Posted on 12/22/2007 11:08:18 AM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Congress' approval of $70 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan last week as part of a $555 billion federal budget bill effectively marks the quiet end of the Democratic majority's effort to bring an end to the war in Iraq. The great promise of a year ago following the 2006 elections in which the Democrats tossed the Republicans out of the congressional leadership gradually drained away, in part because of procedural realities but also because of a disappointing lack of fire among Democrats in Washington.
Congress will revisit the issue in spring, but major policy changes are unlikely to take place that close to another election. Representative James McGovern, one of the eight Massachusetts congressmen, including John Olver of the First District, who voted against the bill, noted sadly that it "represents an endorsement of George Bush's policy of endless war."
When the Democrats took over in Congress in January they tried without success to cut funding for the war or tie funding to a firm withdrawal date. Lacking the 60 Senate votes needed to force bills to the floor, they were regularly stymied in that body, and they were not close to the two-thirds vote needed to override a presidential veto. Democrats, however, never took Iraq War policy to the American people who put them in office in large part because voters wanted an end to the war. Intimidated by General Petraeus' appearance before them and the bogus claims by Republicans that they don't "support the troops," timid Democrats remain paralyzed by the scare tactics that American voters grew wise to long ago.
Democratic presidential candidate Bill Richardson, appalled by the vote approving the war funds, says he will devote his campaign solely to the Iraq War. Mr. Richardson is a long shot for the nomination, but if he can focus his party's candidates on the war he will be doing the nation a service. Hillary Clinton, most notably, continues to triangulate a position that comes down on all sides of the Iraq War.
The relative calm in Iraq makes it easy for candidates to dodge the issue, but the calm in Iraq is the quiet of the grave. While the persistent effort of American troops has contributed to a decline in violence, the death toll has dropped primarily because there are fewer Iraqis left to kill. Neighborhoods have been ethnically cleansed of minority Shiites or Sunnis, depending on the section of the city in question. The U.S. has for the most part looked the other way while this has gone on in the unspoken knowledge that violence will not stop until the country is essentially partitioned.
Iraq is evolving into Afghanistan, the site of the Bush administration's other failed war. The so-called democratic leaders of both nations rule only their capital cities, or more accurately, portions of those cities. Warlords, tribal chieftains and militia groups have divided the majority of both countries into personal fiefdoms. Billions of our tax dollars continue to flow into both countries, much of it squandered or stolen.
The dream of democracy is dead in Iraq, along with nearly 4,000 American soldiers. The money, however, is still being dumped into the desert, with no end in sight.
Well, after waiting 36 posts and not seeing this noted, I thought I would try on my own. The election of 2006 was NOT about the war. It was about runaway Republicans earmarking like dems, and conservative dem candidates keeping very quiet about their plans. It was more about "makaka" then the war.
The MSM and lefties in general have been trying to convince us and each other that the war was the focus since the day after the election, but saying it doesn't make it so. My memory isn't perfect, but it was only a year ago...
I like to call it VICTORY and PEACE!
I think they, the residents themselves, refer to it as "Happy Valley".
Well as a resident myself, I can tell you that the
Neighborhoods have been ethnically cleansed of minority Shiites or Sunnis, depending on the section of the city in question.
How many times have we heard "ethnic cleansing" applied by Leftists? The occurences I have noted, are numbering in the dozens since Dec. 1st.
This whole article is an exercise in Leftist projection, endless talking points, and boiler-plate comments; the only difference being the token shots against She Who Must Not Be Named.
The WAR-AGAINST-THE-WAR ended in September when NONE of the 3 major Dem Candidates would commit to a withdrawal date from Iraq or Afghanistan...
Harry Reid’s “The Surge Worked” comments yesterday is the day that surrender to Bush and FACTS became official.
Defeat by Bush is just beginning to dawn on many of the more deranged moonbats, and there will most likely be hell to pay for it at the Dem Convention next year...
I lived in the Berkshires for 14 years, leaving in '68...it was, indeed, a Happy and most beautiful place - but, as so many other places in this country, it's gone blue. There are still some great 'reds' there too, though - and except for the everywhere highways, still beautiful
Monday, December 03, 2007
Harry Reid Struggles with Senility
***************************************************
The classic definition of senility is someone who can remember everything that happened years ago but can't remember what they had for breakfast. Recent events are quickly lost to them. Such is the case with Dem Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid:
Democrats are increasingly bailing on their previously held view that the troop surge in Iraq has been a "failure," but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid isn't ready to jump on the bandwagon with other Democrats who say the surge has worked.A mind is a terrible thing to lose.
The Senate re-opened for business on Monday after a two-week Thanksgiving break, during which key Democrats traveled to Iraq and declared that the surge is working, at least from a security and military perspective. Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), one the top war critics, stunned fellow Democrats late last week with his statement that "the surge is working," even though he added that political reconciliation has been lagging. Murtha's view was backed by Rep. Norm Dicks (D-Wash.), who also said the surge worked after he returned from Iraq.
But Reid, in a Monday press conference, ceded no ground.
"The surge hasn't accomplished its goals," Reid said. "... We're involved, still, in an intractable civil war."
Reid's comments show that Democratic leaders in Washington may not be on the same page as their rank-and-file members when it comes to interpreting results on the ground in Iraq. Reid, as a leader, still needs to maintain some negotiating leverage as Democrats try to figure out a way to give President Bush some $50 billion in temporary war finding while at least attaching some strings to the money so it's not a blank check for the war.
HARRY REID " WELL GGOOOLLLYYYY, THE SURGE WORKED"
*************************************
REID NOW SAYS IRAQ SURGE HAS HELPED
'...the surge certainly hasn't hurt. It's helped. I recognize that' --- Sen. Harry Reid, 12/21/07
'...this war is lost and that the surge is not accomplishing anything' -- Sen. Harry Reid, 4/19/07
(4 Ratings)*****************************************
Said the man who Hot Air reminds us, vowed in April not to believe any reports of progress.
Democrats are increasingly bailing on their previously held view that the troop surge in Iraq has been a “failure,” but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid isn’t ready to jump on the bandwagon with other Democrats who say the surge has worked.
The Senate re-opened for business on Monday after a two-week Thanksgiving break, during which key Democrats traveled to Iraq and declared that the surge is working, at least from a security and military perspective. Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), one the top war critics, stunned fellow Democrats late last week with his statement that “the surge is working,” even though he added that political reconciliation has been lagging. Murtha’s view was backed by Rep. Norm Dicks (D-Wash.), who also said the surge worked after he returned from Iraq.
But Reid, in a Monday press conference, ceded no ground.
“The surge hasn’t accomplished its goals,” Reid said. “… We’re involved, still, in an intractable civil war.”
Reid’s comments show that Democratic leaders in Washington may not be on the same page as their rank-and-file members when it comes to interpreting results on the ground in Iraq.
Your whiny liberal baby is too cute. You need an UGLY whiny liberal.
Harry Reid still sore about the Surge.
*******************************************
The Senate re-opened for business on Monday after a two-week Thanksgiving break, during which key Democrats traveled to Iraq and declared that the surge is working, at least from a security and military perspective. Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), one the top war critics, stunned fellow Democrats late last week with his statement that “the surge is working,” even though he added that political reconciliation has been lagging. Murtha’s view was backed by Rep. Norm Dicks (D-Wash.), who also said the surge worked after he returned from Iraq.
But Reid, in a Monday press conference, ceded no ground.
“The surge hasn’t accomplished its goals,” Reid said. “… We’re involved, still, in an intractable civil war.”
I think it’s time to dig out a favorite graphic. It’s as true now as it was when he was smearing Rush.
Others shaking their heads: Hot Air | The Jawa Report | Right Voices |
Posted by: Neocon in Democrats, Iraq, Nutter Butters
Right ON!
It’s just GOT to suck for the Anti-War left to realize they were used as gullible, but useful idiots by the Democratic Party...
I was just reading a Thread on KOS demanding that the nutroots “DEFUND THE DEMOCRATS!”
I can now FINALLY put an ID to the ID!
-PRAVDA
***********************EXCERPT*********************
This week marked the end of our first year in the majority, and in that time, Democrats have put working families first, given our troops the care and support they deserve, and made our country safer.
Look no futher than the Teddy Kennedy School of Journalism at Harvard.
When you’re a defeatist, defeat comes naturally to you.
And, as Rush Limbaugh was prescient to point out, the war will fade as a front page issue over time and will be be an also-ran topic by next fall. This means that the very basis for why people should support Richardson is moot. Yet he campaigns on. So, not only is he invested in defeat, the only way he can succeed is for defeat to have a long life, so it can still be an important topic next fall.
Thus the Left has constructed, and now maintains and defends, a conflict of interest between its own interests against the nation’s essential war against jihadis. The Left hopes that they can leverage the blood of US soldiers, coalition soldiers, private contractors and Iraqis fighting to construct a new country into more power and votes, and ultimately securing more seats in the House and Senate, and ultimately the White House itself.
Yet more proof that liberalism is a mental disorder, and one that increasingly is dangerous to our safety and prosperity.
“The notion that the population of Iraq has been thinned to the point where there’s nary a target left is possible only to someone who is living in a fantasy world.”
Antiwar liberals actually DO live in a fantasy world...
In thier world, the leading “Chimp”, “Puppet” or whatever the insult of the week happens to be, blew up the trade centers himself, is Hitler, won’t voluntarily leave in ‘09, etc,etc...
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.
