Skip to content

Freshmen Democrats Urge Democrat Leaders to Change Iraq War Strategy

December 27, 2007

 This article comes from, and it talks about how many of the newly elected Democrats want to stop focusing so much attention on their failed end the war strategies, and turn more towards domestic issues.

 It seems as though the junior Democrats realize what a losing issue the Iraq war is to the Democrat party. Unfortunately, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid made too many stupid end the war promises to America that they knew they couldn’t keep, and the bill has come due. So freshman Democrats, you need to shut up and tow the party line or the Democrat party will make sure you don’t receive funding in your re-election bids.

 Democrats continue to lose key battles with the president on the Iraq war. They are trying to oppose the war while supporting it. They oppose it with the filthy rhetoric that spews from their mouths, yet they support it by passing funding for the war. Big talk, no action. Freshmen Democrats realize what is happening:

The restless Democrats acknowledge the war issue remains critically important for the country, but they would like to see their leaders tone down the rhetoric and avoid showdowns with Bush over the war, wherever possible. 

  Even freshmen Democrats realize that they can’t win this war issue, so they want to avoid conflict.

“My hope would be we start looking at real solutions instead of the dichotomy of cut funding versus stay forever,” said Rep. Brian Baird (D-Wash.), who had a change of heart this fall after visiting Iraq and realizing the military surge was working.

“The entire policy has been dictated by the ‘Out of Iraq Caucus’ … What are we going to do, have another 40 withdrawal votes?”

 He had a change of heart? Isn’t it amazing how many people have a change of  heartafter they have been to Iraq and are able to dismiss the propaganda the media and moonbats are producing? Once they see the results the surge is producing they can’t look at themselves in the mirror and vote to defund the war. We are winning, and they know that if the grab defeat from the jaws of victory, the political results will be devastating to them. The Democrats don’t really care whether we win of lose, as long as they gain power, as can be seen in another war funding strategy being proposed:

Another option being considered by some top Democrats is to pass a short-term wartime funding bill, running only until September or October, which would force Republicans to vote on the issue again shortly before the November elections.

 They don’t care whether they win this funding battle or not, they just want a vote on funding timed for the election. They want to get people on record before the election in hopes that is will sway the elections in their favor, that is their ultimate goal.

 But in reality, they are already shifting their stategy away from more funding battles with the president that they will lose. They have already begun shifting their position on WHY we need to leave Iraq from we can’t win in Iraq, to Iraq can’t make enough political gains. They are now shifting positions on HOW we should surrender in Iraq.

Senior Democrats and leadership aides suggest that Reid and Pelosi, despite their strong rhetoric on ending the war, are not talking about simply forcing more withdrawal votes.

Instead, Democrats plan to continue to focus on troop readiness and benchmarks for political reconciliation among Iraqi leaders, and to push Bush to accelerate any withdrawals called for by Petraeus and to engage in a broader “diplomatic surge” to accompany the military surge.

 They know they can’t win the withdrawal votes, but they still have to appease the anti-war, far left moonbats, so they spew their rhetoric all the while knowing it is utter bullshit. At the same time they are plotting new strategies, such as a diplomatic surge, IE ignoring the great General Petraeus’ recommendations and instead call for a quicker withdrawal based on political reconciliation rather than military gains.

“The most important thing to do is to fix what has not been right with the war — they [the Bush administration] have never had a political or diplomatic strategy,” Emanuel said.

“We will continue to do our job on oversight and push the administration to come up with a political and diplomatic strategy.”

 There is that shift in position again, from military progress to political and diplomatic progress. So much military progress has been made this year in Iraq that even when congress tried to smear the great General Petraeus the American people were to smart to fall for it. So the new strategy is to say Bush didn’t plan for the political resolution that needed to follow the war. Hey, at least the Democrats are making progress, without saying it out loud they are admitting this is a war that can be won. Of course they don’t want to win it, that would be bad for them as they have sided with defeat and victory would hurt them as a party.

Congressional Democrats also acknowledge that they will have to coordinate the political agenda and message for 2008 with their presidential nominee, further complicating the war debate in Congress.

 And that is the problem I have with the Democrats on this whole issue. The fact that the have to coordinate anything with their nominee on this issue. There should be no coordination needed. If the Democrats stood with America and victory they wouldn’t have to finagle some sort of position on the war. Their position would obviously be victory. The fact that they have to coordinate shows they don’t want victory.

 So we come back to what the freshmen Democrats want to make the top priority in the next election, the economy and domestic issues. They feel they can win the election on those issues, not the Iraq war.

Democrats are planning to elevate the economy as the top election-year issue, eager to campaign on what they hope to call a “Bush recession.”

 Naturally, I have a problem with the Democrats there also. They are eager to campaign and hope to be able to call the economy a “Bush recession”. Does that sound like a party that has America’s best interests at heart? NO! They hope for a recession so they can pin it on the president because they think it will help them gain power. Once again power over what is good for America.

 From the war to the economy, if it’s good for America, it’s bad for the Democrats. That is one hell of a corner to be painted into. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are stuck in the corner holding the brushes, it’s time for the Republican to kick the paint can over.

5 Comments leave one →
  1. December 28, 2007 3:46 pm

    There are a lot of people, from both sides of the political argument, that are extremely critical of GW Bush. And I have to say that I am critical of some of his decisions. But not hysterically so. He did the one thing that was clearly mandated by the public after 911. He protected us. He has not once faltered from any course he thought would protect America and Americans. So, he may have spent too much money (my biggest beef with him) and he may have had a few gaffes domestically, but overall he has done pretty good.


  2. hmfwic permalink
    December 31, 2007 12:23 am

    Dang! I was hoping to see that the change they were seeking was to win the war in Iraq instead of lose it. That would be a change.

    If they think that domestic issues are their strong suit, then why haven’t they made one move to propose a fix to Social Security which is about to bust this country, since they have been in the majority? Then there’s medicade and medicare.

    Come on Democrats, everyone knows you’re good at starting investigations. Show us what you’ve got to solve this country’s biggest domestic problems, aside from the war on terror.


  3. July 26, 2008 3:01 pm

    You really have Social Disease when you make all your play work.  The only reason to play hard is to work hard, not the other way around like most people think.AndyWarholAndy Warhol, Andy Warhol’s Exposures, 1980


  4. July 27, 2008 1:38 am

    …mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent…


  5. July 27, 2008 12:49 pm

    Any society that needs disclaimers has too many lawyers.ErikPepkeErik Pepke


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: