Friday, May 21, 2004

For Democrats to Win, the Troops Must Lose 

I've been repeating this line to myself all week; it's from May 7, and just too damn good not to reprise here:

"In a calculated and craven political stunt, the national Democrat Party declared its surrender in the war on terror," said House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, Texas Republican. "But at least — or perhaps, at most — the Washington Democrats finally have taken a position on the war. And that position — that baseless, partisan, shocking position — is that American troops aren't up to the job."
See, this stunt was calculated and craven precisely because the Democrat Party knows that there's no better way to score political points than declaring its surrender in the war on terror. The only question is: why didn't the Repugs think of it first? Uh, hello: calling Mr. Rove!

By the way, here's the context for DeLay's remark. Please note how "baseless, partisan," and "shocking" it is:
"The direction's got to be changed or it's unwinnable, in my estimation," said Rep. John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania, a Vietnam veteran and the widely respected top Democrat on the military subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee. Mr. Murtha said the United States must either commit tens of thousands more troops and spend the money to supply and retrain them, or pull out of Iraq.

"I was struggling with this for six weeks, trying to figure out something else to do. And the only conclusion I can come to is either mobilize or get out," he said, speaking alongside House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, who invited him to her weekly press briefing. "So far, I'd prefer the mobilization side of it. Of course, that would take a lot more money and would be very difficult to accomplish."
"So far, I'd prefer the mobilization side of it"...shocking!!


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?