« Welcome to Nashua, NH. Kindly check your Constitutional rights at the city limits (Part II) | Main | Help Wanted - Designer »

With All Due Respect...

Democrats - Sen. Harry Reid in particular - got a dose of their own medicine today. Perhaps they'll remember the foul taste for the next time they want to stage a Hill photo op by invoking some long forgotten Senate rule.

House Republicans should introduce a version of the Murtha plan every week until the 2006 elections. While Rep. Murtha is portrayed as the brave hawk dissident who House Democrats claim is being single out for attack on the floor of the House, nothing could be further from the truth. It's Democrats as a group that are the target of the House Republican theatrics.

Public opinion polls aren't the issue - no one is denying that America suffers from a case of war fatigue - the issue is that Democrats are have reached the point where they've overplayed their hand. They've painted themselves into a tactically loosing corner of calling for withdrawal that politically even they can't support. Of course they figured the moribund Republicans would ignore their rantings as they had done in the past.

Democrats must know that while public opinion (as measured by polls) is is fickle and easily influenced by the media (see the Bush administration's success in convincing the masses that Social Security was a "crisis"), Americans have absolutely no stomach for quitters.

For too long Republicans have been playing "prevent defense," which as any football fan will tell you only prevents you from winning. Perhaps this week is a signal that instead of dropping into a two deep zone, Republicans are going to play man to man and throw in the occasional bum rush blitz. While they're at it they might want to drop the run out the clock ground game and take to an aerial attack. If they get ahead, Republicans would be wise to play the BCS game and run up the score every chance they get...

The message is clear - "finish the job" or "cut and run." There's no middle ground.

Guess which side of that equation takes home the trophy?


Listed below are links to weblogs that reference With All Due Respect...:

» ResurrectionSong linked with Political Theater

» All Things Beautiful linked with The 'Cut and Run' Prescription for Iraq

» Don Surber linked with Dems Retreat From Call For Retreat

» 7 Deadly Sins linked with Pride: Pushback is a ...

» New England Republican linked with Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is

» The Heretik linked with SLIME TIME NEWS

Comments (26)

What he said. When you publ... (Below threshold)

What he said. When you publicly pull your pants down and bend over, you should expect someone to take advantage of your position.

403-3Ouch!<... (Below threshold)



We've already heard it from Kerry - "attack on character, another cowardly attack on character by the Republicans" etc... ...or whatever the hell he said trying to refit the debate. That's strictly a paraphrase, but it's the same old tired shit.

If it had been Republican member of congress - the vote would have been the same.

But - these outbursts coming from the Democrats are remarkably similar to suicide bombings - random, unsuccessful and juicy media fodder.

I have nothing against this man - he's obviously walked in the steps of our current heroes, however, if anyone should know about the undermining capability of the world's media - it's him. Tsk, tsk tsk.

"Victory means exit stra... (Below threshold)

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is"

eh, while I'm here.<p... (Below threshold)

eh, while I'm here.

House Republicans should introduce a version of the Murtha plan every week until the 2006 elections.

But not the actual Murtha plan, of course. God forbid they actually debate proposals that are introduced by the opposition. Better to introduce sham amendments for everyone to vote down. Ah, democracy.

They've painted themselves into a tactically loosing corner of calling for withdrawal that politically even they can't support.

Maybe some of them have, but not here. This was a resolution introduced by one member of the House with the intention of opening debate on the issue (after being fed up with having the WH & Congressional leadership refuse to answer any questions or debate the war and its progress). Some Democrats like Murtha's resolution, some don't, and many have not said at all (same with Republicans). But we don't get to know what they think of it because we have this bullshit instead.

The message is clear - "finish the job" or "cut and run." There's no middle ground.

No, the message is clear - "Shut up and let us take care of it, no matter how long it takes or at what cost. And don't bother asking any questions or having an opinion on any plans or strategy. Traitor." or "cut and run". There actually is a middle ground.

As an exercise, please finish this sentence (just Iraq, mind you; not talking about the GWOT):

Victory in Iraq is defined as ______________, and that will take approximately ______________ years.

As a bonus, how would the Pentagon and/or White House answer?

You want the terrorists to ... (Below threshold)

You want the terrorists to have a date to mark on their day planners, don't you mantis? Your mentality, what little there is of it, surrendered long ago.

"Victory means exit stra... (Below threshold)

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is"


To whom is the exit strategy supposed to be explained to?

Victory in Iraq is defin... (Below threshold)

Victory in Iraq is defined as ______________, and that will take approximately ______________ years.

So, I guess it's mad-libs - but the difference that jackasses like you, mantis, are playing for could potentially feed the enemy strategic and tactical military information. How would you prefer that this information be disseminated - via cable news or the web? They'll never look there...

As a bonus, how would the Pentagon and/or White House answer?

What is this to you liberals, some sort of morbid roulette?

"Victory means exit stra... (Below threshold)

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is"


To whom is the exit strategy supposed to be explained to?

snowballs, that quote is Bush talking about Clinton in 1999. I assume he mean the exit strategy should be explained to the American people. I'm glad you think he's wrong though.

You want the terrorists ... (Below threshold)

You want the terrorists to have a date to mark on their day planners, don't you mantis?

I never mentioned dates. Besides, if we win, then who cares if the terrorists knew the date in advance? They'll be dead, right? I'm just curious about how long that will take.

Victory in Iraq is defin... (Below threshold)

Victory in Iraq is defined as a democratic Iraq able to defend itself
, and that will take approximately
however long it takes. Before we went in, Bush said that it could be years.

Yarg. PIMF when playing wit... (Below threshold)

Yarg. PIMF when playing with the formatting...

Clinton in 1999... (Below threshold)

Clinton in 1999

vs. Bush in 2005...

So why is this the same? This ought to be pretty good...

If calling for a vote on a ... (Below threshold)

If calling for a vote on a proposal by a member of Congress is a "political stunt" what does that say for the original proposal?

Admit it, it was a political stunt as well...and they got caught with their hand in the proverbial cookie jar.

It was <a href="http://www.... (Below threshold)

It was high time for this. I'm glad the House GOP contingent didn't flub the moment.

RE: mantis' post (November ... (Below threshold)

RE: mantis' post (November 19, 2005 01:38 AM)
God forbid they actually debate proposals that are introduced by the opposition.

Well, I'm still waiting for some and have been for many months. I can flip on the TV and hear ad nauseum about how "Bush lied" and illegally dragged us into an improper war but I can't hear a tangible plan from the Democratic party on how to conclude this supposed disaster. The well of the House is not the only place to present ideas and playing this Murtha trial balloon as the introduction to "serious debate" smacks of political opportunism versus cogent thought.

My perception is that progress is continuing, that the wheels of justice in prosecuting this war are succeeding, that the terrorists are becoming more desperate, that their sphere of influence is shrinking and splitting. Democrats (or the wildly anti-Bush) recognize this and want to tarnish the shine that is getting buffed on that part of the globe.

Politically it is a good move (despite the morality of it all) to get ahead of the evolving scenario and propose withdrawal. Everyone knows American troops will begin to be withdrawn in the not too distant future as the defense infrastructure in Iraq hardens and the fledgling government stabilizes. I figure the "D"s feel comfortable enough now in their security (as in life) that retreating would be acceptable - premature and foolhardy in my mind, but a legitimate point to be made. I also figure that with the right timing, they can proclaim that it was the withdrawal of troops that allowed for stability to take which would allow them to take credit for resolving this conflict. Such a tact could be parlayed into nice talking points for the next few elections. The truth is that stability was attained before troop withdrawal and downsizing our presence was inevitable. Again, this is a political timing issue for the Dems (broadstroke here) more than it is a philosophical one of conflict resolution and the most expedient method to attain it.

Having speculated this, I'd still like to see real, definable plans from the Democrats other than "it's time to bring the troops home". Clearly, the political Left will not support that which they have advocated to varying degrees. Oh, they'll present loads of rhetoric, but the legal record exposes their official position; and, officially, they don't support their rhetoric. That's contemptible.

There you go again, declari... (Below threshold)

There you go again, declaring victory while in the middle of losing. Please interrupt your incessant backpatting and declarations of victory to explain exactly what the Republicans achieved with their stunt? And to clarify, when the Democrats invoked Rule 21, it wasn't just to make the Republicans look bad. It was to force them to take action that they were obligated to take but were arrogantly refusing to do, namely begin Phase 2 of the Itelligence Committee investigation (which succeeded completely). The Republicans put forth a non-binding resolution that was not the same as the Murtha proposal, and in the process allowed Jean Schmidt to embarrass herself. Now I'm sure you think the public will fall for the line that virtually every House Democrat voted to continue the war. But guess what? The voters who allowed their fear of terror to sway them into believeing that Democrats had voted against homeland security and other lies are a little smarter now. They've seen the consequences of their vote, and know better than to make that mistake again. And they can make their own judgements about the character of John Murtha versus the Republican leadership.

So I repeat my question. What exactly did the Republicans gain last night?

The Dems asked for it and t... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

The Dems asked for it and they got it. Guess they didn't like it, though.

Someday, the Dems may get serious about national defense. I hope it's soon. Neither the terrorists nor the American voters respect 'cut-and-run'.

I think that instead of wee... (Below threshold)

I think that instead of weekly introducing a resolution that we we cut and run at the earliest definable time (the Murtha plan), we should weekly introduce a resolution that we will stay until we achieve victory and that the president is authorized to use force against any country that aids or abets terrorists entering Iraq. Or maybe we could alternate the two resolutions so the news papers have something different to say every week.

Suffer a slight diversion p... (Below threshold)

Suffer a slight diversion please, as this relates to the issue at hand.

All this whining about war draggin' on and all reminds me of a scenario I saw too often in my oncologist days.

Granted, much of what cancer doctors should be doing is not curing but caring, but there are some advanced cancers [read Al Qeda] which are curable. The treatments are sometimes quite harsh [war is hell], and have many risks [good people die] with no absolute guarantees of success. However, the alternative of no treatment, or palliative treatment instead of curative treatment, has a guaranteed outcome.

A patient with say leukemia or lymphoma, if they committed to a curative regimen, they persevered and put up with the nasties as long as there was a glimmer of hope. But their Yuppie professor children/friends/parents would stop by and see the suffering, and either demand or attempt to cajole the patient accept "an exit strategy." They'd come repleat with reaves of "information" gleaned from the internet. Fortunately, most of the time their potential victims kindly ignored them. I see a pattern here.

Anyone else have similar observations in different arenas?

Now go ahead moonbats, and blather on about how the populace has been mislead, etc. I had the same accustions made from time to time by folks who believed that Laetrile and CanCel were the only real cures for cancer, and that I was but a small part of a huge conspiracy, etc.

Give one example where your approach has worked in history, and I will consider it a single case report. Show how time and time again appeasement and diplomacy without threat and execution of force have worked for prosperity and stabilized a nation threatened by violence from without and within, and you may have an evidence based method I'll consider.

Until then, these antics like the one in the House, are at best horribly misled intentions that distract from and may embolden our opponent Islamo-facists.

>So I repeat my question. W... (Below threshold)

>So I repeat my question. What exactly did the Republicans gain last night?

That Democrats are Cowards and frauds?

Be real, the Democrats put Murtha up to this to try and frame the anti-war position prior to Thanksgiving break, when extended families get together around the table. This was most likely also coordinated with the MSM to run programing and ad's promoting a reduction of forces that has already been reported and the Dem's want to claim credit for it after doing everthing they could to undermine the liberation of 50 million oppressed people. How could the Left cope with Bush starting and winning a war after the failures by Clinton in the same arena? History will show Bush was right, as FDR was, and the Moonbats where phonys.

Echo-ing AnonymousDrivel a... (Below threshold)

Echo-ing AnonymousDrivel and TrueLib:

What's it called?, a Coup D' Etat, or something like that. Funny how the Dems keep searching for a "solid" plank to stand on, and still come up with the "we are winning this WOT and we need headlines too" syndrome.

Remember how in 94 Clinton turned in a Budget package that was in excess of 350 billion, but a new congressional leadership (for the first time in forty years) passed a BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT that Clinton was forced to sign, and then proceeded (attempted) to take credit for it ?

Well, it's happening again. Same old playbook. With the Iraqi December elections coming to pass and Zarqawi and his nutbags loosing any credibility by blowing up Muslim's, this WOT, (at least in Iraq) will wind down next year. The Iraqi army is now 200k strong and growing. Our President will start to bring our forces home when the generals (on the ground) tell him, and the Iraqi leaders say so.

Despite all the gloom and doom the MSM is writing about, the people of Iraq are getting stronger by the day.

Even the intelligent democrats see the writing on the wall and they need to steal some of the "thunder of victory" by bringing this stupid debate of troop withdrawal.

Rather than let them carry this leaking pale of water, the Republicans just let it come to a floor vote and put an end to the BS. Results, 403-3 , the nays have it.

The Dems needed to have something to take home to their constituents during this holiday break. "Bush Lied" doesn't work, Plamegate fizzled, and worse (for the Dems) gas prices are plummeting and the economy is clicking along at a healthy pace.Spending all their energy of obstructionism filibustering Alito won't work either.

So what's a Democrat to do? Their negative posturing and lack of a platform just isn't cutting the mustard these days, and it won't win elections. If they think they can be responsible for bringing troops home and claiming victory for the salvation of 50 million Iraqis, they are sadly mistaken. George W. Bush took down Saddam Hussein and freed these people. Democracy in the Middle East? Who'd da thunk it? The Democrats just can't (or refuse) to find something positive to say about the things this President has accomplished. It's just not their nature. Oh, and "where's Osama? Who gives a shit.

After John Cole at Balloon ... (Below threshold)

After John Cole at Balloon Juice, this is the best analysis of the Murtha Moment

I am fascinated by this not... (Below threshold)

I am fascinated by this notion that some people put forward that anyone should know how long it will take to finish the mission in Iraq. How is anyone supposed to know this? Did anyone know how long it would take to defeat the nazis and erbuild Germany and Japan?

As an independent voter, what I would like to see the dems do is demand that the pace of the work in Iraq be quickened. It has never been the goal of the Bush administration to remain permanently in Iraq and the dems can't make the case that anyone thinks that was the plan. But I would like to see the whole thing move faster so that our troops COULD get home sooner. Whether than means taking stronger action against insurgents even at the cost of civilian lives, well, maybe that is the answer. I think we SHOULD be careful with civilians, but if it means our troops could come home sooner, well, let's go ahead and get it over with. I think it's the pace of the war that is disturbing to so many people. But the pace is what we've chosen. We've hamstrung ourselves to some extent with concern about how detainees are treated and with concern for civilians. Not saying thosepolicies are wrong but they do prolong the action. We have to understand that if we want to pursue policies that say detainees have the same rights as everyone else even when they're caught acting against the US on a battlefield, then it's going to take longer.

The Murtha plan wasn't cut ... (Below threshold)

The Murtha plan wasn't cut and run. Not at all, it was cut and jog!

Given the horrendous death ... (Below threshold)

Given the horrendous death toll and ensuing communist regime take-over in Viet Nam and surrounding areas after our "redeployment at the earliest practicable date" there, I want to know exactly which of our 'leaders' is going stand up and state in writing legally and for the record the they are willing to personally be held accountable for the "Vietnam'ing" of Iraq. That if the enemy for some strange reason is not so overwhelmed by our running away that they spontaneously behead themselves and so cease being a threat to the Iraqi people and the region, and instead decide to ravage the Iraqi people (as they have already said they will do), these leaders are standing up and doing the honorable and right thing. So when anyone asks "Who did this, who is responsible?", we are all completely clear and their is no discussion needed on whom exactly to hold accountable for an easily predictable outcome.

Kevin, I will watch with in... (Below threshold)

Kevin, I will watch with interest to see when and how your country and mine "finish the job." I'll also be interested to see when and how our two countries "cut and run." I have very little doubt that they will do the second, while claiming to have done the first. And when they do, I'll be interested to hear your take on their spin.

In the meantime I will continue to respect Murtha and continue to have no respect for most, but not all, of his fellow congressmen. It doesn't surprise me in the slightest that Congress's approval ratings are even lower than Bush's. One side defends the indefensible, while the other tries to pretend that it wasn't equally responsible for the mess we are all now in.






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy