Top Democrats Oppose More Troops in Iraq

NY Times ^ | 1-5-07 | DAVID STOUT

[Anti-Bubba182]

WASHINGTON, Jan. 5 -- As President Bush prepares to present his new strategy on Iraq to the American people, Democratic Congressional leaders said today they will fight any approach that calls for deploying more United States troops there.

“We want to do everything we can to help Iraq succeed in the future but, like many of our senior military leaders, we do not believe that adding more U.S. combat troops contributes to success,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California and Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Senate majority leader, wrote to Mr. Bush.

“Adding more combat troops will only endanger more Americans and stretch our military to the breaking point for no strategic gain,” the Democrats’ letter said.

Also reiterating his deep opposition to any troop increases was Senator Russell D. Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin. “The administration refuses to acknowledge the devastating impact that keeping our brave troops in Iraq is having on our national security, and now the president is considering sending even more troops,” Mr. Feingold said in a statement.

“We should be bringing our troops out of Iraq, not the other way around,” he said. “The American people’s message at the ballot box was loud and clear, and it is past time that the administration listened.”

The Pelosi-Reid letter, and Mr. Feingold’s allusion to the November elections, underscored the new political reality for the White House. As President Bush prepares to take his case to the American people, and assembles a new military and diplomatic team to go with his redefined Iraq strategy, he is encountering fierce opposition from the newly empowered Democratic leadership....."

[Anti-Bubba182]

If the war is lost, it was lost on 11-7-06. When the majority of voters threw in the towel by voting for the Democrats, the enemy knew all they would have to do was last to the end of the Bush administration. It is exactly like the aftermath of the Tet offensive. The Democrats do not want to add additional troops. What they want is a scene like the last helocopter leaving the embassy roof in good time for the 08 elections.

[PhiKapMom]

Makes me ill! Those people that wanted to teach all of us a lesson ended up not supporting the troops and their mission. This Country is going to hit again and we will see the Dims whining about how it could have happened because we just wanted to be friends. You don't make friends with the devil.

Stupid, stupid voters and non-voters.

[tobyhill]

In 3 weeks Reid did a big flip-flop without even hearing the plan.

[Anti-Bubba182]

He smells blood.

[Anti-Bubba182]

"Stupid, stupid voters and non-voters."

Yes, non voters are also to blame.

[tobyhill]

Reid may smell blood but fortunately he doesn't call the shots in Iraq. Even if Congress pulled the funding it doesn't mean President Bush has to pull the troops, it just means that any casualties that happens because of lack of funding falls on the congress.

[jveritas]

It will not happen as long as President Bush is our Commander in Chief. President Bush will stand his ground and will lead us together with our brave troops to the ultimate victory in the war on terror.

[jveritas]

Even better news that the President can allocate emergency funding to the troops if the democrats succeed in getting a treasonous bill to cut the funds for the troops. However the chance of them winning a vote on such a treasonous bill is very very very slim in both houses of Congress and I even doubt that they will bring it in for a vote because it will be political suicide for them.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

If the war is lost, it was lost on 11-7-06. When the majority of voters threw in the towel by voting for the Democrats

Stop blaming the voters. The administration shoud have went ape-shit on the terrorists and fought a war instead of having our troops hand out candy to little kids.

[GenXFreedomFighter]

Top Democrats Oppose More Troops Victory in Iraq.

There. Fixed it, and we come back to what everybody knows already.

[Anti-Bubba182]

The last shot at this thing is whatever the President can get done in the next two years. The enemy knows this. They know the Democrats leave if they win the 08 election.

[linn37]

I don't think the dems have the votes to do squat!

BTW this afternoon I just barely caught a clip of Obama leaving the Whitehouse in what appeared to be a bit of a snit,any idea what that was all about?

[tobyhill]

Here's a prediction how it plays out, the troop surge stabilizes Baghdad and the Maliki Government strikes a deal with all parties then the President declares victory.

[Anti-Bubba182]

" Stop blaming the voters."

Voters are culpable for the kind of government they vote for.

[Anti-Bubba182]

"..I just barely caught a clip of Obama leaving the Whitehouse in what appeared to be a bit of a snit.."

I have no idea.

[Anti-Bubba182]

We can hope!

[tobyhill]

They know they don't have the votes to cut off funding and that's why they're going for their plan B, declare defeat.

[AmeriBrit]

Stop blaming the voters. The administration shoud have went ape-shit on the terrorists and fought a war instead of having our troops hand out candy to little kids.

---

The troops hand out candy to the kids on their own time.

You should be ashamed of yourself for belittling them and denying them that little pleasure and enjoying the smiles on the kids faces which also makes them feel a little closer to their own kids here at home.

[madison10]

BTW this afternoon I just barely caught a clip of Obama leaving the Whitehouse in what appeared to be a bit of a snit,any idea what that was all about?

Maybe the hand-written notes in Thomas Jefferson's Koran were nasty insults to Mohammed, or the original recipe for Virginia Baked Ham was written inside the front cover. ;)

[Jaysun]

The troops hand out candy to the kids on their own time.

You should be ashamed of yourself for belittling them and denying them that little pleasure and enjoying the smiles on the kids faces which also makes them feel a little closer to their own kids here at home.

Candy aside - I don't think that was his point - we haven't given them nearly enough hell over there. I don't know what happened to the idea of "shock and awe" but I never saw it. We were overly concerned with protecting civilians and now we're dealing with a population that sees no good reason not to support terrorist. Hell, the terrorist are meaner than we are. Why wouldn't they bend to them instead of us?

But I don't know if the entire blame for this can rest on President Bush. We fight wars differently today than we used to and that's been a long time in the making. And it's at our own peril, I believe.