And you will not be surprised to find out what it is. Disgusted, but not surprised. Via John Bresnahan at The Politico:
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.
Led by Rep. John P. Murtha, D-Pa., and supported by several well-funded anti-war groups, the coalition’s goal is to limit or sharply reduce the number of U.S. troops available for the Iraq conflict, rather than to openly cut off funding for the war itself.
The legislative strategy will be supplemented by a multimillion-dollar TV ad campaign designed to pressure vulnerable GOP incumbents into breaking with President Bush and forcing the administration to admit that the war is politically unsustainable.
As described by participants, the goal is crafted to circumvent the biggest political vulnerability of the anti-war movement — the accusation that it is willing to abandon troops in the field. That fear is why many Democrats have remained timid in challenging Bush, even as public support for the president and his Iraq policies have plunged.
Murtha and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., have decided that they must take the lead in pressuring not only Republicans but also cautious Senate Democrats to take steps more aggressive than nonbinding resolutions in challenging the Bush administration.
The House strategy is being crafted quietly, even as the chamber is immersed this week in an emotional, albeit mostly symbolic, debate over a resolution expressing opposition to Bush’s plan to “surge” 21,500 more troops into Iraq.
NPR’s Interview with Rep. Murtha
Murtha, the powerful chairman of the defense subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, will seek to attach a provision to an upcoming $93 billion supplemental spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan. It would restrict the deployment of troops to Iraq unless they meet certain levels adequate manpower, equipment and training to succeed in combat. That’s a standard Murtha believes few of the units Bush intends to use for the surge would be able to meet.
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.
Eleven House Republicans are on board with this plan.
Bryan at Hot Air has more links, along with a very appropriate response.
Update: Here’s the contact info (scroll) for the Republicans in the House who are siding with the Dems on this.
| Email This Post | Print This |
So are the money they plan to bleed away is going for these ads?
Isn’t that the same as “special interest” groups defining and shaping policy?
Isn’t that something Dmeocrats were completely against? or is it only if it doesn’t hurt them monetarily and vote wise?
Only against special interest when its convienent?
Well-funded special interest groups and Murtha…..hmmm that seems to be right down Murtha’s alley now doesn’t it?
I am not surprised it is being crafted quietly. Not surprised at all.
If this is something big for them, why are they being so quiet about it?
If it is something all Americans are wanting, then why not bring it before the media, the American People and show them proudly what you are doing.
If it is something being done “quietly”, seems to me to be another word for “sneaky”, aother way of saying “we don’t want you to know about it till its done”.
Seeing it being done “quietly” sounds to me like they have something to HIDE.
Comment by sanity @ 2/14/2007 - 6:50 pm
Their tactics are so perfectly in tune with what the Ba’athists, insurgents, terrorists and Iranian thugs want and need to happen, one would almost think they are specifically acting to aid our enemies. The enemy can’t drive us out of Iraq, so Congress will. Isn’t that something?
Comment by CavalierX @ 2/14/2007 - 7:02 pm
Yes, and a few Republicans have joined the Democrats on this opposition strategy. Ron Paul, a Republican from Texas, opposes the surge. He blasted Bush on the House floor today. Here is the video:
LINK
Let’s at least give honorable mention to Republicans like Ron Paul that are standing up to their own party’s lack of realism.
Comment by Todd @ 2/14/2007 - 7:16 pm
I already noted in my post that 11 House Republicans had joined the Democrats on this. Did you not see the link?
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 2/14/2007 - 7:17 pm
No ST, they don’t get any farther than the title before commenting.
[chuckles]
Comment by sanity @ 2/14/2007 - 7:19 pm
>Let’s at least give honorable mention to Republicans
>like Ron Paul
You mean dishonorable mention. It’s all they’re worth.
Comment by CavalierX @ 2/14/2007 - 8:27 pm
I love the Dems, according to them, there is no one right, not even one. Todd in his deception shows yet again that if you don’t agree with his ideas, you are in a world of fantasy. There is not a single thought that he might be wrong. Nope not Todd, he is God’s gift to prophecy.
See according to Todd only the Dems are right, the Dem party if just full of prophets. Tell me Todd, HOW do you know the surge isn’t going to work?? We can win everywhere else in the world, but once the Dems say we can’t win we might as well tuck tail and run. And if you don’t see the realism of that, the Dems will shove it down your throat until you are ready to concede. Wake up Todd. Why would you set yourself up to look like an idiot?? When this does work, what are you going to say then?? Better yet, what are these Republicans going to say when we win this war? - Lorica
Comment by Lorica @ 2/14/2007 - 10:26 pm
But at least they support the troops, which is why they’re trying to pull the rug out from under them.
They should call this travesty “bleed out.”
Comment by Steve Skubinna @ 2/14/2007 - 11:55 pm
I understand that folks like Walter Jones, John Duncan, and Ron Paul have been against the Iraq war from the beginning. Shouldn’t we be giving them some sort of pass on that, as their opposition to the surge is not really new?
Besides, wouldn’t you be better off trying to peel off Heath Shuler and Stephanie Herseth?
Comment by Brad S @ 2/15/2007 - 9:12 am
In other words, boil the frog slowly.
Comment by Leslie @ 2/15/2007 - 2:33 pm
Abu Graib is no longer ours to dismantle. I am all for closing Gitmo and givig it tpPuerto Rico, and bringing the prisoners ho,e and fighting the challenges until liberals have to justify releasing enemies.
Comment by Walter E. Wallis @ 2/15/2007 - 2:36 pm
HOW is it that this Al Qaida leader is hurt in Bagdad. I thought Al Qaida was not in Iraq and we weren’t fighting them there…..
Is Yahoo lying lefties?
Comment by Baklava @ 2/15/2007 - 11:41 pm
Isn’t this a pretty picture?
Here’s the story that accompanies it by Omar Fadhil
Comment by Baklava @ 2/15/2007 - 11:48 pm