Dems determined to repeat ‘nam defeat with a defeat in Iraq

Posted by: ST on January 10, 2007 at 3:54 pm

Gateway Pundit slams home a point I’ve had floating around in my mind the last several weeks (but haven’t articulated) with his post titled “How Democrats Lost Vietnam… And, How They Plan On Losing Iraq“.

Cox and Forkum say it another way:

On the issue of opposing additional troops and trying to show it by withholding funds for the war, John Dickerson at Slate thinks that Senator Ted Kennedy is on his own in wanting to ‘stop the surge’ via cutting off war funding. I think on that score, he’s incorrect (more here).

Correction: Dickerson points out in the comments section that he did note that Kennedy would probably have more allies in the House than Senate. My mistake (that’s what I get for speed reading!)

Hat tip: Good Lt at The Jawa Report

Read more via: MKH, Blackfive, Dan Riehl, James Joyner, Decision ’08, AJ Strata, Blue Crab Boulevard

RSS feed for comments on this post.

3 Responses to “Dems determined to repeat ‘nam defeat with a defeat in Iraq”

Comments

  1. Thanks for linking to the piece. A tiny clarification:

    You say:

    “John Dickerson at Slate thinks that Senator Ted Kennedy is on his own in wanting to ‘stop the surge’ via cutting off war funding. I think on that score, he’s incorrect”

    You link to a piece that says Murtha also wants to cut off funds. That very point is in my piece:

    “Kennedy may find more allies on the House side. On Sunday, Speaker Nancy Pelosi hinted that Democrats might cut off funding for the troop increase when Bush makes his supplemental budget request to keep the war going. John Murtha, who chairs the defense appropriations committee, where the supplemental would be debated, is planning to hold hearings within a week to pick apart the president’s plan and perhaps put forward his own surge-killing legislation to limit funding and troop levels.”

  2. Just noted the correction in my post – thanks for letting me know :)

  3. PCD says:

    Again, no one is making the Democrats BE specific and making them explain victory or how their plans achieve victory. Could it be the Democrats are not honest and can not admit they are Defeatocrats?