I’m watching Carl Levin on Fox News Sunday describe limiting troop deployments to Iraq as “increasing the chance of success in Iraq”. How can fewer troops in a war zone enhance success? More trigger-pullers on the ground means more bullets the islamo-facists have to dodge while engaging in their particuar nefarious endeavors.\u00c2\u00a0<\/p>\n
He described the\u00c2\u00a0Republican block of the Democrats’ non-binding resolution<\/a> in the Senate as\u00c2\u00a0political gamesmanship. What, then,\u00c2\u00a0is the Democrat strategy of even introducing a non-binding rebuke of the President’s strategy, if not political gamesmanship?\u00c2\u00a0It’s not law, so why do they think it’s even necessary – unless they just want to satisfy their knee-jerk anti-war base for the time being.<\/p>\n Did the Republican Congress pass any non-binding resolutions against the Clinton Administration’s foreign follies in Haiti, Bosnia or Kosovo. The, answer of course, is ‘no’. That would have been political gamesmanship. They gave him and the troops their full and complete support.<\/p>\n No, Mr. Levin, putting more combat troops in Iraq doesn’t hinder our chance for success. I think on a weekend when even the Washington Post publishes an editorial<\/a> (h\/t Captain’s Quarters<\/a>) condemning Democrats for flexing imaginary political muscles\u00c2\u00a0writing “[s]ome of the speeches [in the House] were little more than partisan rhetoric….” ya’all’d be a little more careful what you say. It seems that the fog is lifting a bit on ya’ll’s honeymoon with the press.<\/p>\n The Post also asks, rightly;<\/p>\n So why not straightforwardly strip the money out of the appropriations bill — an action Congress is clearly empowered to take — rather than try to micromanage the Army in a way that may be unconstitutional?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The answer, of course, is that Murtha, Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy, Levin and the rest are just playing politics with the lives of our armed forces. The Post can’t ask that without knowing the answer.<\/p>\n The Post went on to say that John\u00c2\u00a0Murtha, specifically, and Democrats, generally\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0are ignorant of the situation the situation in Iraq. But I think it’s worse than that. They know what’s going on in Iraq, they know the troops are winning, they know that the troops know they’re winning (like this troop’s email<\/a> via Flopping Aces<\/a>) and they’re ignoring it and intentionally mischaracterizing the war in front of the cameras. Murtha and Pelosi have seen for themselves<\/a>, how can they be that ignorant without it being a purely poitical gambit designed to kill more American soldiers for political gain?<\/p>\n Perhaps Mitch McConnell said it best in this morning’s Washington Times<\/a>;<\/p>\n “There is no place for chicanery at a time of war,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican. “Even some of the president’s most strident opponents know that. They know that the only vote that truly matters is a vote on whether to fund the troops.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n See Sister Toldya<\/a> for the video of Sam Johnson’s speech to the House last week. Then tell me Democrats support the troops.<\/p>\n In the meantime, the “surge” continues. Read the Milblogs at Mudvile Gazette<\/a> to keep up with the latest.\u00c2\u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"