The Left is Rooting for America's Defeat in Iraq (Wizbang)

Updated

I know, that's not anything new; anti-war leftists have been undermining this country's military for a long time now. Today, however, the great Mark Steyn has piece in today's Chicago Tribune that illustrates this point very well:

Meanwhile, the punk cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has decided that discretion is the better part of mullahs and has temporarily relocated to Iran. That's right: The biggest troublemaker in Iraq is no longer in Iraq. It may be that his Persian vacation is only to marry a cousin or two and consult with the A-list ayatollahs, but the Mookster has always had highly sensitive antennae when it comes to his own physical security -- he likes being the guy who urges martyrdom on others rather than being just another schmuck who takes one for the team. So the fact that urgent business requires him to be out of town for the Big Surge is revealing at the very least of how American objectives in Iraq are not at the mercy of forces beyond their control; U.S. military and political muscle can shape conditions on the ground -- if they can demonstrate they're serious about doing so.

Which these days is a pretty big "if." Reporting the sudden relocation, the New York Times decided -- in nothing flat -- that it was yet another disastrous setback. In Iraq, no news is good news, and Sadr news is badder news:

''With the new American offensive in Baghdad still in its early days, American commanders have focused operations in the eastern part of the city, a predominantly Shiite area that has long been the Mahdi Army's power base.

''If Mr. Sadr had indeed fled, his absence would create a vacuum that could allow even more radical elements of the Shiite group to take power.''

As my National Review colleague Rich Lowry marveled: ''So now we need to keep Sadr in Iraq because he's such a stabilizing influence!'' Of course! As Hillaire Belloc wrote, ''Always keep a hold of Nurse/For fear of finding something worse'' -- and, even when Nurse Sadr is blowing up the kids in the nursery every day, it's best to cling to her blood-drenched apron strings because the next nurse will be an even bigger psycho. America is a big helpless baby who's blundered into a war zone he can never hope to understand.

And on top of the Times' constant negativity, Mark also comments on Democrat Jack Murtha's new plan to undermine the war:

Nevertheless, in the capital city of the most powerful nation on the planet, the political class spent last week trying to craft a bipartisan defeat strategy, and they might yet pull it off. Consider this extraordinary report from the Washington Post:

"Democratic leaders have rallied around a strategy that would fully fund the president's $100 billion request for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but would limit his ability to use the money. . . . The plan is aimed at tamping down calls from the Democrats' liberal wing for Congress to simply end funding for the war.

"The Murtha plan, based on existing military guidelines, includes a stipulation that Army troops who have already served in Iraq must be granted two years at home before an additional deployment. . . . The idea is to slowly choke off the war by stopping the deployment of troops from units that have been badly degraded by four years of combat."

So "the Murtha plan" is to deny the president the possibility of victory while making sure Democrats don't have to share the blame for the defeat. But of course he's a great American! He's a patriot! He supports the troops! He doesn't support them in the mission, but he'd like them to continue failing at it for a couple more years.

The Democrats are engaged in a war of their own against the Republicans, President Bush, and the military. As Mark notes, they are trying to create the situation in which America fails in Iraq but in such a way that they not only avoid becoming collateral damage but also benefit from it politically in 2008. For Murtha and his ilk, it's party over country.

Update: Ian at Hot Air has the video of Brit Hume telling the cold, hard truth about Murtha. Here's the transcript:

HUME: That sound bite from John Murtha suggests that it's time a few things be said about him. Even the "Washington Post" noted he didn't seem particularly well informed about what's going on over there, to say the least. Look, this man has tremendous cachet among House Democrats, but he is not -- this guy is long past the day when he had anything but the foggiest awareness of what the heck is going on in the world.

And that sound bite is naivete at large, and the man is an absolute fountain of such talk, and the fact that he has ascended to the position he has in the eyes of the Democrats in the House and perhaps Democrats around the country tells you a lot about how much they know or care about what's really going on over there.

WILLIAMS: He's chairman of the subcommittee, House Appropriations. He'll have a lot to say about what Mara was just discussing

HUME: A lot of it will be ...

Update II: And Brit is not the only one who is finally speaking the truth about Jack Murtha. The Washington Post also criticized Murtha for his plan:

REP. JOHN MURTHA (D-Pa.) has a message for anyone who spent the week following the House of Representatives' marathon debate on Iraq: You've been distracted by a sideshow. "We have to be careful that people don't think this is the vote," the 74-year-old congressman said of the House's 246-182 decision in favor of a resolution disapproving of President Bush's troop surge. "The real vote will come on the legislation we're putting together." That would be Mr. Murtha's plan to "stop the surge" and "force a redeployment" of U.S. forces from Iraq while ducking the responsibility that should come with such a radical step.

Mr. Murtha has a different idea. He would stop the surge by crudely hamstringing the ability of military commanders to deploy troops. In an interview carried Thursday by the Web site MoveCongress.org, Mr. Murtha said he would attach language to a war funding bill that would prohibit the redeployment of units that have been at home for less than a year, stop the extension of tours beyond 12 months, and prohibit units from shipping out if they do not train with all of their equipment. His aim, he made clear, is not to improve readiness but to "stop the surge." 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? Because, Mr. Murtha said, it will deflect accusations that he is trying to do what he is trying to do. "What we are saying will be very hard to find fault with," he said.

So Murtha admits that his plan is all about politics. He doesn't give a damn about our troops, our military, or our country. And the WaPo also hits Murtha for his ignorance about what's really going on in Iraq.

Mr. Murtha's cynicism is matched by an alarming ignorance about conditions in Iraq. He continues to insist that Iraq "would be more stable with us out of there," in spite of the consensus of U.S. intelligence agencies that early withdrawal would produce "massive civilian casualties." He says he wants to force the administration to "bulldoze" the Abu Ghraib prison, even though it was emptied of prisoners and turned over to the Iraqi government last year. He wants to "get our troops out of the Green Zone" because "they are living in Saddam Hussein's palace"; could he be unaware that the zone's primary occupants are the Iraqi government and the U.S. Embassy?

This man has no business even being in Congress let alone the chairman of the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee.

Update III: I highly recommend reading Investor's Business Daily's editorial about Murtha. Here are the last few paragraphs that get straight to the point:

We'd have to go back to Benedict Arnold to find Americans as eager as Murtha & Co. to see an American defeat on the battlefield.

They are working on the game plan of al-Qaida's No. 2, Ayman al-Zawahiri. In October 2005, Zawahiri outlined al-Qaida's plan in a letter to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, late head of al-Qaida in Iraq:

"The first stage: Expel the Americans from Iraq. The second stage: Establish an Islamic authority . . . over as much territory as you can spread its power in Iraq . . . in order to fill the void stemming from the departure of the Americans."

John Murtha and his perfidious friends are working on creating that void and completing Zawahiri's first stage. They are the appeasers Churchill warned about who hope that by feeding the Islamofascist tiger, it will eat us last.

Comments (213)

I keep hearing liberals pro... (Below threshold)

1. Posted by Carl | February 18, 2007 1:53 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

Carl:

I keep hearing liberals proclaming that the military cannot win it all by itself in Iraq and that diplomacy must be used. I find that even conservatives tend to agree with a major caveat: the military might must be present to give the diplomacy the muscle it needs to be persuasive. Unfortunately, this is a caveat the liberals have been rejecting hence the "cut and run" mentality of the Murthas, Reids, Pelosis, etc. Congressional liberals have now painted themselves into a political corner where victory in Iraq is not only undesirable, but failure is necessary if they feel they have any chance in 2008. In their petty politics, victory in Iraq is unnacceptable and they will do almost whatever they can to cause failure. I say "almost" because the non-binding House legislation against the surge shows they are unwilling to take any solid action for which they would have to answer. For example, Congress has the power to cut off all funding of the war in Iraq but even though the "cut and run" liberals keep talking tough, they have thus far refused to even consider actually following through on cutting off funding. If they truly had the intestinal fortitude to take action on their supposed convictions, then they should put bills on the House and Senate floors with on-the-record voting to cut funding. But they know if they did that, whomever voted to cut the funds would be effectively be committing political suicide.

Posted on February 18, 2007 13:53

Murtha's plan will ensure t... (Below threshold)

2. Posted by BarneyG2000 | February 18, 2007 1:59 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

BarneyG2000:

Murtha's plan will ensure that new troops are properly trained and equipped and current troops are rested before deployment. All according to current army regulations.

The republicans want to send unequipped and tired troops into combat where they will be killed at a higher rate than those that are properly trained and equipped.

Way to support the troops republicans!

Posted on February 18, 2007 13:59

Kim: Great post. Your headl... (Below threshold)

3. Posted by Old Coot | February 18, 2007 2:03 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

Old Coot:

Kim: Great post. Your headline tells it like it is; speaking truth to the soon-to-arrive troll-storm.

Posted on February 18, 2007 14:03

Murtha's plan will ensur... (Below threshold)

4. Posted by Mark | February 18, 2007 2:16 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

Mark:

Just curious - if Murtha (and the Democrats) cared so much for the troops safety, then why don't they support this plan for all conflicts? Why just focus on troops going to Iraq?

Posted on February 18, 2007 14:16

The Left is Rootin... (Below threshold)

5. Posted by Publicus | February 18, 2007 2:34 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

Publicus:

The Left is Rooting for America's Defeat in Iraq

LOL! Good one!

Posted on February 18, 2007 14:34

I wonder when Barney will m... (Below threshold)

6. Posted by epqdor | February 18, 2007 2:48 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

epqdor:

I wonder when Barney will mount Spark Plug and ride off into the hills to meet with Snuffy?

Posted on February 18, 2007 14:48

Barneygoogle--can't you com... (Below threshold)

7. Posted by jhow66 | February 18, 2007 2:50 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

jhow66:

Barneygoogle--can't you come up with anything better then that? That senile old bastard should be hung as a traitor for aiding the enemy.
pubichair-tongue tied? No answer? Can't answer when the truth hits you between the eyes? What else do you call it? If the whole country had got behind this from the start,it would have been over long ago. The left has been doing everything it can to hamper Bush's effort to win this thing and to say otherwise is lie.

Posted on February 18, 2007 14:50

Kim,Keep in mind tha... (Below threshold)

8. Posted by Live@9 | February 18, 2007 2:51 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

Live@9:

Kim,
Keep in mind that Rep. Murtha never proposes anything regarding the military unless he gets prior approval (often a wink and a nod) from the Military Brass. He is their mouthpiece in congress when the Executive Branch won't listen to their concerns.

Ok righties, let the flaming begin.

Posted on February 18, 2007 14:51

I know it is difficult for ... (Below threshold)

9. Posted by Jeff Irvin | February 18, 2007 2:59 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

Jeff Irvin:

I know it is difficult for the idolatrous George W. Bush worshippers in the Republican Party to acknowledge this but the United States has achieved both of the objectives it set out to accomplish.

One, we used the United States military to achieve the objective of discovering whether Saddam Hussein had WMDs. He did not. Of course, there were those of us who suspected this all along. The evidence was tenuous at best; and, if this madman had had them surely he would have used them as the US army made its way to Baghdad. After all, what did he have to lose, the support of France, Russia and China? I think we can all agree that we are glad he did not have these things--although I am sure we disagree as to whether this was money and lives well spent.

The second thing we wanted to achieve was the removal of Saddam Hussein. It took us weeks to topple his regime and a year to find him. It was at this point, when he was in US custody, that we missed the opportunity to exit gracefully.

Our military exists to kill people and destroy things. It is meant to make people fear the United States should they act against our national security interests. It is not the Red Cross or the United Nations. It is to these organizations that we should leave the humanitarian aid and nation building--even if they are not always effective.

Once we had achieved our initial objectives we should have told the Iraqi people that they were on their own, but that if we had to come back there for any reason that we would not leave one brick on another, nor would we leave one oil pipeline operational.

What good would a desert without oil or infrastructure do any would-be terrorist organization?

Unfortunately, I do not think any one in the Western world has the stomach for this type of amoral foreign policy. We have convinced ourselves that it is possible to conduct a war within the constraints imposed by a liberal society. If this were possible, why would we even need war?

Posted on February 18, 2007 14:59

I see that none of you answ... (Below threshold)

10. Posted by BarneyG2000 | February 18, 2007 3:08 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

I see that none of you answered my question.

As Rummy said:
You don't go to war with the army you want, you go to war with the army you:
-Under Funded
-Under Equipped
-Under Trained
and
-Burnt-out

Posted on February 18, 2007 15:08

Barney, that's the first ti... (Below threshold)

11. Posted by Henny Penny | February 18, 2007 3:30 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

Henny Penny:

Barney, that's the first time I've seen you blame Congress for anything.

Are you coming around?

Posted on February 18, 2007 15:30

"So the fact that urgent... (Below threshold)

12. Posted by Lee | February 18, 2007 3:32 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

Lee:

"So the fact that urgent business requires him to be out of town for the Big Surge is revealing at the very least of how American objectives in Iraq are not at the mercy of forces beyond their control; U.S. military and political muscle can shape conditions on the ground -- if they can demonstrate they're serious about doing so."

We're going on five years now, and eve now the administration is still not "serious" -- and are only now getting to the point where they may be able to "...demonstrate they're serious about doing so"?

The only reason George is halfway serious now is that he's trying to pull the Republican party out of the trash can before the 2008 elections.

What a sad waste of lives, money, and international goodwill -- all sacrificed so that the GOP and their big-money lobbyists and backers can milk the GWOT for political power and billions in contracts a while longer.

It took the Democrats gaining power in Congress to push the administration into getting serious about securing Iraq, and we are only now getting to the point where they may be able to "...demonstrate they're serious about doing so".

We've got to get these people out of Washington.

Posted on February 18, 2007 15:32

Yeah, but let's not forget ... (Below threshold)

13. Posted by TeesMyBody.com T-Shirts | February 18, 2007 3:53 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

TeesMyBody.com T-Shirts:

Yeah, but let's not forget about Big Oil...

Posted on February 18, 2007 15:53

"The Left is Rooting for Am... (Below threshold)

14. Posted by jp2 | February 18, 2007 4:17 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

jp2:

"The Left is Rooting for America's Defeat in Iraq"

Hopefully Kim has set this up as a macro. Shift+F13 maybe.

Posted on February 18, 2007 16:17

The Tinkerbell plan:<... (Below threshold)

15. Posted by robert the original | February 18, 2007 4:23 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

robert the original:

The Tinkerbell plan:

So, on Fox, several commenters on the panel talked about the very bad things that would happen if we left Iraq quickly.

Juan, big lib from NPR, said that bad things would not happen because it is the US presence that is causing all the trouble anyway. The Iraqis would step up then, Juan said, and settle everything. (Presumably, he thinks Iran would step back, Al Qaeda would go away, and everyone would live happily ever after).

The is the Tinkerbell plan: pull the troops back to Okinawa and then close your eyes and believe...

Peter Pan: "What's the matter with you? It was poison, wasn't it? Tink? Your voice is so low now I can hardly hear you. What's that? You believe that you could get well again... if children only believed in fairies".

Posted on February 18, 2007 16:23

Just curious - if Murth... (Below threshold)

16. Posted by marc | February 18, 2007 4:35 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

marc:

Just curious - if Murtha (and the Democrats) cared so much for the troops safety, then why don't they support this plan for all conflicts? Why just focus on troops going to Iraq?
Posted by: Mark at February 18, 2007 02:16 PM

I agree Mark - Just where is Rep[rehensible] Murtha's plan to limit Naval deployments? For most of my 20 years there was an 18 month turn around policy, for the last few years that has gone down to one year. (U.S.S. Lincoln just left San Dog after LESS than a year at home)

So where is his concern about sending U.S. sailors on deployment without sufficient time for training and maintenance on vital equip?

Can anyone supporting Murtha give an (coherent) answer for him?

Posted on February 18, 2007 16:35

"Kim,Keep in mind th... (Below threshold)

17. Posted by Ran | February 18, 2007 5:09 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

Ran:

"Kim,
Keep in mind that Rep. Murtha never proposes anything regarding the military unless he gets prior approval (often a wink and a nod) from the Military Brass. He is their mouthpiece in congress when the Executive Branch won't listen to their concerns."

They suggested Okinawa ????? Get the name of that "Rent A Brass!"..We want him in Iran's Army!

Posted on February 18, 2007 17:09

Marc and Mark, if you two a... (Below threshold)

18. Posted by BarneyG2000 | February 18, 2007 5:12 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

Marc and Mark, if you two are so concern with how US forces are deployed in violation of army Regs., why haven't you spoken up before?

Why is Murtha (a Democrat) the only person that is concerned with sending US forces in harms way without proper training and equipment? I thought the Pubs were the best friend of the services?

Posted on February 18, 2007 17:12

On FNS, Chris W. provided p... (Below threshold)

19. Posted by BarneyG2000 | February 18, 2007 5:31 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

On FNS, Chris W. provided proof that the D. Feith fibbed on his show last week.

Feith BS'd about presenting non collaborated intelligence that Iraq was involved with al Qaida.

If Feith would lie so brazenly on national TV, you have to wonder how much the administration lied while providing off the record WND leaked intelligence to the American people?

Were is the outrage from the right?

Posted on February 18, 2007 17:31

KimAs is <a href="... (Below threshold)

20. Posted by aRepukelican | February 18, 2007 5:42 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

aRepukelican:

Kim

As is General Odom, monster of the left, one of Ronnie Reagan's good ole boys. Get off your "Drunk with Hatred" over the '06 election loss syndrom.

Posted on February 18, 2007 17:42

Marc and Mark, if you t... (Below threshold)

21. Posted by marc | February 18, 2007 5:43 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

Marc and Mark, if you two are so concern with how US forces are deployed in violation of army Regs., why haven't you spoken up before?Posted by: BarneyG2000 at February 18, 2007 05:12 PM

Why make the assumption I haven't spoken about it. Oh wait, I know, you've read EVERYTHING I've written on the matter and also have the abilities of the Amazing Kreskin.

And on top of the lunacy you imply "army regs" is what controls the U.S. Navy (year right!) and the U.S. armys deployment schedule.

The end result of you idiotic response is a fine display of ignorance not to mention what a tool you are.

Posted on February 18, 2007 17:43

Why is Murtha (a D... (Below threshold)

22. Posted by Steve of Norway | February 18, 2007 5:48 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

Steve of Norway:

Why is Murtha (a Democrat) the only person that is concerned with sending US forces in harms way without proper training and equipment? I thought the Pubs were the best friend of the services? Posted by: BarneyG2000 at February 18, 2007 05:12 PM

Well if Murtha and his fellow democrats had their way, US forces would never be used again. Gosh, soldiers may die when they go to war, one would think you would realize that by now, since only the left *cares* about the soldiers.

Murtha is betraying all those he served with and those currently serving by turning their volunteer service to defend this country into some whiny, anti-Bush bitch-fest for the left.

Would've hated to see you blathering left-tards around 1944.

Posted on February 18, 2007 17:48

Get off your "Drun... (Below threshold)

23. Posted by Steve of Norway | February 18, 2007 5:51 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

Get off your "Drunk with Hatred" over the '06 election loss syndrom. Posted by: aRepukelican at February 18, 2007 05:42 PM

Puke boy, what world do you live where this fantasy land BS keeps coming up? If it weren't sad, it would be real funny with all these contrived thoughts you keep ascribing to those on the right. Keep em' coming Sally.

Posted on February 18, 2007 17:51

OK marc, please take this o... (Below threshold)

24. Posted by BarneyG2000 | February 18, 2007 6:05 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

OK marc, please take this opportunity to bash the Bush administration for sending soldiers to die without proper training, equipment or rest?

You implied that you have in the past, so please set me straight.

Posted on February 18, 2007 18:05

You implied that you ha... (Below threshold)

25. Posted by marc | February 18, 2007 6:37 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

You implied that you have in the past, so please set me straight. Posted by: BarneyG2000 at February 18, 2007 06:05 PM

You ask for the impossible.

Posted on February 18, 2007 18:37

Why make the assumption I h... (Below threshold)

26. Posted by BarneyG2000 | February 18, 2007 6:48 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

Why make the assumption I haven't spoken about it. by marc

You implied that you have in the past, so please set me straight. by barney

You ask for the impossible. by Marc

I guess you are just a poser!

Posted on February 18, 2007 18:48

Barney has been willing to ... (Below threshold)

27. Posted by LoveAmerica Immigrant | February 18, 2007 7:17 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Barney has been willing to promote and defend known liars like Wilson and Brock. So it is not a surprised that he will defend the liberal sewage here. (BTW, the liberals are saying that Bush should have treated the Dems like Clinton and Daschle etc... as liars as they signed the Iraq Liberation Act even before 9/11). Barney is projecting the habit of lying onto Bush. These people can talk about lying with a straight face. Just amazing what the liberal sewage can do to you.

PELOSI: I pray that it does. But the fact is we know that it would increase the odds of it working if there were some sincere efforts to engage the other countries in the region in the diplomatic solutions that are necessary to stabilize the region, and do the political work, do the political work -- that is to say, amend the constitution, include the Sunnis and others into the civic life of Iraq. That's where you go. You don't go into ethnic cleansing of neighborhoods and say, "Now we're going to referee."

Posted on February 18, 2007 19:17

Barney..So let me get this ... (Below threshold)

28. Posted by Ran | February 18, 2007 7:18 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

Barney..So let me get this straight..Murtha is concerned about the troops?.. or is live @9 right, and Murtha is only mouthing what some secret Brass tells him?.. like going to Okinawa

Posted on February 18, 2007 19:18

Who is it that made the ass... (Below threshold)

29. Posted by marc | February 18, 2007 7:18 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

Who is it that made the assertion first? Who was it that made an idiotic statement with nothing but air between the ears, and I'm the one that has to prove you incorrect!

Just because you can't find the answer at your favorite site, loose change, doesn't mean I have to play your game.

Ran, The dems are c... (Below threshold)

30. Posted by LoveAmerica Immigrant | February 18, 2007 7:21 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

Ran,
The dems are concerned about the troops acting like Nazi or involving in ethnic cleansing in Iraq. That 's what they think about the US military.
This dem party is so despicable.

Posted on February 18, 2007 19:21

I am amazed that the libera... (Below threshold)

31. Posted by LoveAmerica Immigrant | February 18, 2007 7:22 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

I am amazed that the liberals/dems can say with a straight face that they care about the troops.

Posted on February 18, 2007 19:22

They hate the troops, they ... (Below threshold)

32. Posted by Jo | February 18, 2007 7:27 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

Jo:

They hate the troops, they hate this country, they hate themselves. They are one of the enemies. We have many, but they're up there.

Posted on February 18, 2007 19:27

I guess no-one on the right... (Below threshold)

33. Posted by BarneyG2000 | February 18, 2007 7:36 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

I guess no-one on the right can point out how sending the troops to their death because they are under trained, and under equipped is supporting the troops?

That is a big problem, because if you can't do it here, how do you think it will play with the American people? Say good bye to the Republican party.

Marc, don't make stupid accusations, if can't back them up with facts.

33. Posted by BarneyG2000 | February 18, 2007 7:36 PM |

The Left is Rooting for America's Defeat in Iraq

TrackBack

Comments (213)