From politics (moderates who lean to the right) to Pogo (drools during poker stare) to rants (Whatcha expect from savvy, sassy sexagenarians?) to raves (Have you had your kudo today?) -- we never take ourselves too seriously.
We do, however, reserve the right to slaughter an occasional sacred cow. And in case we fail to mention it -- we will never forget....
The last time I saw John Murtha on video, he was caught in a sting operation involving solicitation of a bribe. In this current video, Murtha discusses how Democrats will work with anti-war groups to "slow bleed" the military out of Iraq.
Actually, you can call it a flagrant effort to undermine the President. Taking control of national security and foreign affairs .... (Didn't the fore-fathers fix that a couple hundred years ago by naming the Prez Commander-in-Chief?) What we have here is another lap on the ole Bush Derangement Syndrome cycle -- ridden by a vindictive over-the-hill politico who would have been expelled from the legislature years ago had he not implicated Tip O'Neill in another cross-my-hand-with-silver scheme ....
But I digress.
The term "slow bleed" is not used in this video. It was supposedly used in an email sent out by the DNC to describe how Democrats will use the "non-binding resolution" as a spring-board to cut funding, undermine the President and stop the deployment of troops to Iraq.
We are currently trying to locating a copy of this email to verify use of the term.
Meanwhile -- control your gag reflex as you watch this traitorous scumbag plot an unprecedented strategy to under-cut troops in harm's way.
Update: This comes from a lefty blog quoting a righty blog ..... yada yada yada
The Democrat [sic] strategy on Iraq is finally clear.
We've known all along that they want to cut and run before the job is done. But they've been afraid to confront President Bush directly. Today, Democrat [sic] Rep. John Murtha let slip what he and Nancy Pelosi really intend to do, and it is genuinely frightening.
They call it their 'slow-bleed' plan. Instead of supporting the troops in Iraq, or simply bringing them home, the Democrats intend to gradually make it harder and harder for them to do their jobs.
'Slow-bleed' is exactly the right name for this incredibly irresponsible and dangerous strategy. Cutting and running is bad enough. But the Murtha-Pelosi 'slow-bleed' plan is far worse. It is a cynical and dangerous erosion of our ability to fight the terrorists while we still have men and women on the ground in Iraq. It will put their lives in far greater danger, as resources slowly dry up. How can our troops operate without bases? How can they fight without backup?
'Slow-bleed' cannot become law. Luckily, we have an opportunity to stop it. The Murtha plan depended on stealth. Now, however, the press has broken the story. And now we can act.
Bresnahan's article was the only source cited for the RNC's claims, though Ryan Lizza, senior editor of The New Republic, was apparently the first to use the "slow-bleed" construction to characterize the reported strategy of the House Democratic leadership.
From Lizza's appearance on the February 13 edition of MSNBC's Scarborough Country:
LIZZA: And look, they're reading the same polls that we're all reading, and they realize that the American public doesn't quite -- there's not a big majority for defunding the troops, so it doesn't look like the Democratic leadership is going to go there. Instead, what you're going to have is a strategy led by Murtha, which is going to be to limit the number of troops available to President Bush by putting some restrictions on what troops will be allowed to be brought over to Iraq.
So that's the strategy that the -- that's the sort of two-part strategy: first, this non-binding resolution, and then restricting what troops Bush can use. So, it's a sort of -- a slow bleeding of our ability to do much more in Iraq.
Conservative bloggers also latched onto Bresnahan's "slow-bleed" characterization. In a February 14 entry to her Hot Air blog, Michelle Malkin wrote: "If they do what they're apparently planning to do, 'slow bleed' will be a very apt description. Those doing the bleeding, slowly, will be US troops."
In a February 15 article, The Washington Postreported that the Democrats' plan "is to slowly choke off the war." The Post did not attribute to anyone the phrase "slowly choke."
This is being discussed many places including the Castle and Blackfive. However, I think it should be posted everywhere on the 'Net. I think everyone needs to understand that Murtha intends to make sure that he gets his way even if it endangers our military. How can it not? What is more dangerous than denying reinforcements to soldiers in battle? That's step one in the plan.
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.
And if the above references aren't enough, try HERE and HERE. Or here.
Beyond my rants, my sentiments will be expressed accordingly: when the House gets around to actually voting on a "Non-Binding Resolution on Iraq" tomorrow, I'll compose a blog and blogroll (for each individual) to identify every single scuzball who either approves and/or supports the Resolution.
"Congressmen who willfully take action during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs, and should be arrested, exiled or hanged." -- Abraham Lincoln
Tomorrow's "non-binding resolution" will likely be passed by a democrat-dominated House.
It is a disgraceful ploy to be used as a precursor to subsequent "binding" legislation and strategies -- orchestrated by Rep. Jack Murtha and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in conjunction with national and international anti-war groups, to de-fund, delay and demoralize our troops, and -- in essence -- embolden global terrorism.
At no time in the history of our nation has an arm of our government made such a profound statement to dis-serve our military or the authority of the Commander in Chief.
Never before in history has our military been so betrayed by political whims and hypocrisy.
God help those who conspire against our troops. God help our nation survive this embarrassing mark on our history and heritage.
This isn't about Iraq. Who do they think they're kidding?
From a non-binding resolution to a blind assault on All-Things-Bush ....We are about to witness how a BDS-deranged over-the-hill soldier in dire need of R&R from all-things-political acts out his party's revenge against George W. Bush.
And in the wake of his party's vengeance, Murtha shields himself behind our troops as a terrorist cowers behind women and children -- aligning himself and our Congress with far-leftist anti-war groups who malign our military.
"Slow bleed?"
The blood of our troops will be on the hands of Murtha, Pelosi and all who sign their "non-binding" resolution.
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.
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.
"There's a D-Day coming in here, and it's going to start with the supplemental and finish with the '08 [defense] budget," said Rep. Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii, who chairs the Air and Land Forces subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee.
Pelosi and other top Democrats are not yet prepared for an open battle with the White House over ending funding for the war, and they are wary of Republican claims that Democratic leaders would endanger the welfare of U.S. troops. The new approach of first reducing the number of troops available for the conflict, while maintaining funding levels for units already in the field, gives political cover to conservative House Democrats who are nervous about appearing "anti-military" while also mollifying the anti-war left, which has long been agitating for Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., to be more aggressive.
"What we have staked out is a campaign to stop the war without cutting off funding" for the troops, said Tom Mazzie of Americans Against Escalation of the War in Iraq. "We call it the 'readiness strategy.'"
Murtha's proposal, which has been kept under tight wraps, is likely to pass the House next month or in early April as part of the supplemental spending bill, Democratic insiders said, if the language remains tightly focused and does not threaten funding levels for combat forces already in the field. The battle will then shift to the Senate. Anti-war groups like Mazzie's are prepared to spend at least $6.5 million on a TV ad campaign and at least $2 million more on a grass-roots lobbying effort. Vulnerable GOP incumbents like Sens. Norm Coleman of Minnesota, Susan Collins of Maine, Gordon Smith of Oregon and John Sununu of New Hampshire will be targeted by the anti-war organizations, according to Mazzie and former Rep. Tom Andrews, D-Maine, head of the Win Without War Coalition.
Mazzie also said anti-war groups would field primary and general election challengers to Democratic lawmakers who do not support proposals to end the war, a direct challenge to conservative incumbents who are attempting to straddle the political line between their pro- and anti-war constituents.
If the Senate does not approve these new funding restrictions, or if Senate Republicans filibuster the supplemental bill, Pelosi and the House Democratic leadership would then be able to ratchet up the political pressure on the White House to accede to their demands by "slow-walking" the supplemental bill. Additionally, House Democrats could try to insert the Murtha provisions into the fiscal 2008 defense authorization and spending bills, which are scheduled to come to the floor later in the year.
"We will set benchmarks for readiness," said a top Democratic leadership aide, speaking on the condition of anonymity. If enacted, these provisions would have the effect of limiting the number of troops available for the Bush surge plan, while blunting the GOP charge that Democrats are cutting funding for the troops. "We are not cutting funding for any [unit] in Iraq," said the aide, who admitted the Democratic maneuver would not prevent the president from sending some additional forces to Baghdad. "We want to limit the number who can go ... We're trying to build a case that the president needs to change course."
Mazzie, though, suggested that Democrats ought to directly rebut the Republican charge that Democrats are threatening the safety of American forces in the field by pushing restrictions on war funding. "Cutting off funding as described by the media and White House is a caricature," Mazzie said. "It has never happened in U.S. history, and it won't happen now."
Andrews, who met with Murtha on Tuesday to discuss legislative strategy, acknowledged "there is a relationship" with the House Democratic leadership and the anti-war groups, but added, "It is important for our members that we not be seen as an arm of the Democratic Caucus or the Democratic Party. We're not hand in glove."
Andrews's group has launched a new Web site, MoveCongress.org, and he has already posted an interview with Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif., one of the founders of the "Out of Iraq Caucus" in the House. An interview with Murtha on his legislative strategy will be posted on the site Thursday.
"I don't know how you vote against Murtha," said Andrews. "It's kind of an ingenious thing."
As Mitt Romney spoke from the Ford Museum yesterday, democrats were criticizing -- not his message -- but his choice of forum.
Romney on Feb. 13, 2007: "I chose this site for a number of reasons. It's filled with cars and memories. Dad and I loved cars. Most kids read the sports box scores. Dad and I read Automotive News. We came here together, him teaching me about cars that were built before my time.
"The Rambler automobile he championed was the first American car designed and marketed for economy and mileage. He dubbed it a compact car, a car that would slay the gas-guzzling dinosaurs. It transformed the industry.
"This place is not just about automobiles; it is about innovation, innovation that transformed an industry, and in doing so, gave Americans a way of life our grandparents could never have imagined.
"The DC 3 above us was the first true commercial airliner. It transformed aviation from a luxury to a standard mode of transportation.
"Next to us is a Ford hybrid. It is the first giant step away from our reliance on the gasoline engine. It is already changing the world of transportation.
"Just outside is Thomas Edison's laboratory. There, electricity that Benjamin Franklin discovered was transformed from a novelty into a necessity.
"Innovation and transformation have been at the heart of America's success. If there ever was a time when innovation and transformation were needed in government, it is now.
"We have lost faith in government, not in just one party, not in just one house, but in government.
"We are weary of the bickering and bombast, fatigued by the posturing and self-promotion. For even as America faces a new generation of challenges, the halls of government are clogged with petty politics and stuffed with peddlers of influence.
"It is time for innovation and transformation in Washington. It is what our country needs. It is what our people deserve."
Where was the democrat outrage when Bill Clinton spoke from the Ford Museum?
Clinton in January 1999: "Here in Detroit nearly a century ago, as all of you know better than me, Henry Ford set history in motion with the very first assembly line. He built not only a Model T, but a new model for the way America would do business for quite a longwhile. He said he was looking for leaders and thinkers and workers with "an infinite capacity to not know what can't be done." People like that came together in Detroit and all across America. They forged America's transition from farm to factory. Detroit led the way and America led the world."
Kathryn J. Lopez notes .... Romney spokesperson Kevin Madden: "The Henry Ford Museum is a perfect venue for our message, which is one about innovation and transformation. Many years ago, the Ford Motor Company was used to transform the auto industry in this country, which therefore, transformed our economy. What you're going to hear a lot about today is the governor's plans for transforming America and leading America into a new future." More: "We're really going to focus on what Mitt Romney believes in" ("Fox & Friends," FNC, 2/13).
Romney spokesperson Eric Fehrnstrom: "Governor Romney believes our country needs to put innovation at the forefront if we are to ensure a stronger, safe and more prosperous America" (Lowry, AP, 2/13).
John J. Miller observes: "Democrats who are feigning outrage over Romney's appearance at the Henry Ford Museum—a great Detroit institution, by the way—should feel free to discuss Clinton's willingness to use Henry Ford as a rhetorical prop and his failure to condemn Ford's dark side. Then they should censure the Ford Foundation and declare that no good liberal should accept its grants."
My take is that if you can't criticize Romney's message, find something else. After all -- dems certainly don't want America to "hear" his message!
Mitt Romney carried his campaign for the Republican Presidential nomination to Iowa today, sharing with Iowans his goals in leading America forward.
The last political event to be held in the venue was Howard Dean's 2004 Sunday-before-Caucus-Night rally at which Rob Reiner and Martin Sheen spoke. A crowd of about 200 turned out for today's Romney event, including some big names from Iowa GOP politics -- former Iowa Governor Robert Ray and his wife, Billie; former Iowa Governor Terry Branstad and his wife, Chris; 2002 GOP gubernatorial nominee Doug Gross (who is a Romney supporter); new Iowa GOP executive director Chuck Laudner; several legislators (including House GOP Leader Christopher Rants who is a Romney backer), and former state Senator Jack Rife (Rife told me he was just there to hear Romney, and is waiting for Condi Rice to run).
The room was "decorated" with a John Deere tractor (which Romney referenced once in his speech, calling it by its number -- as farmers do). There were also hay bales -- the tiny old square ones, not the big round kind.
Doug Gross gave a testimonial, explaining why he's a Romney backer, then Romney, his wife and two of their sons walked into the hall. Romney's wife then took the mic and introduced her husband. There were bleachers arranged around the sides of the room, plus chairs circling a stage, and after Romney was introduced the crowd remained standing for at least 10 minutes, standing patiently listening to his remarks.
Romney began with some biographical information and referenced his earlier event in Michigan, which gave his a chance to talk about his father -- the former Michigan Governor who ran for president himself decades ago.
Romney then spoke of the need for a Washington, D.C. outsider to be the party's nominee, declared the government was spending too much money and taxes are too high Next, Romney launched into a broader discussion of Iraq than was included in his Michigan announcement speech.
"As we look at the face of radical jihad and the potential for nuclear proliferation, I think we have to recognize that our military might in this country should not be defined by the whims of an ever-changing political agenda. We need to remember that the best ally of peace in the world is a strong America," Romney said, and the crowd applauded.
"And we need to define our role in the world not solely on the basis of our strength but also on the basis of our heart, by our willingness to share, to make a difference for other nations, to reach out, to help, to lead the rest of the world," Romney continued. "We've got some extraordinary challenges int eh world. We're going to have to fight for democracy and freedom even in our own hemisphere as we see a new, oh, what will I call him, aspiring strong-man coming to the fore. We're also going to have to recognize and need to help those in Africa who are brutalized and diseased. We're going to have to look to the Muslim world and recognize that we, I believe, should lead a partnership of all the nations in the world that are willing to join us to help move the world of Islam to support moderate, modern governments and modern people and to help them embrace modernity so that they can reject the violent and the extreme. Only Muslims are going to, ultimately, be able to reject the jihad.
"And finally, let me note that as Iran is endeavoring to become a nuclear power that we're going to have to lead all of the civilized world to say we will not accept that course. As a matter of fact, it's critical that in America will not in any way engage with and negotiate with jihadists who are bent on destroying our nation, destroying our friends and destroying our way of life," Romney said, as the crowd began to applaud.
"Let me take just a minute and talk about our troops in Iraq. Boy, we want them home. Every person in this room wants them home. We want them as soon as we possibly can have them home but as we think about bringing them home, we also have to recognize the risks associated with what we're facing there because if we were to see a collapse of the government there, a collapse of the country in some way, you could see potentially a massive civil war, full-out civil war breaking out with potentially millions of lives being lost there. You could see in the Shi'ia south the Iranians reaching over and grabbing to take power. You could see in the Sunni northwest the al Qaeda folks taking power and taking leadership in that area and establishing a base for terror that could be awful for us for many, many years indeed. You could see the unrest in some of the Kurd populations in surrounding countries perhaps destabilize the borders of Turkey and it's even possible that a regional conflict throughout the Middle East could occur if things really unraveled in Iraq and for those reasons, you recognize that unless you manage this properly, there is a significant risk that the impact on American lives and the need to send American troops back there in even larger numbers could occur. We have to ask Americans say 'What is in our best interest as Americans? What are our best American interests?'
"With all those things in mind and despite how badly we want all of our troops to come home right now we don't want to send more later and lose even more lives. With that in mind, I support the president in his effort to stabilize the population of Iraq and to bring success as long as there's a reasonable prospect of that occurring," Romney said. The crowd had started applauding at 'I support the president' and Romney talked over the applause to finish that thought.
"Let me also note no matter how Iraq is resolved, we have to make sure that we take stock of those extraordinary people who have given of theirselves to this great land. We know that there are people who put their lives aside, who shed precious lives on behalf of our freedom. We have a sacred pact with the families and the individuals who have risked their lives for us as well as with those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice and that pact must never be broken by this nation," Romney said -- perhaps a reference to Obama's Sunday statement that American soldiers' lives in Iraq had been "wasted."
Romney then went to another topic, finished his speech and the Tom Petty song "Runnin' Down a Dream" was pumped through the sound system. Romney then saw Governor Ray in the crowd. Romney grabbed the microphone, the music stopped and Romney paid tribute to Ray and the rest of the crowd for wading out in the snow. "I don't know how you got here in that snow. It was not easy. It was bouncy coming into the airport and we made our way...and I want to say thank you for being here," Romney said. But he didn't stop with that, and gave another short speech and was more relaxed and conversational.
"This is going to be fun. I love coming to Iowa...We've met a lot of wonderful people. Met with great crowds...The students from all of the colleges...It's important for us to make sure that our message gets through to young people...We're talking about what America is going to be...It's important that we remain the most powerful nation on the Earth so that we can maintain the kind of standard of living and that the Earth can have the peace that's associated with a great and charitable and generous nation being that super power. This is about the future. The present's pretty good for America. Our economy's good. Our unemployment rates are low. We're facing some tough times in Iraq, but overall life here's pretty good thanks to the great contributions of so many others, but what we're going to have to do is make sure our future is as great as our present and has been our past. It's not going to be easy, but this is a time we need to call on the spirit of the American people, the heart of the American people and that's why we're in this. We don't have all the answers....We need to go from a government of bickering and partisanship and inaction to a government of innovation and technology and new ideas and action," Romney said, then offered in conclusion: "It's time to put the American people first and government behind. Thanks you guys. Great to be with you."
The Rascal Flats remake of "Life Is a Highway" blasted over the sound system and Romney shook hands and posed for pictures with the crowd.
Rascal Flats? Hummmm ... if it's good enough for Mitt Romney, guess I'll have to check out their music.
In declaring his candidacy for the Republican nomination for the 2008 Presidential election today, Mitt Romney set the stardards by which his oponents should be judged.
