Hey, that was the plan for South Vietnam after we pulled out in 1973. Don't worry, if the North breaks the truce and invades, we'll be right there:
Posted on 12/01/2005 8:48:52 AM PST by slowhand520
Donkey Fight! Reactions to President Bush's Iraq speech yesterday suggest that he has succeeded in dividing the Democratic opposition. "The president's speech in Annapolis today was a step in the right direction," said Sen. Ken Salazar of Colorado. But his Wisconsin colleague Russ Feingold said, "It's a step back." House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi endorsed Rep. John Murtha's call for an immediate pullout (though both Pelosi and Murtha voted against that proposition when Republicans called their bluff last month. But Pelosi's deputy, Steny Hoyer, said if his boss had her way it "could lead to disaster, spawning a civil war, fostering a haven for terrorists and damaging our nation's security and credibility."
Meanwhile, Angry Left blogger Markos Moulitsas is on the warpath against John Kerry*:
There's a little kerfuffle inside the Democratic Senate caucus over John Kerry's insistance [sic] in being part of the official party response to Bush's hilarious "plan" in Iraq. Reid originally had designated Sen. Jack Reed to provide the official response. Reed did the "prebuttal" yesterday and had a press conference set up for today.
However, John Kerry stomped over Reed by deciding he was going to hold a press conference this morning as well in a naked bid to steal the limelight. Eventually, Reid was forced to combine the two press conferences to try and maintain a unified Senate Democrat response, but Kerry's antics have generated some ill will.
Much ado about nothing? Perhaps. But several DC Democrats I've spoken to today were not happy with Kerry's antics. And given 1) Kerry's continued inability to clearly articulate a coherent position on the war . . ., and 2) the fact that Kerry voted for it (while Reed did not), it's not hard to see why.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
I hope *WE* perpetuate this.
Alot needs to be done by you and I, and the rest of our fellow freeper. 06 is right around the corner and we have some serious voting to do.
And in 07 we have to *push* MCCAIN *OUT*! Hopefully being as moveon bought and owns the party, they'll push for a guy like gore to be their man. America desperately needs to have him or a guy like dean out there flapping their jaws to assure another conservative victory for the WH.
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That's what passes for a plan. In reality, it's a sham. No one has bothered to ask any details about how they plan to accomplish it. If anyone asked hard questions I'm sure they would fold like a tent in a hurricane.
Actually, it's a perfect strategy: She "waits and sees" other Dems take the heat on whatever positions they take, and then finds one that she thinks will help get her elected, even if it's a fairly conservative one. Her stance is just bluster to avoid having to commit one way or another before election time. She learned from her husband's campaign not to shoot her mouth off unless and until absolutely necessary, and then take whatever position she needs to - even if it's totally fake.
Girlieman fight.
No. He'll still be running when he's on his death bed. Like Bill Clinton, the guy is a media whore... except at FOX where they might have to answer real questions.
Speaking of Howie Dean. I understand he was on Leno last night, I couldn't bear to watch.. what did he say this time out?
Please vote:
John Kerry & Jack Reed look more like:
a. Mutt & Jeff
b. Lurch & Grandpa
Hey, that was the plan for South Vietnam after we pulled out in 1973. Don't worry, if the North breaks the truce and invades, we'll be right there:
An ego like that would be hard to ignore. Especially since your entire career is based not from actual accomplishments, but egotism, lies, deceit, treason, and brown-nosing.
"Live Shot" is still at it....
"Bush's hilarious "plan" in Iraq."
"Hilarious" would describe the Democrats response to it - if it wasn't so anger-inducing.
I would bet that the Democrats' strategy gets vetted by Hillary's office.
This writer has done the near-impossible. He/she has made me sympathize with Kerry.
Yes, we take the troops from where they believe they are doing good work, and move them to Kuwait where they have nothing to do but sit around and wait for insurgents to invade Kuwait in "protest" for american troops in THAT country.
Meanwhile, the democrats also say we can't afford the deployment, but aren't calling to stop it, and say we don't have enough troops to keep them over there, but then propose to keep them over there.
The democrats call for more troops to keep them in places where we run the terrorists out, so they don't come back -- and they call for removing ALL our troops because having the troops there encourages the terrorists to come back.
They say having our troops in Iraq encourages the insurgents, then say our troops should be right next door so the Iraqis know we can come back in with a moment's notice.
THis morning, James Moran (D-Fairfax) claimed we should follow Murtha's plan, because we had ALREADY ACHEIVED VICTORY in Iraq. That actually is a new one for the democrats, but I've heard it a couple of times recently. So now the democrats say the war was a failure, that Bush screwed it all up; But we should leave because we have succeeded and if we pull out Iraq will have a peaceful, constitutional government.
The democrats say Bush doesn't have a plan of scheduled results, and then belittle the fact that every scheduled event has taken place ON TIME, and then claim that because all the scheduled results are acheived we should leave.
The democrats say we can win by retreating, but then say if they could do it over again they would vote against the war because it was a failure, incidating that they think that winning is worse than not fighting.
Good analysis. It's called cognitive dissonance. That describes the Democrats to a tee.
Yes they did...and I found another interesting vote from the 108th Congress... here is the relevant excerpt:
108th CONGRESS
2d Session
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
September 8, 2004
H. RES. 757
Whereas three years after September 11, 2001, the United States is fighting a Global War on Terrorism to protect America and her friends and allies;
Whereas since the United States was attacked, it has led an international military coalition in the destruction of two terrorist regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq while using diplomacy and sanctions in cooperation with Great Britain and the international community to lead a third terrorist regime in Libya away from its weapons of mass destruction;
That link is a query link, so if it does not work (they have a tendency to expire), use the original Thomas Legislation link and use the search engine.
Status: On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 406 - 16 (Roll no. 431).
If you check the House Clerk's website for this bill, you find that both Murtha and Pelosi voted Yea.
Now...just who is tying Iraq to 9/11 and the war on terrorism? Seems to me it was everyone that voted for that bill, including Pelosi and Murtha. Freaking hypocrites...
How about Iran or Syria?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.