Democrats: The party of Emily Latella
The Democrats need to replace their donkey emblem with a photo of Gilda Radner’s SNL character, Emily “Neeever mind” Latella:
After inveighing stubbornly for months about their non-negotiable demand for an Iraq withdrawal timetable, the Dems are pulling a Latella. The nutroots will not be happy. Via Politico:
Each day lately, Democrats inch closer to giving President Bush more money for the war in Iraq without any serious mandates for withdrawing U.S. troops.
Democratic leaders are loath to acknowledge they’ve backed off, but lawmakers from both sides of the aisle, as well as congressional aides, say Democrats are trying to find a way to provide continued troop funding while searching for some compromises that show they’re still intent on challenging the president on the war.
The possible conditions for troop funding include anti-torture rules and benchmarks for Iraqi political reconciliation, language sure to upset an impatient Democratic anti-war base that wants immediate troop withdrawals.
According to one senior Democratic lawmaker, there’s a growing discomfort among pro-defense Democrats about linking a $50 billion Iraq measure to troop withdrawal.
“We have to come off this lack of funding for the military operations,” the lawmaker said. “We have to continue the funding. We don’t want to look like we’re against troop funding. … We should separate the funding discussion from the rest of the war.”
Now it hits them!
Ed Morrissey invokes Lucy and Charlie Brown.
Meantime, Gen. Petraeus spotlights progress and hard work on the ground:
iting a 60 percent decline in violence in Iraq over the last six months, Gen. David Petraeus said Thursday that maintaining security is easier than establishing it and gives him more flexibility in deploying forces.
Armed with charts showing that as of Wednesday, weekly attacks and Iraqi civilian deaths have plunged to levels not seen here since early 2006, Petraeus said the reduction lets him make force adjustments to address remaining problem areas, which would include northern Iraq.
Speaking to reporters at the U.S. military’s Camp Victory, he said the improved security is due to a number of factors including a “a reduction in some of the signature attacks that are associated with weapons provided by Iran,” as well as a cease-fire called by radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr that he said had a particularly noticeable impact what had been one of the most violent areas of Baghdad.
And he said there has been a “reduction in some of the signature attacks” associated with insurgents using Iranian weapons, including deadly armor-piercing rounds.
But, he added, that it is “hard to tell if that’s because there has already been a cessation of provision of those items, or if there has been direction to stop.”
At the same time, he said the military has detained individuals as recently as October who were trained by Iranians, evidence that the instruction has continued.
Petreaus, who is scheduled to give Congress and the American people an update next March on progress in Iraq, and map out some plans for U.S. force levels down the road, refused to offer too much optimism.
“Nobody says anything about turning a corner, seeing lights at the end of tunnels, any of those other phrases,” said Petraeus. “You just keep your head down and keep moving.”
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- 2008 Presidential Election » Democrats: The party of Emily Latella
- PoliGazette » Democrats Give Up on Iraq
- AMERICAN NONSENSE » Democratic Politicians Still Want To Surrender
- Michelle Malkin » MoveOn pressures Dems to block military funding
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Diversity, White Flag Democrats
David Frum
» Palin
Belmont Club
» BouncePajamas Media
» Why Palin Is a Fantastic ChoiceRedstate
» On Sarah PalinPatterico
» Obama Campaign Reaction to PalinGateway Pundit
» Gov. Sarah Palin Responds to Critics... While Shopping! (Video) ...Update: Hillary RespondsMarginal Revolution
» The experience trapStop The ACLU
» My shift from protest vote to “can I have a yard sign”Hotline On Call
» What's A Security Mom To Do?Hot Air
» Heart-ache: Palin wants creationism taught in public schools? Update: Oh noes, Pat Buchanan!
Nice to see that overwhelming truth is such a thorn in the side of Dems that they have to acknowledge it.
Sad that these are Americans having such a fit of conscience…this should never have been a stumbling block for operational funding.
Of course, we are against it… we just don’t want it to look that way.
Is there anyone else that remembers the left screaming about how “the evil bushie” wasn’t supporting the troops by not sending them enough money to buy improved body armor and up-armored vehicles?
The democrat refusal to approve money for the troops should be high on the Republican agenda in the next election.
My hypocrisy meter just went off the scale.
Basis for Dhimmicrap spin control:
`In my youth,’ Father William replied to his son,
`I feared it might injure the brain;
But, now that I’m perfectly sure I have none,
Why, I do it again and again.’
(Lewis Carroll “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland”
the character of Emily was to provide an editorial response to subjects of the time. the problem was, she misheard and misunderstood the subject matter (”Russian Jewelery, Eagle’s rights, etc.). Perhaps the Dems can say they thought we were speaking of providing “fun” for the troops?
Conscience?
Truth?
Dhimmicraps?
Aren’t they mutually exclusive?
The dems are between a rock and a hard place. The rock being funding the troops and they keep getting hit in the head by it.
I would recommend a lobodomy as a cure, but you can’t remove what isn’t there.
“Millions for tribute….but not one cent for defense”
38 US soldiers killed in October, 37 soldiers killed in November. The last time US soldier deaths were less than 40 for two consecutive months? August and September 2003.
“I support the troops. I don’t support the war.” What a
supersized load of effluvia out of the southbound end
of a bull! If you support the troops you fund the troops!!!!! If you don’t fund the troops, they DO NOT
have what they need to keep themselves alive during
this war. If you do not fund our troops you are killing
our troops. Too simple a premise for Pelosi, Reid,
et al.
I have a feeling this has less to do with “never mind” and more to do with “lotsa pork”.
At this point the donkeys have to be counting on the hard left’s relentless Bush-hatred to carry the day for them come November of 2008. For when it comes to placating their base their track record since November of 2006 can be summed up as, “What have you done for me lately?”
That was the first thing that crossed my mind as well when I read that statement.
The press will let the Dems slide on Iraq all the way through election day. News from Iraq will be shunted to the back pages and barely mentioned on the news nets - unless, of course, there’s bad news to report.
If life were fair, every Democrat who talked about Iraq as a lost cause and who advocated leaving before the country was secure enough to defend itself should go down to ignomious defeat. Instead, they are likely to increase their margin in the Senate and the House plus gain the presidency.
Meanwhile, the Iraqis themselves are beginning to take control of their own country so that by election day, there will be considerably fewer US troops needed to assist them.
And they will have exited without some artificial timetable to tell them they lost.
I rejoice because our troops will get the funding they desperately need - finally.
However, I will never forgive the Dems for their obstinacy regarding the successes/progress that has been made on the ground in Iraq nor their selfishness in withholding funding for our troops. They are nothing but a bunch of punch drunk fools.
They have proven time and again where their fealty lies and it isn’t with the USA nor our troops.
Hooray for our troops. I wonder if the troops in Iraq would like to pass some legislation concerning the Congress. Seeing how Congress seems to know how to do their job and wants to tell them how to do it, it is only right for the soldiers to tell Congress how to pass legislation, right?
We have separation of powers for a reason. It’s too bad that the Congress uses it’s power for political gain at the cost of American might.
Ooops, sorry too early - “Nurse, more coffee!”
Saying you “oppose the war but support the warriors [troops]” is like saying you’re against abortion but support the butchers who perform them. Sorry, Dems….no can do.
TA
“We have separation of powers for a reason. It’s too bad that the Congress uses it’s power for political gain at the cost of American might.”
I would take your statement much further. Dems use their power for political gain at the cost of America period. They don’t give a rats a$$ about the American people other than to have control over as much of our loves as they can. They have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the security of this country means nothing to them. They despise our brave men and women in uniform. Bottom line: their money and power means everything…the country means nothing!
JRL - ROTFLMAO - I may not be good for the rest of the day!
Dammit, enough is enough. When will the Democrats concentrate on defeating the enemy rather than scoring political points against our Commander in Chief? For crying out loud. The damn media also needs to be taken behind the woodshed and seriously whipped for their treasonist behavior. It seems this land is no longer a land of laws, Ie. come here illegally and we’ll give you benefits. Commit treason and we’ll elect you to the democratic party. It’s time law and order is put back into play. TRY THESE DAMN DEMOCRATS FOR TREASON!
I tend to take this total failure to fund our troops in the field personal. I have 14 young people from my Squadron on out-of-cycle deployments in the combat area (over 40 returned from the area in May with two going right back out in September). Not giving them the funds they need deprives them of supplies and equipment while also giving hope to the enemy that we don’t have the stomach for this fight and will runaway.
Back in my active duty flying days it would be nothing for a couple of guys to go behind a blast fence to discuss the finer points of a subject. It would normally result in someone slipping on some oil or hydraulic fluid explaining any bumps and/or bruises. I would like nothing more than to invite the Democrat leaders behind a blast fence to discuss their failure to support our troops.
jrlingreenbay that was OUTSTANDING!
jr - LOL.
Soup, meet keyboard through nose!
GOD BLESS OUR TROOPS & BRING THEM SAFELY HOME. period
short and sweet the Democrat Congress are idiots and yellow bellied….they can’t even stand up for what they “think” they believe in.
I had to quote that just for emphasis. Saying that you support the troops, but not the war is like saying that you support actors, but not movies.
Good to hear our guys and gals will be getting what they need. ’bout damn time.
jrl - That was a riot! I laughed so hard I think I cooped in my pants.
Even when they do the right thing they do it for the wrong reason.
They only care how it looks.
That was hilarious!
Charlie Rangel lied. He said that if the Dems were elected, they would cut off funding for the troops. Why isn’t he a target of the nutroots’ protests? How can we get him in the crosshairs?
Rangel lied. Congress supplied.
I really hate to be a nitpicker, but isn’t it “Litella?”
Boomer, I had Master Sargent Burkett (from Arkansas) take me behind the blast shield “ONE Time”. Not a pleasant experience, so I worked very hard to avoid a repeat.
Not a bad way to get a little behavior modification out of someone.
That made my day JRL.
In the good old non-PC days of the Air Force it was called wall-to-wall counseling. I never experienced it myself my Dad the Master Sergeant instilled a pretty good respect for authority before leaving the nest. I know more than one guy that went out behind the blast fence to settle an argument with his supervisor to find several NCOs available to attend to his attitude adjustment. Turned a lot of young boys into men pointing them in the right direct to grow them in to damn good NCOs successful in or out of the Military.
Boomer - Says a lot that we STILL have a mighty fine military, in spite of all the PC BS. Had a long heart-to-heart with my leading chief once, myself.
jrlinggreenbay “coops”
LMAO!!
Are they for setting a timetable, or not? Do they support the troops, or not? Here are some quotes from the past to compare with what they are saying today:
John Murtha in 2004: “A war initiated on faulty intelligence must not be followed by a premature withdrawal of our troops based on a political timetable.”
Senator Harry Reid, in May 2005, said this: “As far as setting a timeline, as we learned in the Balkans, that’s not a wise decision, because it only empowers those who don’t want us there. It doesn’t work well to do that.”
Nancy Pelosi, Dec 5, 2006: “We will not cut off funding for the troops,” Pelosi said. “Absolutely not,” she said.
Harry Reid, April 20, 2007: “No one wants us to succeed in Iraq more than the Democrats… We take a back seat to no one in supporting our troops, and we will never abandon our troops in a time of war.”
11/16/07 Update: Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said this week that if Congress cannot pass legislation that ties war money to troop withdrawals, they would not send Bush a bill this year.
Harry Reid said the only way to get troops the money was to approve the restrictions outlined by Democrats.
Will they just make up their minds! I’m getting dizzy here.
Unfortunate choice of words. We don’t want to look
like we’re against….. So, it’s okay to be against funding our troops, you just don’t want to look like
you’re against funding the troops. Hypocrisy!
Political partying above the people as usual. Whatever is politically expedient at the moment, Cause du jour, pay no attention to the politicians behind the curtains. Truth? That depends on what the meaning of truth is today.
On second thought.
Never mind.