RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events Calling for Surrender?

Quote:

---

wannabuyamonkey said:...
So now, come back with something like. "Oh, yea, well, you're partisan!" or "Well according to Media Matters Democrats aren;t partisan, Republicans are!"

---

Are you implying your not a partisan?

Maybe it was just tough love, but the Today show gave the Democrats a rather rough going-over this morning. And cast in the role of flip-flopping heavy was none other than John Kerry.

The subject matter was Democrat disunity over plans for Iraq, and co-host Campbell Brown set the tone by suggesting that the internal debate could be evidence of "a Democratic party at war with itself."

Norah O'Donnell began the segment she narrated by observing that "Republicans are working to exploit Democratic divisions in November elections." After noting that Kerry has a proposal to pull all troops out by 2007, she cut to a clip of Sen. Mitch McConnell [R-KY] on the floor of the Senate pointing out "the junior senator from Massachusetts has had four positions on Iraq."

It got worse. O'Donnell suggested that Kerry's flip-flops "are once again exposing his party to attacks" in the same way Kerry's voted-for-it-before-I-voted-against-it meanderings hurt Dems in '04.

When Campbell Brown brought in Tim Russert, she summed up the Dem predicament with her very first question: "Walk us through how in two weeks' time the Democrats could go from having all of the momentum leading into the mid-term elections to allowing divisions over bringing troops from Iraq to create this disunity, and are they giving Republicans the upper hand?"

Brown then effectively accused Kerry and Hillary of selfishness, asking whether part of the Dems' problem is that the pair are "focused on their own presidential ambitions for 2008 and less focused on Democrats' chances in 2006?"

Quote:

---

Matter-eater Man said:

Quote:

---

wannabuyamonkey said:...
So now, come back with something like. "Oh, yea, well, you're partisan!" or "Well according to Media Matters Democrats aren;t partisan, Republicans are!"

---

Are you implying your not a partisan?

---

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
("I voted for the war before I voted against it")

---

I fear that in the run-up to the 2004 election, the administration is considering what is tantamount to a cut-and-run strategy. Their sudden embrace of accelerated Iraqification and American troop withdrawal dates, without adequate stability, is an invitation to failure. The hard work of rebuilding Iraq must not be dictated by the schedule of the next American election.

When two Democrats looking toward 2008 pushed hard for a firm date on withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq, they crashed headlong into Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid's effort to retake the Senate this year.

Sens. John Kerry of Massachusetts and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin want to pull out all combat forces over the next year, a proposal that delights the left wing of the Democratic Party but that failed overwhelmingly in the Senate on Thursday.

That 86-13 vote forced Democrats in difficult midterm election campaigns, such as Sens. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Maria Cantwell of Washington, to go on record on the question of ending the military mission in Iraq - and risk the wrath of liberals in their states.

Bucking pleas from party leaders, Kerry and Feingold insisted that the Senate vote on their proposal. That created a political headache for Reid, who had been trying to rally Democrats around a more moderate Iraq resolution - one that called for troop withdrawals but didn't include an end date - in hopes of uniting the party and maximizing its chances of retaking the Senate in November. The Democrats need six seats for the majority.

Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, who's in charge of the Senate Democrats' campaign efforts, told Democrats that he did not want Kerry's proposal to come up for a vote because it would put moderates running this year in a tough spot. The fate of candidates like Lieberman and Cantwell is never far from Schumer's mind, and he only wanted a vote on Levin's resolution.

Over the course of two weeks, officials said, senators repeatedly asked Kerry not to push for a vote. Under pressure, he wavered at one point but ultimately decided to follow through.

Reid, for his part, held his regular meeting last week with his rank-and-file up for re-election this year, and Democratic officials said he pitched them Levin's resolution.

At one point, Republican officials said Reid told them he was trying to discourage Kerry from pushing for a vote on his proposal. After they heard this, Republicans brought up Kerry's proposal and quickly dispatched it

Quote:

---

the G-man said:...
In short, they're screwed.

---

Are Iraqis worried that U.S. troops will leave too soon? Does the Iraqi press pay attention when people like Congressman Jack Murtha call for troop withdrawal?

"It does. Yes, it does. This is one of things actually. The freest media in the world I think is in Iraq. Honestly. There is no censorship or restrictions or restraint whatsoever. Now you have about 15 or 16 satellite channels run by Iraqis and I don't know how many hundreds of newspapers." So "people have become more politically conscious and aware. . . . Nobody is for a withdrawal, even a timetable, for the troops."

Is he perplexed that international attitudes haven't been more helpful? Particularly the U.N., where he's just seen Kofi Annan? It was actually "one of the most amicable, friendly atmospheres," he tells me. "We've come a long way." But I can well remember Mr. Zebari's withering criticism of the Oil for Food program in 2003, long before the scandal ever broke. I guess he is a diplomat now, after all. And he does understand there's still a long way to go in Iraq--and that the country needs all the support it can get.

As we part ways, he offers a message for those in the international community and in the U.S. who would give up on the mission while there's still everything to play for:

"There is too much at stake. Failure in Iraq means reversal of all democratic reforms throughout the region. Failure in Iraq means the power of the United States and the coalition cannot be used elsewhere in the same manner. Failure for democracy here would suggest that really these people are not used to this so its better to have one-man, one-party rule, a strong man to control this bunch of Kurds and Shia and militias and so on. Failure is a reversal of everything we've built."

Over to you, Mr. Murtha.

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
"Nobody is for a withdrawal, even a timetable," says Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari. Over to you, Mr. Murtha.

---

Quote:

---

Democrats Cite Report On Troop Cuts in Iraq
Pentagon Plan Like Theirs, Senators Say

Senate Democrats reacted angrily yesterday to a report that the U.S. commander in Iraq had privately presented a plan for significant troop reductions in the same week they came under attack by Republicans for trying to set a timetable for withdrawal.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said that the plan attributed to Gen. George W. Casey resembles the thinking of many Democrats who voted for a nonbinding resolution to begin a troop drawdown in December. That resolution was defeated Thursday on a largely party-line vote in the Senate.

"That means the only people who have fought us and fought us against the timetable, the only ones still saying there shouldn't be a timetable really are the Republicans in the United States Senate and in the Congress," Boxer said on CBS's "Face the Nation." "Now it turns out we're in sync with General Casey."
...

---

Quote:

---

the G-man said:

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
"Nobody is for a withdrawal, even a timetable," says Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari. Over to you, Mr. Murtha.

---

Murtha says U.S. poses top threat to world peace

American presence in Iraq is more dangerous to world peace than nuclear threats from North Korea or Iran, Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., said to an audience of more than 200 in North Miami Saturday afternoon.

Can't we all agree that this old coot has become a national embarrassment? And yes...I honor his past service to our country, but I sure as hell don't honor the way he derides America and its Armed Forces.

---

Quote:

---

...
So does it really matter whether Murtha was presenting his own ideas or quoting a poll ?
...

---

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
Its not difficult to see that there's a world of difference between a military leader, in charge of the ground troops, coming up with a flexible scenario that envisions a draw down of troops if conditions warrant it and a group of politicians mandating that same withdrawal regardless of conditions.

---

Democratic candidates from Connecticut to Ohio were under fire as weak on terror yesterday amid news of the massive air-attack plot that was busted up in London.

Embattled Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, running as an independent after losing the Democratic primary, used the arrests to attack primary winner Ned Lamont for advocating withdrawal from Iraq.

Republicans, fighting to keep seats in the midterm elections this November, are using the Lamont primary victory to argue the party is tilting leftward and can't be trusted on security issues.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, widely considered the Democratic front-runner for 2008, and Sen. Charles Schumer have been among the first to say they would back Lamont in the fall.

The Republican National Committee sent out a fund-raising e-mail from Rudy Giuliani yesterday that didn't refer directly to the terror plot but said, "Now is not the time to turn our backs on the war on terror, to soften our stand on security, or to cripple the economy with ill-advised tax hikes."

In New Jersey, aides to GOP senate hopeful Tom Kean Jr. promptly fired off a criticism of Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez's voting record on security as "dismal," saying the senator "has no credibility when he talks about keeping Americans safe."

In Ohio, GOP officials blasted Democratic Rep. Sherrod Brown, who's running for Senate, claiming he'd voted against funding key anti-terror programs. The state's Republican chairman said: "If Sherrod Brown had his way, America would be less safe."

Republican National Chairman Ken Mehlman said "the main lesson of today is America needs to continue working with our allies and stay on the offense in the global war on terror."

Several Democrats moved to issue strong statements condemning the attacks and supporting the war on terror, while liberal bloggers speculated the timing of the latest terror alert was suspicious.

Quote:

---

Hagel: Iraq Is In A ‘Very Defined Civil War’
Today on Fox News Sunday, Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) said that Iraq is in a “very defined civil war” and that the Middle East is “the most unstable we’ve seen since 1948.” He also reiterated that the United States needs to begin withdrawing troops within the next six months because staying the course just continues to “kill Americans and put Americans in the middle of a civil war that we have less and less control and influence over every day.”

---

Quote:

---

Slowly Sidling To Iraq's Exit
Many GOP Candidates Part Company With Bush

By Election Day, how many Republican candidates will have come out against the Iraq war or distanced themselves from the administration's policies?

August 2006 will be remembered as a watershed in the politics of Iraq. It is the month in which a majority of Americans told pollsters that the struggle for Iraq was not connected to the larger war on terrorism. They thus renounced a proposition the administration has pushed relentlessly since it began making the case four years ago to invade Iraq.
Ghost of New Orleans

That poll finding, from a New York Times-CBS News survey, came to life on the campaign trail when Rep. Chris Shays (R-Conn.), one of the most articulate supporters of the war, announced last Thursday that he favored a time frame for withdrawing troops.

Shays is in a tough race for reelection against Democrat Diane Farrell, who has made opposition to the war a central issue. After his 14th trip to Iraq, Shays announced that "the only way we are able to encourage some political will on the part of Iraqis is to have a timeline for troop withdrawal."

In July Rep. Gil Gutknecht (R-Minn.) returned from Iraq with an equally grim view. Americans, he said, lacked "strategic control" of the streets of Baghdad, and he called for a "limited troop withdrawal -- to send the Iraqis a message." Just the month before, Gutknecht had told his fellow House members that "now is not the time to go wobbly" on Iraq.

Nearly as significant as the new support for troop withdrawals is the effort of many Republicans to criticize President Bush without taking a firm stand on when the troops should come home.

Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.), facing a challenge from Democrat Patrick Murphy, an Iraq war veteran, took a page from former president Bill Clinton's playbook by triangulating between Murphy and the president. A Fitzpatrick mailing sent earlier this month said that Fitzpatrick favored a "better, smarter plan in Iraq" that "says NO to both extremes: No to President Bush's 'stay the course' strategy . . . and no to Patrick Murphy's 'cut and run' approach."

Notice: A Republican is suggesting that Bush's Iraq policy is extreme. That would not have happened in 2004.
...

---

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton came under fire yesterday from Rep. John Murtha for not speaking out more forcefully against the war in Iraq.

"I'm disappointed," said Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat who has become the party's most fervent war critic. "I think she has to be far more out front."

Quote:

---

the GOP-man said:
However, even as one or two more Republicans call for gradual reduction in the Iraq military contingent, the Democrat's leader on the surrender front, John Murtha, continues to attack even his own party for not cutting and running quickly enough:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton came under fire yesterday from Rep. John Murtha for not speaking out more forcefully against the war in Iraq.

"I'm disappointed," said Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat who has become the party's most fervent war critic. "I think she has to be far more out front."

Typical left wing democrat response: get a few people to agree with you and then move even more extreme.

---

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
...even as one or two more Republicans call for gradual reduction in the Iraq military contingent...

---

Al Qaeda has sent a message to leaders of the Democratic party that credit for the defeat of congressional Republicans belongs to the terrorists.

In a portion of the tape from al Qaeda No. 2 man, Ayman al Zawahri, made available only today, Zawahri says he has two messages for American Democrats.

“The first is that you aren’t the ones who won the midterm elections, nor are the Republicans the ones who lost. Rather, the Mujahideen — the Muslim Ummah’s vanguard in Afghanistan and Iraq — are the ones who won, and the American forces and their Crusader allies are the ones who lost,” Zawahri said, according to a full transcript obtained by ABC News.

Zawahri calls on the Democrats to negotiate with him and Osama bin Laden, not others in the Islamic world who Zawahri says cannot help.

“And if you don’t refrain from the foolish American policy of backing Israel, occupying the lands of Islam and stealing the treasures of the Muslims, then await the same fate,” he said.

Top House Democrats, working in concert with anti-war groups, have decided against using congressional power to force a quick end to U.S. involvement in Iraq, and instead will pursue a slow-bleed strategy designed to gradually limit the administration's options.

Led by Rep. John P. Murtha, D-Pa., and supported by several well-funded anti-war groups, the coalition's goal is to limit or sharply reduce the number of U.S. troops available for the Iraq conflict, rather than to openly cut off funding for the war itself.

The legislative strategy will be supplemented by a multimillion-dollar TV ad campaign designed to pressure vulnerable GOP incumbents into breaking with President Bush and forcing the administration to admit that the war is politically unsustainable.

As described by participants, the goal is crafted to circumvent the biggest political vulnerability of the anti-war movement--the accusation that it is willing to abandon troops in the field. That fear is why many Democrats have remained timid in challenging Bush, even as public support for the president and his Iraq policies have plunged.

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
Top House Democrats, working in concert with anti-war groups, have decided against using congressional power to force a quick end to U.S. involvement in Iraq, and instead will pursue a slow-bleed strategy designed to gradually limit the administration's options.

Led by Rep. John P. Murtha, D-Pa., and supported by several well-funded anti-war groups, the coalition's goal is to limit or sharply reduce the number of U.S. troops available for the Iraq conflict, rather than to openly cut off funding for the war itself.....

So the idea is to keep the troops in harm's way but take all steps possible to prevent them from prevailing... in the hope that the Democrats will benefit politically from American defeat?

You don't have to agree with the president's policies to find this appalling...to pursue a strategy of "slow bleed" hurts the troops, not Bush. Its subversion, its cowardly and its dsespicable.

---

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday phoned President Bush to air her complaints over Vice President Dick Cheney's comments that the Congressional Democrats' plan for Iraq would "validate the Al Qaeda strategy."

Pelosi, who said she could not reach the president, said Cheney's comments wrongly questioned critics' patriotism and ignored Bush's call for openness on Iraq strategy.

"You cannot say as the president of the United States, 'I welcome disagreement in a time of war,' and then have the vice president of the United States go out of the country and mischaracterize a position of the speaker of the House and in a manner that says that person in that position of authority is acting against the national security of our country," the speaker said.

I think, in fact, if we were to do what Speaker Pelosi and Congressman Murtha are suggesting, all we'll do is validate the al Qaeda strategy. The al Qaeda strategy is to break the will of the American people. In fact, knowing they can't win in a stand-up fight, try to persuade us to throw in the towel and come home, and then they win because we quit. I think that's exactly the wrong course to go on. I think that's the course of action that Speaker Pelosi and Jack Murtha support. I think it would be a huge mistake for the country.

The news report on the National Intelligence Estimate is further proof that the war in Iraq is making it harder for America to fight and win the war on terror.

Five years after 9/11 and Osama bin Laden is still free and not a single terrorist who planned 9/11 has been caught and brought to justice. President Bush should read the intelligence carefully before giving another misleading speech about progress in the war on terrorism.

House Appropriations Chair David Obey (Dem., Wisc.) ran into woman in the hallway in Washington recently and ended up yelling at her and her friends, accusing them of "smoking something that's not legal" if they disagreed with him, and denouncing "idiot liberals."

Rep. David Obey, the appropriations chairman, who blew up at a persistent anti-war activist, who is also the mother of a soldier twice deployed to Iraq and facing a possible third tour. She cornered him in a Capitol hallway to urge a funding cutoff and a faster pullout from Iraq.

In an exchange that was videotaped by another activist and quickly posted on the Internet, Obey declared that, "We don't have the votes to defund the war, and we shouldn't!" He described proponents of a funding cutoff as "these idiot liberals." Obey apologized in a statement on Friday.

haven't seen this widely reported but the Democrats are working to establish a Department of Peace and Nonviolence. If I recall correctly, this was a plank in the platform of the ill fated Kucinich Presidential campaign of 2004. With the Democrats now in control of the legislature, they are moving ahead.

It appears the proposal would establish a cabinet level position with broad new powers and responsibilities, and the details of this proposal describe Utopia through the progressive lens. I began looking for choice bits to post as highlights, but it was so hard to choose I had to reproduce in total.

For those looking for a distillation, imagine a governmental agency responsible for advising on non-confrontational foreign policy options, establishing and enforcing new gun control measures, designing school curriculum, establishing and enforcing new legislation governing "hate crimes" and violence against animals, and my favorite, establishing a "Peace Academy," a four-year institution of higher learning modeled on our service academies.

House Democratic leaders predict they will have enough votes to pass legislation requiring U.S. troops to begin leaving Iraq by Oct. 1 and send it on to President Bush for his promised veto.

Several House members said they would go along with the bill negotiated with the Senate in a bid for party unity despite their desire for an earlier, binding withdrawal date.

The House vote scheduled Wednesday would come as the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, and other defense officials try to convince lawmakers that a timetable would push Iraq into chaos.

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
Dems Don't Fear Bush Veto

House Democratic leaders predict they will have enough votes to pass legislation requiring U.S. troops to begin leaving Iraq by Oct. 1 and send it on to President Bush for his promised veto.

Several House members said they would go along with the bill negotiated with the Senate in a bid for party unity despite their desire for an earlier, binding withdrawal date.

The House vote scheduled Wednesday would come as the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, and other defense officials try to convince lawmakers that a timetable would push Iraq into chaos.

---

Statements such as Reid's--while delighting those who have turned against the war--provided Republicans an opportunity to shift focus from the merits of President Bush's Iraq war strategy to the level of support from Democrats for the troops.

"I understand what he was trying to say," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), although she acknowledged that Reid's comments had caused a political problem for Democrats. "I think it was more a problem of tone rather than of substance." . . .

None of almost a dozen Democrats contacted by The Politico said they agreed with Reid's statement. Instead, they support what they believed was his overall theme: The war cannot be won militarily, and the president must adjust his strategy. They just wouldn't have said it as Reid did.

"Not at this point in time," said Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.). "But Harry knows a lot more than I do" about the progress of the war.

Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) said he "would have focused on the mission and transforming the strategy."

Some launched into Clintonesque explanations.

"I think it depends entirely on what your definition of 'lost' means. That sounded familiar, didn't it?" former senator John Edwards, a Democratic presidential candidate, said to laughter on Ed Schultz's radio talk show Monday. "What I mean is, I don't think there is winning or losing in Iraq. There is certainly no military victory if it's used in that regard. The only way there can be security and peace on the ground in Iraq is for there to be a political solution."

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) deflected the question, saying that the war was never defined and that his 2002 vote should not have been construed as a green light to invade Iraq.

It is apparent to every watchful eye that recent events over the past few days have exposed a huge crack in America’s administration. With weak declarations from their leaders about events on the ground in Iraq just two months after the so-called “Baghdad security plan” commenced and a growing dispute about funds spent on the Iraq and Afghan wars, the American command has now said “The current security plan is the last chance for the American army and the Maliki government”.

As usual, this was followed by a swift visit by the new (American) Defense Minister “Gates” who said, “The American support to the Maliki government is not unlimited”, insinuating that the American administration is impatient with the Maliki government that is incapable of handling the strikes of the Mujahideen. This comes on the heels of an important statement by House Majority Leader Harry Reid who previously said, “The Iraqi war is hopeless and the situation in Iraq is same as it was in Vietnam.”

Quote:

---

By KASIE HUNT
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush should sign legislation starting the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq on Oct. 1, retired Army Lt. Gen. William Odom said Saturday.

"I hope the president seizes this moment for a basic change in course and signs the bill Congress has sent him," Odom said, delivering the Democrats' weekly radio address.

Odom, an outspoken critic of the war who served as the Army's top intelligence officer and headed the National Security Agency during the Reagan administration, delivered the address at the request of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. He said he has never been a Democrat or a Republican.

The general accused Bush of squandering U.S. lives and helping Iran and al-Qaida when he invaded Iraq.

"The challenge we face today is not how to win in Iraq; it is how to recover from a strategic mistake: invading Iraq in the first place," he said. "The president has let (the Iraq war) proceed on automatic pilot, making no corrections in the face of accumulating evidence that his strategy is failing and cannot be rescued. He lets the United States fly further and further into trouble, squandering its influence, money and blood, facilitating the gains of our enemies."

Odom said he doesn't favor congressional involvement in the execution of foreign and military policy, but argued that Bush had been derelict in his responsibilities. This week Congress passed an Iraq war spending bill that would require Bush to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq on Oct. 1.

---