ARS on Twitter
RSS
Dhimmicrats or Surrendercrats?
Posted by Duncan on April 8th, 2008
Perhaps both? I am trying to figure out which accurately describes the party of Roosevelt and Kennedy (John, not Ted).
Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich), Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, opened the hearing where General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker were set to testify to the situation in Iraq and the progress of “The Surge” and its eventual drawdown. Here is what he said:
To open the hearing, Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., said recent fighting in Iraq has cast new questions on the effectiveness of the U.S. troop surge, and the United States must move toward shifting the burden of fixing Iraq over to the Iraqis.
“The purpose of the surge as announced by President Bush last year … has not been achieved,” said Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Reminds me when Senator Harry Reid (D – Nev) came out and declared The Surge a failure before it even really started. Now that we’re well into The Surge, the Surrendercrats are grasping onto ANYTHING to declare it a complete and utter failure.
Levin said the recent outbreak of fighting in Basra “leads many of us to once again challenge Bush’s policies.” He called Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s plans “haphazardly” developed, and said the United States must “force that government to take responsibility for their own future. (emphasis mine)
Didja get that? Our enemy has just learned (just learned? nah, they know, this just reaffirms it) that everytime they either strike or fight back, even if they lose completely in the effort (ie: Tet Offensive), the Party of Surrender, and their willing accomplices in the MSM, are ready to wave the white flag and proverbially snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Under questioning by Levin, Petraeus said he could not predict when troop reductions would be resumed or how many U.S. troops were likely to remain in Iraq by the end of this year.
…
Levin reminded Petraeus that Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said a “pause” in troop reductions should be “brief.” Noting that Petraeus used neither word, Levin said the Petraeus plan amounted to an open-ended suspension.
“What you’ve given to your chain of command is a plan which has no end to it,” Levin said. He asked Petraeus when he would be in position to recommend further troop cuts, once the 45-day evaluation period ends in September.
“It could be right then, or it could be longer,” the general said. He declined to be pinned down, saying he would recommend further cuts when conditions were right.
When conditions are right. No General Petreaus, that is not acceptable. The Party of Surrender requires that we have a timetable for withdrawal, preferably one that can fit on the pages of the New York Times and is written in arabic and farsi so that the PoS’s allies in the region don’t have to translate.
April 11th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
Bite me…I’ve tagged you with teh latest virus spreading ’round the internets. LOL!!