Cheat-Seeking Missles

Monday, June 19, 2006

Dems Resolve To Resolve Nothing

Here's the latest war strategy brilliance from the Dems, courtesy of the Boston Globe:
Congressional Democrats, seizing on public discontent over the war in Iraq, will offer legislation this week calling for a phased withdrawal of troops from Iraq and a shifting of forces to other nations, where supporters say American soldiers will be less likely to come under attack. ...

The resolution, expected to come to the floor as early as tomorrow, also would call on Bush to provide a plan to redeploy remaining troops after 2006, but it does not specify where troops should be moved and how many might come home.
What a set-up. They demand a plan, but don't provide one. If such a resolution were to ever be binding, Bush would have to define the pull-out strategy, which the Dems could then criticize. So they would get to continue to blast the president and his people, all the while continuing to avoid having to actually think out their own plan.

Just like Murtha, who didn't think much of Rove's criticism of the Dems for being quick to support a war, but unwilling to stick it out. Here's what Murtha said, sitting on his fat backside in his air conditioned office:
[Rove is] making a political speech. He's sitting in his air-conditioned office with his big, fat backside, saying, 'Stay the course.' That's not a plan. I mean, this guy -- I don't know what his military experience is, but that's a political statement.
What sort of speech is it, exactly, when Murtha speaks? And if "stay the course" isn't a plan, what's his plan? Yeah, yeah, I know; it's there in the Dem resolution: Move them over the horizon. Then what? When Iraq starts to crumble and our strategic interests are in grave risk, do we move them back the other way?

Or do the Dems just hope that that the crumbling will happen under a future GOP regime, so they can continue to not offer plans for dealing with difficult situations?

hat-tip: memeorandum
Related Tags: , , ,