Now Democrats Don’t Want More Troops?
January 5th, 2007Fierce opposition, from the Enemy Collaborator Democrats??? What happened to the plans for a larger military? And, “Democratic congressional leaders signaled that they would not challenge Bush on the deployment itself, MSNBC’s David Shuster reported, but instead would seek a debate over limiting the size of the deployment and pushing for an eventual drawdown of U.S. troops.” I bet Cheney and Bush are quaking in their boots over the prospect of another debate… * yawn *
The U.S. will never leave Iraq voluntarily. A hasty retreat, Saigon style, because of imperial overextension? Maybe. But no orderly withdrawal. Don’t be fooled by this nonsense theater.
Doubt it? What part of Superbase don’t you understand? That’s what people in the business of exploitation and death call a “geostrategic asset.” States don’t give up control of geostrategic assets because a lot of people wear Lick Bush t-shirts and write letters to the editor.
Perhaps a few Dems are squealing like they’re caught in a fence at the moment. SO PULL THE PLUG ON THE FUNDING FOR THE WAR YOU SICKENING, FILTHY MONSTERS! It won’t happen. The Boland Amendment was the closest the Congress ever came to growing a pair, and we all know how that wound up.
Just wait for the next false flag event to cause the fake opposition to shrug their shoulders and admit, “Golly, maybe we do need to expand the War on Terror after all.”
Via: New York Times:
As President Bush prepares to present his new strategy on Iraq to the American people, Democratic Congressional leaders said today they will fight any approach that calls for deploying more United States troops there.
“We want to do everything we can to help Iraq succeed in the future but, like many of our senior military leaders, we do not believe that adding more U.S. combat troops contributes to success,†House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California and Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Senate majority leader, wrote to Mr. Bush.
“Adding more combat troops will only endanger more Americans and stretch our military to the breaking point for no strategic gain,†the Democrats’ letter said.
Also reiterating his deep opposition to any troop increases was Senator Russell D. Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin. “The administration refuses to acknowledge the devastating impact that keeping our brave troops in Iraq is having on our national security, and now the president is considering sending even more troops,†Mr. Feingold said in a statement.
“We should be bringing our troops out of Iraq, not the other way around,†he said. “The American people’s message at the ballot box was loud and clear, and it is past time that the administration listened.â€
The Pelosi-Reid letter, and Mr. Feingold’s allusion to the November elections, underscored the new political reality for the White House. As President Bush prepares to take his case to the American people, and assembles a new military and diplomatic team to go with his redefined Iraq strategy, he is encountering fierce opposition from the newly empowered Democratic leadership.
if the Dems actually had a pair, they would sucker punched the administration by starting off first thing with a move for impeachment. but they showed their true colors moments after their “win” by refusing to impeach. sad…
My reading on the situation is the same. I was a little surprised when the demo leaders actually said they would back an increase because for a brief moment they forgot to keep up appearances.
The fact is we are stuck in Iraq. We stay and we suffer a slow (perhaps increasing) attrition of our troops, and increasing discontent at home.
We go, Iran will get its puppet in the south which will rile the Saudi’s, the Kurds will start with Greater Kurdistan which will rile the Turks and the Iranians, and the Saudi’s will back the Iraqi Sunnis which will rile the Iranians. In all these scenarios an Iranian/Saudi war breaks out and the oilfields are cutoff which then leads to an end of “Our non-negotiable way of life”.
The Dunce blew it. We are in the last days of our cheap fossil fuel based civilization.
The great thing is I can’t see anyway out. This is why we elect these dumb *%#$^%’s to avoid getting us into a damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation.
Our way of life was bound to end anyway in the non too distant future because of one of the crisis’ going critical (Peak Oil, Global Warming, The doomsday DNA we just heard about yesterday).
Even with the uncomfortable thought that we as a species don’t deserve to live and nature will take care of us, it is still annoying that the end may well come in our lifetime.
Addendum:
My prior post may have sounded like I think we should stay in Iraq. I do not, I think we should get out and let the chips fall where they may. There is no advantage to staying because eventualy we will get chased out anyway and have to deal with the consequences of our blunders then.
It is better to try and lance the wound now, rather than later when it has had yet more time to fester. This was true in March ’03 as well as now as it will be in a couple of years when I expect street riots and 10,000 US war dead and perhaps the Iraqis will be up to a million by then. Last I heard they were at 650,000. I just know that is building some very bad karma that is bound to haunt us in the future.
“When the army engages in protracted campaigns the resources of the state will not suffice.” “There has never been a protracted war from which a country has benefited” – Sun Tzu, ‘The Art of War’
Our (the US’s) P.T.B. are military (and political, economic, social, philosophical, etc) morons.
[…] It’s not what the Democrats say, it’s what the Democrats do. Their purpose is to serve this regime, and squeal a bit, in fake protest, to maintain the appearance of opposition. They’re just filthy enemy collaborators. Meanwhile, the band plays on. […]