Proletariat Blog

Incredible. I am literally amazed.

Democrats have decided to, “slow-bleed,” the troops in Iraq in order to end the war.

Top House Democrats, working in concert with anti-war groups, have decided against using congressional power to force a quick end to U.S. involvement in Iraq, and instead will pursue a slow-bleed strategy designed to gradually limit the administration’s options. ~politico.com

Don’t get me wrong, this is exactly what I expected. But I am still amazed.

In addition, Murtha, acting with the backing of the House Democratic leadership, will seek to limit the time and number of deployments by soldiers, Marines and National Guard units to Iraq, making it tougher for Pentagon officials to find the troops to replace units that are scheduled to rotate out of the country. Additional funding restrictions are also being considered by Murtha, such as prohibiting the creation of U.S. military bases inside Iraq, dismantling the notorious Abu Ghraib prison and closing the American detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. ~politico.com

So this is what supporting the troops but not the mission looks like. Proclaiming defeat, and sounding the retreat! Kind of Benedict Arnold don’t ya think?

It’s as if Democrats want to ensure that Al Qaeda can be free to rule Iraq. Even as Al Qaeda leader after Al Qaeda leader is killed or captured. And the promises and boasts of jihad fall flat on their face.

BAGHDAD, Iraq – The leader of al-Qaida in Iraq was wounded and an aide was killed in a clash Thursday with Iraqi forces north of Baghdad, the Interior Ministry spokesman said.

The clash occurred near Balad, a major U.S. base about 50 miles north of the capital, Brig. Gen Abdul-Karim Khalaf said.

Khalaf said al-Qaida in Iraq leader Abu Ayyub al-Masri was wounded and his aide, identified as Abu Abdullah al-Majemaai, was killed. ~msnbc.com

According to Murtha our troops are incapable of fighting these undefeatable freedom fighters in Iraq. This is what Democrats consider ‘supporting the troops’. Sounds more like an insult to me.

The truth about Iraq is that we are winning, we have been winning, and we will win. The only thing that could possibly change this outcome are politicians who want to avoid victory at all costs.

Our troops defeat the bad guys every single day. We have lost no battles and we have continued to grind the enemy down.

How are the bad guys doing in Iraq? The Iraqi media is full of information on what the various Sunni, Shia and Kurdish factions are up to. Lots of the reporting is speculation, but a lot of it is not. If you’ve been following the action long enough, you can pick out the accurate stories. And the talk on the street and in the shops is also pretty dependable. That said, most people believe al Qaeda in Iraq is finished. After boasting last Fall that they would establish a safe zone in western Iraq, and failing to do anything close to that, the Islamic terrorists lost whatever credibility they had left. Most of the terrorist bombings these days are the work of Iraqi Sunni Arab organizations, who still believe that if you make the Iraqi Shia Arabs mad enough, they will get so nasty that neighboring Sunni Arab nations will feel compelled to invade. ~strategypage.com

Why the invasion of Iraq was necessary.

Was it necessary? In retrospect Democrats want to make believe that it doesn’t matter that they voted for the war and now want to abandon it. It does matter. And if responsible Democrats were thinking rationally they would understand that the short term political gain of defeating Bush at the cost of losing a war will not outweigh the long term loss of being responsible for a shameful surrender.

Was the invasion of Iraq necessary? If you listened to Democrats in congress authorizing the war, it was imperative. Now they say that it was not, that Iraq was never a threat.