Murtha, 73, the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, expressed pessimism about Iraq's stability and said the Iraqis know who the insurgents are, but don't always share that information with U.S. troops. He said a civil war is likely because of ongoing factionalism among Sunni Arabs, and Kurds and Shiites.
He also said he was wrong to vote to support the war.
"I admit I made a mistake when I voted for war," Murtha said. "I'm looking at the future of the United States military."
An American Congressman says this? What will he tell the troops he so assuredly "supports" when their enemies come out against them with renewed vigor, knowing they are "broken, worn out" and "living hand to mouth"? What kind of a picture is Benedict Murtha trying to present to the terrorists ?? "Drive us out, we are already a defeated army?" Is this not treason, to aid and abett an enemy by spouting their propoganda?
The Democratic party has sunk to a new low that I never even believed possible. I say Party as a whole, because of the leadership they have chosen:
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi switched gears Wednesday and embraced a call to begin an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq as many congressional Democrats dismissed a speech by President on Iraq policy as tired rhetoric.
Pelosi, D-Calif., said she backs a call made Nov. 17 by Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, the top Democrat on the House's spending panel for the Pentagon for a quick drawdown.
"I will be supporting the Murtha resolution," she said, adding that Congress needs to conduct a "serious debate" about withdrawing U.S. troops
Hey Nancy, we had a "Murtha Resolution" last week, and you voted against it, dumb-ass. Who are you, John effin' Kerry?
And the media piles on in support of their Democratic masters...USA Today parrots the Dems' hateful interpetation of the "facts on the ground" without any investigation into Bush's "claims":
The strategy for winning the Iraq war that President Bush' spelled out on Wednesday was more a reassertion of resolve than a detailed plan for how U.S. troops can work themselves out of a job
But he refused to set the timetables for troop withdrawals that his domestic critics have demanded, or even to set specific benchmarks for how progress is measured.
And the president offered an optimistic picture of Iraqi advancement that was often at odds with assessments by government agencies and independent groups.
On all issues - from training and equipping Iraqi forces, to creating a new democratic government and reviving a shattered economy - the president repeatedly emphasized progress rather than the problems often cited by his critics
This dithers on and on; maybe one critic is quoted by name; USA Today simply re-hashes old anti-war lies and throws them back at Bush, while seeming to make "withdrawel timetable" the only "benchmark" for success.
Personally, I don't give a spit about this unholy alliance of the Media/Democratic Party/Cindy Sheehan/John "Pullout" Murtha and Lefty Pelosi. They are not going to know what hit them in 2006; just as they didn't see it coming in 2004. But there is little pleasure for me there; how many American soldiers will die; how much longer will the war against terrorism take to win, when one of the two American political parties has dedicated itself to our defeat?
Other blogs with good points here:
As the Democrats previously did with Social Security Reform, they merely attacked the President and his policies without offering one single worthwhile idea, plan, or alternative to make things better (or at least different). The Democratic leadership has offered the same sort of strategy the insurgents offer in Iraq or terrorists offer in Madrid, London or Jordan: drama, chaos and adversarial bemoaning without one iota of a real strategy for change; an easy life, especially when you realize they don't have the uncomfortable requirement of accountability and responsibility for their actions.
The Anchoress links to a soldier blogging from Iraq:
It’s sad that so many Iraqis and others are dying over here. However, when you discover you have cancer the treatment is always the same - attack it at the source. You don’t wait for it to spread. And when is the last time you heard a doctor putting a limited timetable on cancer therapy? I can picture it in my mind. “Mr. Smith, we have seen some progress with your tumor. It’s shrinking. But we need to move on now. The timetable for treating you has passed. Good luck.”
That’s what some people are trying to tell Iraq just as hope is looming on the horizon. And that disgusts me.
Atlas Shrugged shows Hillary Clinton selling out our troops in Iraq to lick up to the left-wingers whose support she needs to win the 2008 nomination:
"Based on the information that we have today, Congress never would have been asked to give the President authority to use force against Iraq. And if Congress had been asked, based on what we know now, we never would have agreed, given the lack of a long-term plan, paltry international support, the proven absence of weapons of mass destruction, and the reallocation of troops and resources that might have been used in Afghanistan to eliminate Bin Laden and al Qaeda, and fully uproot the Taliban."
Awww....she's just like Bill!!
Link to Atlas here: http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2005/12/mark_of_a_trait.html
Finally, check out Gateway Pundit - my man has the charts showing you what the pollsters are trying desperately to hide...that "Red" America is poised to put an old fashioned ass-whuppin' on the Democrats...look here: http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2005/12/picturing-polls-red-vs-blue.html