You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: WoT
Top Democrats Oppose More Troops in Iraq
2007-01-06
This didn't take long.
WASHINGTON, Jan. 5 -- 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.
Thanks for your opinion.
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.”
Gee Mr. Feingold, by any chance are you running for president? Sure hope so, would love to see the American people tell you what they think of your ideas.
The Pelosi-Reid letter, and Mr. FeingoldÂ’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.

“We’re talking about security. We’re talking about terrorism. And we’ve got to try to do what’s right for victory in Iraq.” -- Joe Lieberman
In fact, Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid are digging in more firmly than some of their Democratic colleagues who have not ruled out at least a modest, temporary troop increase. President Bush must be heartened, for example, by the stance of Senator Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat who is the new head of the Armed Services Committee, who has said he would not “prejudge” the president’s proposal, provided that any troop increase is linked to a broader approach to disentangle the United States from Iraq.

Mr. Levin announced today that the Armed Services Committee will hold a hearing on Iraq next Friday, with Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testifying.
So begins the death-by-a-thousand-paper-cuts.
Mr. Reid and Ms. Pelosi made it clear they have already made up their minds on troop increases.

Senator Joseph Lieberman, Democrat of "Connecticut who lost the Democratic primary at least in part because of his support for Mr. Bush’s Iraq policy, and Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, warned today against any stampede to get out of Iraq. “Americans are frustrated, Americans are angry, and that anger and frustration is justified,” said Mr. McCain, who has advocated an increase in troops. “But when you ask most Americans should we get out right away, most of them say no.”

Mr. Lieberman said he hopes the president’s proposals do not set off “partisan political combat or some kind of inside-the-Beltway compromise.” “We’re talking about war here,” Mr. Lieberman said. “We’re talking about security. We’re talking about terrorism. And we’ve got to try to do what’s right for victory in Iraq.”
Posted by:Steve White

#17  I'd have gone with the "Quisling's Noose" graphic myself.
Posted by: RIcky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo)   2007-01-06 19:17  

#16  No Jan, but a call on Iran to get her marching orders might be in order....

After all they did push the Dhimmiocrats into power.
Posted by: CrazyFool   2007-01-06 17:33  

#15  I wonder, is her next step to go over to Iraq like Kerry and talk with top officials? Pretty damn scary.
So much for a united front, let her bring her whip there and see what happens. lol
Posted by: Jan from work   2007-01-06 16:11  

#14  Actually More Troops in Iraq Oppose Top Democrats
Posted by: DMFD   2007-01-06 14:05  

#13  Â“The Pelosi-Reid letter, and Mr. FeingoldÂ’s allusion to the November elections, underscored the new political reality for the White House.”

WhoaaaÂ…a terse letter with absolutely no teeth and public speeches filled with empty rhetoric? How veryÂ…uhÂ…UN of them. CÂ’mon Russ ole boyÂ…dust of that Presidential censure proposalÂ…we double-dog dare ya.
Posted by: DepotGuy   2007-01-06 13:44  

#12  Unfortunately, all the Iraq Study Group recommendations do not include anything about Taking out Tater, putting the hurt on Syria and Iran, and Sunni makers of mayhem. We do not allow our military to do its job. We can excuse the Dems, 'cause they are moonbats. But there are no excuses for the Republicans, who have had 6 years to un-f*ck Clintons messes.
Posted by: Alaska Paul   2007-01-06 13:38  

#11  You don't need more troops. You need to allow the troops you have there to go Mongol on the wretched hives of scum and villainy when they find them. No apologies.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2007-01-06 10:38  

#10  Oh, BTW, this article is also on the front page of the Washington Post this morning.

My wife subscribes; I just glance at it every once in a while to remember how much I hate it.
Posted by: Bobby   2007-01-06 09:00  

#9  Right, AH.

The Dems say, "The elections show the public wanted change."

{Maybe, maybe not}

But now they say, "Well, not that kind of change. No, no, the vote meant we should withdraw."
Posted by: Bobby   2007-01-06 08:59  

#8  -- Iran has imported huge subway drilling machines but hasn't been building any subways.
-- The electorate's message at the ballot box is not what the Dems say it was.
Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418   2007-01-06 08:03  

#7  tu-

Well, in fairness, you can want a military and political victory (which I believe is MORE than possible) and not necessarily agree with the surge option.

Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski   2007-01-06 07:56  

#6  DEBKA.com > Dubya's shakeup actually is in line for prepping for US mil confrontation agz Iran in ME, espec where OFFENSIVE naval and air opers are concerned; + WAFF.com > IRAN > is secretly building underground storage for nuclear = Atomic materials - may had been building simil underground facilities = bases for Govt + Milfors for decades since after fall of Shah and US Embassy-Hostages incident.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2007-01-06 03:49  

#5  I can only hope that this kind of idiocy from some on the left leads only to serious infighting. And perhaps leading to the exodus of a couple people from the party.

Joe, party of one, you're table's ready. Joe, party of one.
Posted by: Mike N.   2007-01-06 01:27  

#4  Mighty nice of the democrats to make a public mockery of the Constition by telling America that Congress intends to tell the POTUS how to run a war.

I wonder what SCOTUS would say about that?

Might be something for Trent Lott to make mention of. Publicly. Sunday morning on TV.
Posted by: Mike N.   2007-01-06 00:57  

#3  Senator Joseph Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticutt

So has Joe offically returned to the Dark Side or is this just wishful thinking by the Times?
P.S. NYT: Correct spelling is "Connecticut".
That was me, not them. I'll fix it. AoS.
Posted by: tu3031   2007-01-06 00:32  

#2  She's gonna discard the gavel and use that whip. She's been practicing for more than 2 years. Gonna take the lips right offa any Pub speaking out of turn. Every time Ellison starts mouthing off, she's gonna whip him like a mule.
Posted by: SpecOp35   2007-01-06 00:28  

#1  Dubya is still commander in chief and the resolutions that sent us to Iraq gives Bush what he needs to continue the war.

That the left welshed on their commitments doesn't mean the war will end as a defeat or a retreat.
Posted by: badanov   2007-01-06 00:07  

00:00