assessed the political fallout from his action. "What he has said has great wisdom," Pelosi said of her colleague on Wednesday. "While the president is digging a hole, Mr. Murtha is speaking from the light of day about the realities in Iraq, and so yes, I am supporting Mr. Murtha's proposal."
Her pronouncement Wednesday, more than anything, was proof that "the frustrations of the activist wing of the Democratic Party have boiled over," said a prominent Democratic pollster, who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of angering clients.
Aides to Pelosi said yesterday that they are confident she and Murtha speak for a broader group. Since Murtha announced his position, he has received 14,000 e-mails, faxes and phone calls, 80 percent in support, aides said. Over Thanksgiving week, Murtha received a standing ovation in a Dallas Starbucks.
I didn't know that three votes on a resolution calling for the immediate withdrawal of troops was "a broader group" with the same desires. That resolution failed miserably, and neither Pelosi nor Murtha voted in favor of it. It's similar to Rep. Rangel's constant call for a reinstitution of the draft, but him consistently voting against it. And the last time I checked, in a nation of over 380 million people, 14,000 doesn't constitute a majority. Further, the Post screws up another "fact." The standing ovation Murtha received was not over his comments regarding a pull-out of our troops. When he brought that up, most people seemed uncomfortable by the idea, and they sat on their hands. They didn't applaud him for it.
The sheer fact of the matter is on one side, you have the Kerry camp that says no one in his party is calling for a withdrawal, and on the Pelosi side, they are calling for it. There is ZERO cohesion in this party over what to do with Iraq. Can anyone imagine if Kerry had been elected. Would the same sort of indecision be going on in the center ring? (Actually, it wouldn't be going on because they would have already pulled the troops out of Iraq upon his inauguration.) This circus the Democrats are perfomring in right now is bad. It's bad for their party, in terms of what image they projecting for the nation. But it's bad for the nation as a whole because we see that the Democrats really don't have the heart or the fortitude to stand up to these violent animals, and win this war. And the more they pull stunts like this, the more America realizes one stark reality.
This party can't be trusted to protect this nation. They can't do it because they can't even stand united--one way or another--over a vital issue such as this phase of our global war on terrorism. Further, they refuse to even acknowledge the successes we have had. They disregard them as right-wing propaganda. Tell that to the Iraqi voters with their purple fingers. Tell that to the Sunnis who have stopped their efforts of making waves, and have joined in on the building of a new, free nation. Tell that to the native insurgency who finally laid down their arms after the elections held earlier this year. Tell that to the women in Iraq that have the freedom to vote, to go to school, and can walk around in relative safety without having to worry about the trio of thugs that used to run that country.
No, the successes are real. Iraq is learning to stand on it's own two feet. What's phony about this is the Democrat's howls when we state that they don't care about the troops or the security of this nation. Well, I'm sorry, but at the Asylum, we call a spade a spade.
Mistress Pundit
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 2:56 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home