Pelosi, Murtha Visit Iraq, Schedule Phony Photo Ops

The SF Chronicle is reporting that Nancy Pelosi is meeting with al-Maliki today. Here's what we know:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has traveled to Iraq for a quick fact-finding visit that will include a meeting with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

The congressional delegation traveling with the Democratic speaker from San Francisco includes Rep. Tom Lantos, D-San Mateo, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Rep. Ike Skelton, (D-MO), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, and Rep. John Murtha, (D-PA), who more than a year ago urged President Bush to withdraw American forces from Iraq and is chairman of the appropriations subcommittee that oversees the military budget.

After endlessly criticizing the Iraq War, Pelosi and Murtha have finally made a trip to Iraq. This is merely for show. Don't think that this is about gathering information. It's about them getting a photo-op, then adding the words "I just returned from Iraq" to their endless criticism of the President Bush's policies.

The AP has quoted Ms. Pelosi in this article:

"We come out of the meeting with a greater understanding of the others' point of view," Pelosi, (D-CA), said, in brief remarks after the meeting. She said the delegation also came "to convey to our troops the appreciation of the American people for what they're doing, to applaud their patriotism."

I'd love to hear Ms. Pelosi explain how she and Murtha can demoralize the troops and embolden the terrorists in one breath then say that they want to "convey to our troops the appreciation of the American people" and "applaud their patriotism" with their next breath. She must know that they're undercutting the troops' mission and that that can't have a positive effect on the troops.

It's downright infuriating to hear Pelosi's and Murtha's mantra of "We support the troops but not the mission." It isn't just Pelosi's and Murtha's mantra, either. It's the Democrats' mantra, too. Frankly, it's insulting, especially in light of Sen. Feingold's announcement that he's scheduled a hearing on whether Congress "has the authority to cut off funding for the U.S. military campaign in Iraq."

"I will soon be introducing legislation to use the power of the purse to end what is clearly one of the greatest mistakes in the history of the nation’s foreign policy."

This hearing is purely show. He knows that Congress has the power of the purse and can stop funding the war at any time. His framing this hearing that way is disingenuous to the max. If Ms. Pelosi is right that the "American people" "appreciate their patriotism and what they're doing" so much, why is Sen. Feingold introducing legislation that will prevent them from doing what they're trained to do?

Let's not forget what Gen. Petraeus testified to during his confirmation hearing:

"If we are to carry out the Multinational Force Iraq mission in accordance with the new strategy, the additional forces that have been directed to move to Iraq will be essential, as will greatly increased support by our government’s other agencies, additional resources for reconstruction and economic initiatives, and a number of other actions critical to what must be a broad, comprehensive, multifaceted approach to the challenges in Iraq," Army Lt. Gen. David Petraeus said at his confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

In other words, pacifists like Feingold, Murtha and Kucinich are either saying that (a) they think that Gen. Petraeus is lying under oath; that (b) he's just the Bush administration's mouthpiece; that (c) they don't care about defeating the terrorists in Iraq or (d) all of the above. That's hardly the way to show appreciation to genuine patriots.

I'd add that it's obvious from Gen. Petraeus' history in Iraq that he's an advocate of the President's plan. He used the same policy to clean up Mosul, which is a genuine Iraqi success story. The least Feingold, Pelosi and Murtha should do is give this policy a chance.

One thing that the politicians have lost track of is that the American people demand that the government to protect us from future terrorist attacks. Leaving Iraq in defeat won't prevent future terrorist attacks; it will encourage terrorists to increase the number of attacks. President Bush's role as Commander-In-Chief mandates that he do that. The AUMF that the House and Senate passed in the days immediately after 9/11 mandates President Bush to do that, too.

If Feingold and others cut off funding for the troops, they'll essentially be telling the American people that the Constitution's mandating the protection of the American homeland is limited in scope, something that they'd have a difficult time defending.

If Pelosi, Murtha and Feingold stop funding the war, terrorist attacks will happen. When they do, the blood of Americans will be on their hands because they will have made it easier for terrorists to operate and plan.

Pelosi and Murtha going to Iraq, like much of what Democrats do, is purely show. They went there with their 'verdict' rendered. They're just gathering anecdotal information which they'll use to justify the policies they've been held since Thanksgiving, 2005. They should be ashamed of themselves for calling this a fact-finding trip because they aren't there to gather information. They're there for a couple photo ops and a couple meaningless soundbites. Frankly, they wouldn't know a new fact if it bit them in their sizable backsides.

Technorati: Pelosi, Murtha, Maliki, Petraeus, President Bush, Mosul, Surge, Constitution, Commander-In_Chief, Feingold, CentCom, Terrorists, Homeland Security

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

The Legend of Sir Murtha...(with apologies to Monty Python)

(click pic for full size)

Bravely bold Sir Murtha rode forth to Fallujah!
He was not afraid to die, O brave Sir Murtha!
He was not at all afraid to be killed in nasty ways
Brave, brave, brave, brave Sir Murtha

He was not in the least bit scared to be mashed into a pulp
Or to have his eyes gouged out and his elbows broken
To have his kneecaps split and his body burned away
And his limbs all hacked and mangled, brave Sir Murtha!

His head smashed in and his heart cut out
And his liver removed and his bowels unplugged
And his nostrils raped and his bottom burnt off
And his penis...
(Well that's enough music for now, lads...)

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Brave Sir Murtha ran away - No!
Bravely ran away, away - I didn't!
When danger reared its ugly head
He bravely turned his tail and fled - No!
Yes, brave Sir Murtha turned about
And gallantly he chickened out
Bravely taking to his feet
He beat a very brave retreat
Bravest of the brave, Sir Murtha.

Murtha: Run away!!! FOR GOD SAKES--RUN AWAYY!

What the hell is with this assclown? Is he in Al Sadr's pocket?

Not only has Jack Murtha advocated for immediate pullout from Iraq, thus ensuring U.S. defeat, he's trying to engineer it.

Murtha urges leaving Saddam’s palaces

By Kimberly Hefling - The Associated Press
Posted : Wednesday Jan 24, 2007 6:38:09 EST

Democratic Rep. John Murtha, a leading critic of President Bush’s Iraq policy, on Tuesday urged a “responsible phased” withdrawal of U.S. troops to begin from within Saddam Hussein’s palaces.

"Responsible phased" withdrawal. Heh. Like it is the responsible thing to do to accept defeat.

What's next? I wouldn't be surprised to hear Jack Murtha say, "Yep, get out of Saddam's palaces. Then, bend over and kiss Sadr's ass, while you're at it! Then beat your chests and say, "We were wrong to get rid of Saddam!" and then..."

Thanks, PA-12... for giving us two more years of this traitorous, senile gasbag.

Murtha smells victory in defeat...

I could have written this headline last May.

Democrats reject Bush's 'way forward'
WASHINGTON — Democrats launched an immediate counterattack against President Bush's new Iraq strategy Wednesday. Rep. John Murtha vowed to try to block Bush's plan from his perch as chairman of the House defense appropriations subcommittee.

"Escalating our military involvement in Iraq sends precisely the wrong message, and we oppose it," the Democratic leadership in the House and Senate said in a statement released after the speech. (read the rest here)

Bush could have come up with a plan tonight that would literally not only have immediately delivered victory in Iraq and GWOT, but would have simultaneously ended world hunger and cured the problems of AIDS, global warming, and missing socks; but even if he did, democrats, being the defeatist, power-hungry bastards that they are, would have none of it. Far from having the best interest of our nation at heart, they are all too willing to sell it out to our enemies, lest they allow Bush to have a political victory through American victory in the war.

Goddamn it--I WILL CHALLENGE JACK MURTHA'S PATRIOTISM.

Either get on the team and support your nation during a time of war, or move the hell out.

Elitist, self-serving Bastards. The whole lot of them.

Regarding the President's speech tonight...

A great rundown of the speech can be found here.

My favorite part, and the one that gives me the most hope?

"And there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have. Our military commanders reviewed the new Iraqi plan to ensure that it addressed these mistakes. They report that it does."

WOOOT!

Our son has told us that the Rules of Engagement (ROE's) for National Guardsmen are so tight that they cannot fire upon terrorists that are fleeing, even though they had just been fired upon. The only thing they can do is fire a flare over the offender's shoulder.

Support will come for this war when the ROE's are such that it allows our soldiers to do their job.

Support will come with success.

And success will come, despite Jack Murtha's death wish for disaster in Iraq.

Oversight? Or micromanagement?

True to form, megalomaniacal congressman Jack Murtha, rather than focusing on defeat for our enemies in the GWOT, is trying his level best to engineer our own defeat

(emphases mine):

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Rep. John Murtha said Tuesday that he planned to hold hearings on closing down the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and threatened to "cut off the money" to make it happen.

"This is an eyesore to the country," the veteran congressman, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee's defense subcommittee, said of the facility, where about 400 detainees from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are kept.

Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat, said Congress could easily effect the change he seeks.

"We just cut off the money," he said.

An eyesore to the country? Does Murtha think we should house our enemies at the Waldorf Astoria?

As Mark asserted, the Guantanamo Bay argument is just another in a long string of disconnected, inane strawman issues used by the left in their endless attempts to focus attention away from the larger aims of our war effort; as well as to drain support for our troops' mission and the successful prosecution of this war. Charge after charge of abuse at Guantanamo has been leveled, from "Koran flushing" to prisoner abuse. Each charge has been debunked or at worst isolated and non-systematic; and, despite the types of prisoners being housed there, some, rather than abuse, have reported quite the contrary.

Like it or not, we are at war. The fact that our side quits or concedes on any front will in no way assuage our enemies nor hinder their determination to do us harm. In fact, quite the opposite is true. For Murtha to attempt to micromanage and usurp the CIC role, just because he can, suggests the height of extra-Constitutional self-aggrandizement to the absolute detriment of the interests of this nation and of the safety of its citizenry.

---------------------------
Also posted at Psycmeistr's Ice Palace and Blogs for Bush.

Murtha to Bush: "I Won't Let You Win This War"

While Jihad Johnny didn't make that specific statement, that's what his latest scheme amounts to. Here's what the WSJ is reporting:

But Mr. Murtha, chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, believes the November election results show voters want Congress to be more of a check on Mr. Bush's handling of Iraq. His goal is to build bipartisan support by focusing the debate on whether increasing troop levels would be too much of a strain on the military.

This is nothing more than a subtle way of limiting the President's military options. They approved the AUMF to wage war in Iraq, which is their Constitutional responsibility. Now, however, they're essentially stepping into the role of Commander-In-Chief, telling the President that they have final say on military policies. That hardly seems like a Legislative Branch prerogative.

Let's also call this for what it is: this is John Murtha's slimy way of saying he won't let the President win the war while pretending to support the troops. As Leo said,"Murtha supports our troops like an arsonist supports firefighters."

Another 'benefit' for the Democrats is that they can prevent the President from winning in Iraq without cutting funding. Rest assured, this won't sit well with conservatives. Rest assured, this will be the conservatives' rallying cry because we won't settle for anything less than full military and political victory in Iraq.

We shouldn't have to settle for the Vietnamization of Iraq. The debate shouldn't have focused on whether we should "immediately redeploy" to Okinawa. The debate should've been about what should be done to defeat the terrorists while installing a democracy in one of the baddest 'neighborhoods' in the Middle East.

The truth is that John Murtha and like-minded Democrats don't have the steadfastness to win wars. It's like they're deathly afraid of winning militarily when it really matters. In my opinion, they should be ashamed to call themselves Democrats. There are some of us who remember that Democrats used to be hawkish. Today's Democrats, with Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller being the exceptions, are short on hawks but long on ish when it comes to military matters.

There used to be a time when Democrats like JFK, Harry Truman, FDR, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Scoop Jackson and Hubert Humphrey cared about winning wars. There was a time when jackasses like Murtha would've been relegated to the back bench of the Democratic Party.

It's time that more people contacted their representatives and told them that they demand that we win the war in Iraq, that we don't want Democrats to create a new Vietnam through their defeatist policies.

One last thing: I won't tapdance on whether John Murtha is a patriot. He isn't. Forgive me if I don't think it's patriotic to tell our troops that you won't let them win a war.

Technorati: John Murtha, Defeatocrats, JFK, Truman, FDR, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Scoop Jackson, Hubert Humphrey, Immediate Redeployment, Okinawa

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog