The answer is YES.
It's an absolute disgrace.
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.
...The House strategy is being crafted quietly, even as the chamber is immersed this week in an emotional, albeit mostly symbolic, debate over a resolution expressing opposition to Bush's plan to "surge" 21,500 more troops into Iraq.
..."There's a D-Day coming in here, and it's going to start with the supplemental and finish with the '08 [defense] budget," said Rep. Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii, who chairs the Air and Land Forces subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee.
The Democrats are gutless.
They do intend to defund the war in Iraq, drip by drip.
Steny Hoyer lied yesterday.
"Some assert that this resolution is a first step to defunding our troops in the field. This is categorically false," said Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer, Maryland Democrat. "While the new majority will explore other opportunities to affect Iraq policy, our commitment to our men and women in harm's way is unwavering."
BS.
The Dems are using our troops as pawns in their political game.
It seems like I've said this a million times.
IF THEY BELIEVE THAT AMERICAN LIVES ARE BEING WASTED IN IRAQ, THEN THEY MUST ACT IMMEDIATELY TO STOP THE BLEEDING AND THE DYING.
Their "slow-bleed" plan is unconscionable.
What a legacy the ballyhooed first woman Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi will have!
She and her minions care about protecting their political futures, not our troops and not our country.
They are working to secure our defeat in Iraq in a manner that will secure their control of Congress.
How will the libs react to this?
Will Jane Fonda, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, Sean Penn, and Cindy Sheehan march on Washington?
Will they stage a high-profile rally to express their outrage that the Dems are willing to sacrifice American lives to achieve political goals?
How can John Murtha, MARINE with moral authority, be part of such a despicable strategy?
The Dems are without conscience.
_________________________
The disgraceful Dems are not alone in their cowardice.
As of this writing, thirteen House Republicans plan to bind themselves to the Dems' first step to secure defeat in Iraq via a SLOW-BLEED.
Politico has the list of defectors:
Ron Paul, Texas; Steve LaTourette, Ohio; John Duncan, Tenn.; Phil English, Pa.; Jim Walsh, N.Y.; Ric Keller, Fla.; Mike Castle, Del.; Jim Ramstad, Minn.; Howard Coble, N.C.; Wayne Gilchrest, Md.; Walter Jones, N.C.; Tom Davis, Va.; and Fred Upton, Mich.
According to our reporting, Rep. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., is also likely to join the group, making 14.
No comments:
Post a Comment