Dems Pushing For Surrender Once Again

[red states rule]

Despite all the good news coming from iraq, the success of the US military, and al Qaeda on the roles - Dems still are trying to get the US to surrender to the terrorists

The surrender date in the latest bill shows Dems have no desire to9 stand up to the terrorists - even when we are winning


Pelosi's surrender date
These are difficult days for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other politicians who have staked their political futures on an American defeat in Iraq. In the past 10 days alone, the mainstream media has reported the new reality: that the changes in military strategy instituted by Gen. David Petraeus are resulting in major improvements in the security situation there.

For example, the Associated Press reported: "Twilight brings traffic jams to the main shopping district of this once-affluent corner of Baghdad, and hundreds of people stroll past well-stocked vegetable stands, bakeries and butcher shops. To many in Amariyah, it seems little short of a miracle." According to The Washington Post: "The number of attacks against U.S. soldiers has fallen to levels not seen since before the February 2006 bombing of a Shi'ite shrine in Samarra that touched off waves of sectarian killing...The death toll for American troops in October fell to 39, the lowest level since March 2006." And on Thursday, the New York Times noted: "American forces have routed Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, the Iraqi militant network, from every neighborhood in Baghdad, a top American general said today, allowing American troops involved in the 'surge' to depart as planned."

Responding to the good news, Mrs. Pelosi has unveiled her newest legislative strategy to damage the war effort: House Democrats this week will try to enact a bill calling for immediately beginning to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq, with a goal of completing the pullout in one year (in other words, announcing a date to surrender Iraq to the very jihadists that coalition forces are defeating on the battlefield right now.) The surrender language will be attached to a four-month, $50 billion funding package for the war in Iraq, roughly one quarter of the funding requested by President Bush. The president, in all likelihood, will be forced to veto this irresponsible bill, which will once again jeopardize funding for the troops.

The contrast could hardly be any more striking: American soldiers perform heroically and successfully, risking their lives on the battlefield in Iraq. Mrs. Pelosi and the Democratic leadership, by contrast, look for new ways to advertise American weakness to the enemy -— in effect, to tell al Qaeda in Mesopotamia that if it can hold out against U.S. forces for another year, "progressive" politicians in Washington will deliver the votes to ensure that Iraq becomes a jihadist colony.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/artic...111120007/1013

[red states rule]

No matter how you look at it, the US is winning the fight in Iraq
Al-Maliki trumpets decline of terror acts
By Lauren Frayer


BAGHDAD (AP) — Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said yesterday that suicide attacks and other bombings in the Iraqi capital have dropped dramatically since last year's high, calling it a sign of the end of sectarian violence. A top U.S. general here said he thinks the drop is sustainable, as Iraqis turn away from extremists.

Mr. al-Maliki said "terrorist acts," including car bombings and other spectacular, al Qaeda-style attacks, dropped 77 percent. He called it a sign that Sunni-Shi'ite violence was nearly gone from Baghdad.

"We are all realizing now that what Baghdad was seeing every day — dead bodies in the streets and morgues — is ebbing remarkably," Mr. al-Maliki told reporters at his office in the U.S.-guarded Green Zone.

"This is an indication that sectarianism intended as a gate of evil and fire in Iraq is now closed," he said.

Before the arrival of nearly 30,000 U.S. reinforcements last spring, explosions shook Baghdad daily — sometimes hourly. Now the sounds of warfare are rare.

U.S. troops have set up small outposts in some of the capital's most dangerous enclaves. Locals previously lukewarm to the presence of U.S. troops patrol alongside them. And a historic lane on the eastern banks of the Tigris River is set to reopen later this year, lined with seafood restaurants and an art gallery.

Mr. al-Maliki's assessment yesterday matched those of U.S. military officials, and is borne out by AP figures that show a sharp drop in the number of U.S. and Iraqi deaths in the past few months. The number of Iraqi civilians who meet violent deaths dropped from at least 1,023 in September to at least 905 in October, according to an AP count.

The number of U.S. military deaths fell from 65 to at least 39 over the same period.

for the complete article

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/...111120063/1001

[April15]

This nation needs to be out of the middle east. Bush invaded a sovereign nation on false information. He should appollogize and get us out, now!

[red states rule]

This nation needs to be out of the middle east. Bush invaded a sovereign nation on false information. He should appollogize and get us out, now!

Party before country April?

The US military is kicking the terrorists ass and you still want to surrender

Amazing

[red states rule]

This nation needs to be out of the middle east. Bush invaded a sovereign nation on false information. He should appollogize and get us out, now!

By all means, let leave while we are winning

Iraq rocket, mortar fire at 21-month low By LAUREN FRAYER, Associated Press Writer
Mon Nov 12, 11:53 AM ET

BAGHDAD - Rocket and mortar attacks in Iraq have decreased to their lowest levels in more than 21 months, the U.S. military said Monday. In the capital, Iraqi officials said a taxi driver was shot dead by a private security guard hired to protect U.S. convoys.

Last month saw 369 "indirect fire" attacks — the lowest number since February 2006. October's total was half of what it was in the same month a year ago. And it marked the third month in a row of sharply reduced insurgent activity, the military said.

The U.S. command issued the tallies a day after Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said suicide attacks and other bombings in Baghdad also have dropped dramatically, calling it an end of sectarian violence.

Despite the drop in violence, the capital remains tense and al-Maliki and other Iraqi and foreign officials are under heavy protection.

Embassy spokesman Philip T. Reeker said the company involved in Saturday's shooting was DynCorp International, one of three firms contracted to protect American officials in Iraq.

Reeker could not confirm anyone had died, and he would not say who the seven-vehicle convoy was carrying nor give its destination.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071112/...q_071029195379

[retiredman]

RSR...can you explain for me what the difference is between an Iraqi insurgent and a terrorist?

and what the difference is between a shiite insurgent and a sunni insurgent?

[red states rule]

RSR...can you explain for me what the difference is between an Iraqi insurgent and a terrorist?

and what the difference is between a shiite insurgent and a sunni insurgent?

Trying to change the subject again MM?

Dems have been trying to push their surrender bills since they took office and have lost everytime

Democrats zero for 40 on Iraq

By: Jim VandeHei and John F. Harris
Nov 13, 2007 06:07 AM EST

As the congressional session lurches toward a close, Democrats are confronting some demoralizing arithmetic on Iraq.

The numbers tell a story of political and substantive paralysis more starkly than most members are willing to acknowledge publicly, or perhaps even to themselves.

Since taking the majority, they have forced 40 votes on bills limiting President Bush’s war policy.

Not a single one has passed both chambers, even though both are run by Democrats.

Indeed, the only war legislation passed during this Congress has been to give the president exactly what he wants, and exactly what he has had for the past five years: more money, with no limitations.

Disapproval of the Democratic majority in Congress has risen steadily, albeit with no corresponding increase in enthusiasm for Republicans.

Even more notably, public opinion about the war — while still dominated by opposition to a military adventure most people think was a mistake — has risen modestly in recent weeks, according to several nonpartisan polls.

Democrats plan to spend the December recess reviewing their strategy and determining if they missed opportunities to put limitations, even if they were smaller than war activists were demanding, on Bush’s war policies.

Some Democratic strategists are warning that congressional leaders are “muddling through” with a strategy that carries both political and military risks for the party.

for the complete article

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1107/6845.html

[manu1959]

This nation needs to be out of the middle east. Bush invaded a sovereign nation on false information. He should appollogize and get us out, now!

false information provided by a Clinton appointee ........

hmmmmmmmmmm i wonder.......

[Hagbard Celine]

So where do you stand RSR? Other than whining about the presented options for bringing our military home of course. Are you hoping for an indefinite US presence in Iraq? In your opinion should we build permanent bases there and set up shop forever?

[glockmail]

So where do you stand RSR? Other than whining about the presented options for bringing our military home of course. Are you hoping for an indefinite US presence in Iraq? In your opinion should we build permanent bases there and set up shop forever?

I've said all along that should be the strategy. A permanent US base right in dead center of Jihad-ville would be a huge deterrent to the bad guys over there.

[red states rule]

false information provided by a Clinton appointee ........

hmmmmmmmmmm i wonder.......

I remember how Dem James Clyburn told the Washington Post, if the Petraeus report showed progress and there is good news coming from Iraq, it "would be a problem" for the Dems

He was right


snip

Many Democrats have anticipated that, at best, Petraeus and U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker would present a mixed analysis of the success of the current troop surge strategy, given continued violence in Baghdad. But of late there have been signs that the commander of U.S. forces might be preparing something more generally positive. Clyburn said that would be "a real big problem for us."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...073001380.html

[Classact]

The Democratic Party leadership just held a press conference on the bridge war funding and it is all about politics as usual. They know they don't have the votes to pass a funding with strings attached let alone have enough votes to sustain a veto. They are doing it for cover as they accomplish NOTHING in appropriations for running the government. They need something for their members to stump on as they go for election other than we aren't getting shit accomplished.

If they had any gonads at all they would simply pass a resolution stating no more funds will be authorized for the Iraq War other than those necessary to return personnel and equipment. The House leadership has to BUY votes from the Black and Hispanic Caucus to vote yes on funding the war in any way... Nancy is going to look stupid in public as she has to suck it up and send bush the Blank Check he demands or she will have to get gonads and join her Black and Hispanic Caucuses to end funding.

The congress will not cut off funds for the troops while they are in harms way and the president will not budge so Nancy and Harry will have to fold when the heat gets hot... If they don't fold then it is there war to inherit in 08 because Bush will stay until there is zero money and then leave the equipment on the battlefield as he evacuates our troops that were not funded by the Democratic Party. Bush will not fold and that means the dems have to fold or leave the troops high and dry. Either way the dems lose.

[retiredman]

false information provided by a Clinton appointee ........

hmmmmmmmmmm i wonder.......

Clinton ORIGINALLY appointed him. Bush REappointed him by asking him to stay on. sorry.

[Classact]

If I were President Bush I would call a special joint session of Congress on Thanksgiving evening and address congress and the American people. I would tell congress to stop wasting time... that the Democratic Party needs to create a new budget that removes the Alternative Minimum Tax revenues' and that doesn't add new taxes to fund their budget and clearly state that is why I vetoed your appropriation bills you sent to me... You based them on AMT tax or a tax hike... Then I would tell the congress here is the deal with Iraq and war funding... I"m commander in chief so I get to manage the war... you are congress and you get to fund the war or end funding for the war... I will not shuffle money around in the Defense budget because it wastes tax dollars to do so... You, congress have the choice to fund the war or end funding for the war if you don't like the way I'm managing it... you cannot have it both ways... you give me the funds I request or you give me none with instructions to remove the troops... If you insist to desire my job then the war belongs to you... should you not send the monies I requested within two weeks I will return all troops leaving the equipment in Iraq at the earliest possible time but it will be your war and the future of the Mid East will be on your responsibility as the combined Commander's in Chief of the US military... And, by the way why haven't you sent me the Veterans funding bill after passing it almost three months ago? Good night America and God bless America and our troops!

[red states rule]

What planet do these surrender monkeys live on? Where are they getting their updates on Iraq? From the Dem Underground and Daily Kos?


Democrats see victory 'out of reach'
By S.A. Miller and Sean Lengell
November 16, 2007

Top Democrats yesterday rejected reports of U.S. military progress in Iraq, saying victory remains "out of reach" as long as political divisions roil Baghdad.

"It's not getting better; it's getting worse," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat. "The goal remains out of reach."

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, said the reduced violence in Iraq wasn't enough to win her support for the mission.

"Certainly any time our military is engaged in military action, we want the best possible outcome for them, and they have produced that," she said. "But their sacrifice and their courage has not been met by any action on the part of the Iraqi government."

Rank-and-file Democrats echoed the critique, saying U.S. troops were "refereeing a civil war" and the Iraqi government "has got to take some responsibility."

The outlook is fueling Democrats' push for legislation that mandates a U.S. pullout from Iraq starting immediately with a goal of a near-complete withdrawal by December 2008.

Republicans and supporters of the war effort said the Democrats were in "deep denial."

Sen. Joe Lieberman, a hawkish Connecticut independent, said the war critics "remain emotionally invested in a narrative of retreat and defeat, even as facts on the ground show that we are advancing and winning."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/...111160096/1001