Why the Dems Caved - Listen to John Murtha

My take is that the compromise made was that the Dems cave now so the Pukes can cave in September and avoid incurring KKKarl and Dick's wrath and retribution. Things will be so bad come September that the cowards will be able to buck the Administration and not worry about any political consequences.

Just read what Murtha posted on his blog.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-john-murtha/to-end-the-iraq-war-se_b_49287.html

"Patience has run out and I feel a change in direction happening within the chambers of Congress. While we don't have the votes right now to change the president's policy, I believe that come September we will have the votes from both Democrats and Republicans to change policy and direction. In September, General Petraeus will report back on the progress of the surge, and Congress will take up both the $460 billion base defense appropriations bill and the $141 billion Iraq supplemental. The surge is not producing the results that were promised. And, based on my discussions with Iraqi Government officials, I don't believe they have the motivation to bring about the political and economic benchmarks agreed to. This is why September will be key".

I'm guessing it will be Iran

:nuke:

If not Iran, then some other stunt.

Fool me once, twice, three times a fool.

I never thought I'd say this, but fuck a bunch of Murtha and his "patience."

I've lost all respect for him.

Redstone

Because until September, bushy gets to do whatever the fuck he feels like doing. NO pressure on him whatsoever.

Redstone

and the same number as would have died as a result of the failure of Bush to notice or care enough about a funding shortfall caused by holding back one supplemental to end his occupation and bring the troops home. Same amount. Both approaches failed (and would fail) to affect the deployment at all. Stop pretending like holding back the supplemental was going to end the occupation *by September. It's dishonest.

Redstone

no one is responsible for the deaths except Bush and the ones blocking the timetable for withdrawal.

Redstone

But who cares.

Certainly not our esteemed leaders!!

over the troop deaths that are most certainly going to happen over the "bloody summer" as Bush put it.

What is the price of a human life? Especially innocent ones like our troops and the Iraqi people who are stuck in the middle of all this violence?

To me, there is nothing more sacred than a life. Once gone, it cannot be brought back. I'm shocked and dismayed and saddened that the true focus here isn't on protecting life.

prevent those deaths? Not one troop would have come home as a result of holding back that bill. It's just nonsense to now insinuate that the vetoed bill was moving Bush off his occupation and would have caused him to end the occupation before the chaos of the summer.

It would have been the first time Bush didn't get exactly what he wanted with this war. And who says Bush didn't really care about this bill? I sure haven't heard that, he seemed pretty concerned about it to me.

The troops aren't going to come home overnight, but we must start somewhere. As it is, it's just the status quo for the next few months. More deaths, no change. And every day that it takes to change directions, is another day that troops die. I find that unacceptable.

between now and September?

the stand-off over the one supplemental bill wasn't about to move Bush off of his occupation before the summer ended.

sounds like a very bad and bloody strategy to me.....

<snip>

Asking Petraeus to assess the situation in September might be asking him - if the evidence pointed in that direction - to say that his whole counterinsurgency strategy was wrong. If the evidence is not clear, he would most likely cherry-pick data by pointing out, as he already has, that sectarian violence is down in Baghdad, while ignoring such inconvenient truths as the increase in suicide bombings or the rise in deaths of American soldiers and contractors.

Was Gen. William Westmoreland ever objective about the attrition strategy in Vietnam or Gen. Douglas MacArthur about the Chinese intervention in Korea?

Most likely, Petraeus would say that he needs more time, that not all of the extra troops arrive until June. He already has indicated that he will not have anything definitive by September. In fact, Petraeus and his commanders have said the surge must last until spring 2008. Moreover, the Pentagon has alerted four National Guard brigades and 10 more active brigades for deployment to Iraq, so that the escalation can be maintained through the end of 2008.

Another complicating fact is that one purpose of the surge was to buy time for Iraqi reconciliation. Suppose that violence is down, but that the Iraqis have not taken such steps as passing the oil law or providing for provincial elections. Maj. Gen. Richard Lynch, current commander of the Third Infantry Division, noted that even if security does improve, he doesn't think there will be significant progress on the government side between now and then.

The answer is to have an independent assessment by an outside group, like the Iraq Study Group, but not including members of that group who might also have an ax to grind. The House and Senate each should appoint one member and the administration another. Only then can we be sure that we will get an unbiased assessment, and that this country will come to grips with the real situation in Iraq.

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20070525_Petraeus_potential_conflict.html

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/17/petraeus-september/

Petraeus: September Report On Escalation Will Not Say ‘Anything Definitive’

Offering another sign that the administration plans to continue its escalation of the war in Iraq into 2008, U.S. commander Gen. David Petraeus now says that he will not have “anything definitive” to say about the war in his September review.

On April 26, Petraeus told reporters that “in early September” he “would provide an assessment of the situation in Iraq with respect to our mission and offer recommendations on the way ahead.” But in an interview with CNN reporter Jane Arraf for IraqSlogger, Petraeus says, “Come September, I don’t think we’ll have anything definitive in September (although) certainly we’ll have some indicators on the political side in Iraq.”

Other recent signs that Bush is planning a long-term escalation:

– Last week, the Pentagon “notified more than 35,000 soldiers and Marines to be prepared to deploy to Iraq beginning this fall, a move that would allow commanders to maintain the ongoing buildup of troops through the end of the year if needed.”

– The New York Times reported in late April, “The timelines are now discussing suggest that the White House may maintain the increased numbers of American troops in Iraq well into next year.”

– In early March, the Times reported that Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, the day-to-day commander of American forces in Iraq, had recommended in a private memo that Bush’s increased troop levels “be maintained through February 2008.” Odierno also said in January that “even with the additional American troops,” it might take another ‘two or three years’ for American and Iraqi forces to gain the upper hand in the war.”

In recent weeks, senior conservatives have said that President Bush had until September “to prove that the Iraq war effort has turned a corner.” Petraeus’ announcement throws a major wrench in that plan.

oh never mind. I know this is all for show. :puke:

fuck all of the enablers the blood is now on their hands.

Just as I said they are already writting the script for September and it will be...EQUIVICAL!!!.....Well yest we are making progress here and here but we still have more work to do here and here and possiblly over there and we really won't know until november or December if that is working but we need more money RIGHT NOW OR THE TROOPS WILL START DYING ANY MINUTE!!!

Petraes's October 1st report to Congress, ghost written by Thomas Friedman, is entitled "Just Six More Months as we'll have this SnapshotComma under control." Vice President Cheney went on MTP and told Timmeh he expects the Congress will welcome the report with open arm.

when Petraeus himself has said he WON'T have a definitive answer??? Is there another interpretation I'm missing?

Petraeus: September Report On Escalation Will Not Say ‘Anything Definitive’
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/17/petraeus-september/

and I don't think it is clear to Murtha either. He says:

"There is a point when the money for our troops in Iraq will run out, and when it does, our men and women serving courageously in Iraq will be the ones who will suffer, not this president."

Would bush have withdrawn the troops from Iraq if the bill hadn't passed? Or would he have diverted some other pentagon funds or run up more debt to maintain the surge while cutting supplies? To pull the troops out because they were short of equipment (and even rations), bush would have to care more about the troops than his own ego. I don't believe that's true, and I'll bet Murtha doesn't either.

So they have cut the Friedman Unit in half. Now its the next three months that is critical. In september exactly the same political equation will exist. I expect exactly the same results, and exactly the same loathsome explanations for why we should accept those results.

:mad: Elmer Fudd goes to Washington...

Come September it will be more of the same We need more money because we are really making progress and if you don't give us the money we won't be able to continue the progress and then it will be your fault if we lose. Trust me they have the generals lined up to say this "It is hard work but we are making progress" THey have the politicians lined up to say this "Our great General Petreas is making wonderful progress and we must suppor the troops" It is already being written and now they know that the Dems will fold like a reed in a falsh flood. Count on it. Oh and by the way it is clear now that the Dems are not clever enough nor forceful enough to stand up to these guys. They are punks and losers. We waisted our time and money. Meet the new boss same as the old Boss...We got fooled again!

By September, we will be really, really, REALLY, REALLY ready to end this war. But please be patient, particularly those of you who will die on August 31--Gen. Petraeus will report back honestly that the surge™ is not working, and the corporate whores will report honestly that the surge™ is not working, and Congress will honestly take up the matter of the surge™ not working and Bush will honestly see the error of his non-working surge™ and withdraw the troops.

Honest!

the question on timetables still stands with the majority of those who voted for the supplemental still strongly in favor of voting for any future bill which includes them.

BLEEEEECH!

Bush wasn't about to abandon his occupation before the fall just because he didn't get one supplemental.

But if we don't demand this stop... when will it end?
Why should any of us think that the democratic leadership won't fold in Sept like they did yesterday?

Do you really think Patraeus is going to say "things are going bad. We should leave"?
Of course he won't.
He's going to give some rendition of "we're making great progress but need more time, troops, and money".
He now has 3 months to figure out how to be as convincing as possible.

Had the Democrats stood firm and repeatedly sent Bush bills to veto I'm sure he would play "funding chicken" by leaving them in Iraq and diverting money from where ever he could.
I'm sure Bush would have said the Dems are starving the troops.
And eventually congress would have to pass legislation somehow ordering them home or making the war illegal.

We will face the same situation in September.
Assume they pass do another bill in September with timelines and it's veto proof.
If he would play funding chicken NOW.. why should we think he wouldn't do the same in September?

It's clear Bush is NOT going to willingly end this war until HE thinks it's over.
Congress is going to have to force Bush to stop.

Waiting till September to start that process doesn't change anything but how many people have died.
(though, for Bush it grants a 3 month reprieve to generate new justifications for staying)

effectively in Sept. It won't just be our party who will be asking for proof of the progress they've promised. It's a shame that they would string us out until then, but that's when it seems republicans will be ready to move toward voting for a rebuke and an exit date. At least now they won't be able to hide behind the rhetoric about the bill 'hurting the soldiers'.

bush didn't listen to them about Iraq, why would he listen to them on Iran?


http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_05/011381.php

Last December, as Rumsfeld was leaving, President Bush met with the Joint Chiefs of Staff in "The Tank," the secure room in the Pentagon where the Joint Chiefs discuss classified matters of national security. Bush asked the Chiefs about the wisdom of a troop "surge" in Iraq. They were unanimously opposed. Then Bush asked about the possibility of a successful attack on Iran's nuclear capability. He was told that the U.S. could launch a devastating air attack on Iran's government and military, wiping out the Iranian air force, the command and control structure and some of the more obvious nuclear facilities. But the Chiefs were — once again — unanimously opposed to taking that course of action.

Or in this case, Plan of the Chimp...?

And history has more or less borne out those findings.
.

We possibbly will have attacked Iran by then so of course we will need more supplemental spending to keep that in "control"

This sickens me, but at the end of the day these cats only care about one thing. Making sure they stay in power. In doing so they play alot of you scratch my back and I will scratch yours, both intra party and between the parties. The Puke Reps know that the war is very unpopular. And they know by the fall, unless things get better (and they know they won't), they are going to be in deep shit as far as campaigning for re-election. All they are doing is stalling for time right now. On the other hand the Dems think that they have the Pukes where they want them and that they will self destruct on their own just be letting the war go on. In the end, our troops are being made the pawns in this game of political chicken. I have said this many times and will say it again. Without a draft there is no buy-in to this war and it is easy for people to duck and hide. If these same reps had their kids and relatives and close friends kids, etc drafted into this hell hold fiasco, they would really care about how long it takes to end the damn thing.

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.0
==================



This week is our second quarter 2007 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend on donations
from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for your support.

through so much more? In hope that it will get bad enough for them that republicans see how bad it is and join the democrats. Well, I hope our family members over there don't die for the strategy.