Hoisting a white flag: Dean, Pelosi signal surrender

Manchester Union Leader ^ | December 11, 2005 | Editorial

[billorites]

THE DEMOCRATIC Party's national leadership has plumbed a record depth in its search to score points against the Republicans. In the past week and a half, both House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean have called for the United States to surrender in Iraq. Not since George McGovern in 1972 has one party called for the United States military to surrender to an enemy during wartime.

Some will object to the word, "surrender," but there is no other word to describe the immediate withdrawal of troops from the war zone in Iraq. The simple fact is that two of the nation's three highest-ranking Democrats are advocating an enemy victory over U.S. forces in a foreign land. That not only is appalling in its contempt for the troops who have died to liberate Iraq, it is astonishing in its brazen disregard for the lives and well-being of the Iraqi people.

As usual, Dean attempted to backtrack from his comments by claiming they were taken "a bit out of context," which is his customary method of damage control. Say what you really mean, then claim that your critics are twisting your words when they quote you. Pelosi has been, if not more sensible, at least more straightforward, repeatedly supporting Pennsylvania Rep. John Murtha's proposal to begin an immediate pullout of American troops. She added that more than half of House Democrats shared her view, which would be amazing if true.

To this day, Democrats have yet to offer a coherent strategy for winning the war in Iraq, and it is clear that they have none. Their attacks on Bush's "failed" strategy have rung hollow all these years because they never had anything better to offer. And now their top leaders have revealed that their real goal all along was not to win, but to cut and run. They only waited this long to announce it because they have concluded that the poll numbers finally are in their favor.

While Americans disapprove of the Bush administration's execution of the Iraq war effort, will they really embrace surrender as the alternative? Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi think so. We don't. The American people, rightly disturbed by serious administration mistakes, still want America to win this war. Unfortunately, the Democrats are quickly removing themselves as a serious foreign policy alternative to the Republicans, and that is damaging not only to them, but to the republic.

[SampleMan]

Not all Americans disapprove of the execution of the war. I know that us military families approve.

Polls never indicate how people "disapprove". They count all disapproval as equaling disapproval of fighting the war.

This is like driving a bus at at 60 mph, polling the passengers on whether they approve of the driver's speed (Yes or No), and then reporting that 70% of the passengers want the bus to slow down.

I'd love to see the number split into "fight more aggressively" or "pullout".

[ez]

To this day, Democrats have yet to offer a coherent strategy for winning the war in Iraq, and it is clear that they have none. Their attacks on Bush's "failed" strategy have rung hollow all these years because they never had anything better to offer. And now their top leaders have revealed that their real goal all along was not to win, but to cut and run.

Their real goal all along was to punish George W. Bush for revealing their true natures by being a good American. Milton said it best, as shown in my tagline...

[HawaiianGecko]

 

"Not since George McGovern in 1972 has one party called for the United States military to surrender to an enemy during wartime."

And his position caused this:

Download high resolution version (1182x635, 105 KB)

[billorites]

"They said the "context" of his remarks were that he also hates Capitalism and Motherhood. Which was funny of course because it is true."

Yeah, and Tookie Williams' murders were "taken a bit out of context."

[billorites]

It does feel like 1972, doesn't it?

Even McGovern and Ramzi Clark are weighing in again.

[manwiththehands]

"Pelosi has been, if not more sensible, at least more straightforward, repeatedly supporting Pennsylvania Rep. John Murtha's proposal to begin an immediate pullout of American troops. She added that more than half of House Democrats shared her view, which would be amazing if true."

This is true, but for the wrong reasons.

The WhiteFlagocRats are calling for a withdrawal "as soon as practical". They want us to believe this is there idea, but that has been Bush's plan all along.

When the troops start coming home next year the 'Rats will take credit for it.

[HawaiianGecko]

 

"The WhiteFlagocRats are calling for a withdrawal "as soon as practical". They want us to believe this is there idea, but that has been Bush's plan all along."

So true. I believe the Dems saw the war going well and extrapolated that the President would be able to start drawing down troops towards declaring a victory in 2006. They simply wanted to get out in front and make it look like it was their idea.

[HarleyLady27]

hehehe good thought....

[Brad from Tennessee]

I appreciate the historical review from your unique vantage point. I grew up in newspaper publishing and when I was a kid journalists with formal educations had degrees in History--being the most appropriate--English, Foreign Policy, Law, etc. Then "journalism schools" began to flourish, particularly after Watergate. Watergate and J-schools, in my opinion, changed journalism from a profession into a kind of activism with a salary. Of course the late Hunter S. Thompson said of American journalism in the early 1970's: it is not a profession or even a trade "but a catch-all for misfits and f*ck-ups" too lazy or too dysfunctional to practice a legitimate discipline.

[Polybius]

The simple fact is that two of the nation's three highest-ranking Democrats are advocating an enemy victory over U.S. forces in a foreign land. That not only is appalling in its contempt for the troops who have died to liberate Iraq, it is astonishing in its brazen disregard for the lives and well-being of the Iraqi people.

An Arab journalist said as much in an article published in the English language Arab News.

,,,many influential figures and groups in the West are so imbued with hatred of George W. Bush and Tony Blair, that they would rather see Iraq sink in a sea of blood than build anything resembling a normal society. These people want Iraq to fail because they want Bush and Blair, and in a broader sense, the “Anglo-Saxon” bloc to fail.

Dean, Pelosi and Kerry would gleefully accept the cost of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Kurds and Iraqi Shiites being slaughtered as the Sunni Baaathist reimpose their tyranny just as long as they can humiliate George W. Bush with a U.S. military defeat.

[Wilhelm Tell]

I thought that after the 2004 election, the Rats were claiming to have sobered up and to have realized that they had to re-connect with the average American.

Before the election, when Howard Dean said that fighting terrorism should be primarily a police matter, it was evident that the Democrats still didn't "get it." When someone way out in left field like Kucinich did better than Lieberman in the primaries, I took it as proof that the Democratic Party was hopelessly controlled by Marxists. If you talk to Democrats, it seems they are eager to want us to forget this terrorism obsession and get back to the things that are really important, like voting rights for criminals, gay marriage and making sure Social Security is never reformed.

[ShowMeMom]

When the troops start coming home next year the 'Rats will take credit for it.

So true. They are already taking credit for the normal draw down after the election that has ALWAYS been in the plan.

[Dustbunny]

A White flag would make a great Christmas gift for any flaming lefty on your gift list.

Lucianne had a great pic of white flags yesterday for a Democrat Pep Rally, forget the exact title, I emailed it to all the dems I know and republicans so they could pass it on.

[speedy]

Even McGovern and Ramzi Clark are weighing in again.

Maybe we can get a statement from Sargent Shriver just to make it complete. I'm guessing Thomas Eagleton is long dead, if anybody still remembers him. The VP candidate McGovern supported "One thousand percent."

[Dustbunny]

http://paxhumana.info/article.php3%3Fid_article%3D24&h=480&w=360&sz=32&tbnid=bvo9zdoxGEkJ:&tbnh=126&tbnw=94&hl=en&start=1&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dwhite%2Bflags%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D

[tertiary01]

And this is an era when Nixon was NOT personally very popular, and did not present an attractive image on TV.

[babydoll22]

Thank God for the internet and Free Republic.

[babydoll22]

Eagleton was a great guy when he was on his meds.

[Wilhelm Tell]

Oops, it was John Kerry and not Dean who said that terrorism could just be a matter for the police. I seem to recal that Kerry said that in a speach early in 2004, though all the details of what he said are not "seared into my memory." And another sign of cluelessness -- wanting to grant foreign terrorists the same rights as American citizens on trial. No one can make this stuff up!

[olinr]

"certain politicos on the left need to be arrested for treason"

Unfortunately, we have RINO's that have the same tendencies and
WILL NOT stand up for this great US of A! Don't support them for
reelection.

BTW, ALL TRAITORS NEED TO BE HUNG!!!