Hot Air » Blog Archive » The Slow Bleed: Silky Pony’s on board

The Slow Bleed: Silky Pony’s on board

posted at 10:19 am on February 15, 2007 by Bryan
Send to a Friend | Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

Just got this email from a reader, who received it from John Edwards. The Silky Pony evidently got Murta’s memo:

Dear Xxxx,

President Bush’s disastrous plan to escalate the war is no longer just a plan: it’s a reality.

While the Senate was tied up in knots, President Bush extended tours of duty for thousands of our troops, transferred new brigades into the Middle East and ordered more soldiers into Baghdad: The surge has begun.

Bush has escalated the war - now we must escalate our efforts to stop it. Congress must force a change of course by capping funding to stop the surge and mandate a phased troop withdrawal within 12-18 months. We don’t need endless debate; we don’t need non-binding resolutions; we need to end this war. Only Congress has the power to do it, and only you can make Congress act.

Please take a minute today to call your senators and representatives. Ask them to take real, binding action to block the escalation and bring our troops home. Please call the capital switchboard right now at:

(202) 224-3121

Last month I called for Congress to stop the president’s escalation before it began, and nearly 100,000 Americans have since added their name to that call. But now we need to go beyond addressing Bush’s latest misstep and use all the power we have to bring this conflict to a close.

So today, I announced a comprehensive proposal to enact my plan to end the war and I’d like to share the key points with you. I believe Congress must:

* Stop the escalation and force an immediate withdrawal by using funding caps to restrict the total number of troops in Iraq to 100,000, which would require an immediate drawdown of 40,000-50,000 combat troops without stranding or underfunding a single soldier still in Iraq. Any troops beyond the 100,000 level should be redeployed immediately.

* Block the deployment of troops that do not meet readiness standards and that have not been properly trained and equipped. American Tax dollars must be used to prepare and supply our troops, not escalate the war. It is simply wrong to send our troops into harm’s way without all the training and equipment they need.

* Make it clear that President Bush is conducting this war without authorization. The 2002 authorization did not give Bush the power to use U.S. troops to police a civil war. President Bush exceeded his authority long ago. He now needs to end the war and ask Congress for new authority to manage the withdrawal of the U.S. military presence and to help Iraq achieve stability.

* Require a complete withdrawal of combat troops in Iraq within the next 12-18 months without leaving behind any permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq.

Today, all of us who believe this war is wrong have a profound obligation to speak out. We are still in the early days of an historic new Congress and real change is still possible–even under this president.

But history teaches it will not be the politicians or the pundits who drive the real change - only the people themselves can do that. So let’s get busy.

Please call the Capitol switchboard and ask to speak to your senators and representatives today: (202) 224- 3121

Sincerely,

John Edwards

It’s the second bullet point that gives away where Edwards is–”readiness” is now a tool to be used against the surge. “Readiness” is the center of Murtha’s strategy as outlined yesterday. Never mind that the troops we saw leading the way into the surge were elements of the 82 Airborne, the force that’s nearly always the tip of the spear on any US operation. And never mind that Edwards and Murtha and the rest of them know that. They’re all people who opposed the acquisition of advanced weapons systems for years and years, and only now that we’re actually involved in a war does “readiness” to fight become their chief argument–against fighting that war. “Readiness” for what–the attack on Iran that’ll never happen, and which they’re already opposing? Or is it just more readiness to fly the Speaker of the House and her entourage around the country?

Then there’s the “Bush has no authorization to fight this war” argument. It’s idiotic and dishonest. What was he supposed to do after the Golden Mosque bombing a year ago–just throw up his hands and say “Well, ok. Zarqawi’s boys pulled off a coup there. Time to bring our troops home.” Edwards’ line of reasoning on the war authorization he voted for is risible.

It’s easy for the likes of the Silky Pony to slam the president and a war gone south when they’re allowed to just ignore all of the history that led up to and is packed into that war. It’s easier for the likes of Murtha, who’ll never ever be president, to do everything he can to destroy the commander in chief’s ability to perform his wartime duties and responsibilities. It’s easy for the critics to just pretend that Saddam never had WMDs even though there are trials going on in Iraq right now about his use of WMDs, and it’s easy for those same critics to just pretend that Iran hasn’t been a thorn in Iraq when it has, for more than a year. It’s easy for all of them.

On the ground in Iraq, nothing is easy at all, and the Democrats, the nutroots and the media are making a tough job impossible. Which is of course their goal and has been all along.

Once we’ve retreated, and I think the trajectory we’re on now all but demands it, and once the bloodbath is over and a new round of monsters have taken control of Iraq, it will be just as easy for all of them to pretend that they had no role in any of it. And depending on which party happens to be in power when we have to go back into Iraq again, it will be equally easy for them to either support the action or denounce it.

Most of them voted for or supported the war when it started. They turned their backs on the president and more importantly the troops when it got tough. They will have condemned good Iraqis to their deaths to win an all-important victory over a lame duck president they’ve loathed from day one. They will have slowly bled the US military to death. They will have made mincemeat of the idea that America is a reliable ally and a steady force for freedom against jihad and chaos. They will have handed the terrorists and the mullahs a milestone victory and a new base of operations to export the global jihad. And they won’t lose a second’s sleep over any of it.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

First he’s a cosmetologist, NOW he’s a FRANKEN MILITARY GENIUS…but then, aren’t they all???

seejanemom on February 15, 2007 at 10:29 AM

It’s about time for high noon in congress. Do not forsake me oh my President.

right2bright on February 15, 2007 at 10:29 AM

I’ve gone deep undercover and infiltrated the Silky Pony blog. Got the same mailing last night. They don’t even realize the enemy is in their midst.

Mwuhahahahahaha.

JammieWearingFool on February 15, 2007 at 10:34 AM

Funny… Edwards doesn’t have the balls to stand up to the bloggers, but he’ll stab the troops in the back.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on February 15, 2007 at 10:41 AM

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on February 15, 2007 at 10:41 AM

HaHa, good one.

right2bright on February 15, 2007 at 10:45 AM

We need to turn the tables.
I do not want a leader (or leaders) that’s to dense to realize Irans involvement in Iraq and the WOT. Think about it.
I do not want a leader (or leaders) that thinks OUR troops are not qualified, the best troops and training in the history of man. Think about it.

We can not let these Dem’s lead us into oblivion.

shooter on February 15, 2007 at 10:49 AM

Everyone who gets a letter like that should write back,
“Dear John Edwards,
…and you are … who, exactly?”

naliaka on February 15, 2007 at 11:04 AM

* Make it clear that President Bush is conducting this war without authorization. The 2002 authorization did not give Bush the power to use U.S. troops to police a civil war. President Bush exceeded his authority long ago. He now needs to end the war and ask Congress for new authority to manage the withdrawal of the U.S. military presence and to help Iraq achieve stability.

Huh?? Are we “policing” or are we at war right now? The last sentence of the above bullet point is the one that really gets me - how can we withdraw our troops and help Iraq achieve stability at the same time??

Rick on February 15, 2007 at 11:04 AM

* Require a complete withdrawal of combat troops in Iraq within the next 12-18 months without leaving behind any permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq.

How is that a good thing? Is this the “strategic redeployment” we’ve heard so much about?

“The sky is falling, RUN AWAY!” Now that’s leadership!

You’ll be calling me Mr. President before Edwards ever gets that honorific.

Pablo on February 15, 2007 at 11:16 AM

March 17. D.C. Vietnam Memorial. Be there. DO SOMETHING.
http://www.usvetdsp.com/feb07/eagle.htm

Limerick on February 15, 2007 at 11:16 AM

“Dear John Edwards,
…and you are … who, exactly?”

naliaka on February 15, 2007 at 11:04 AM

Human refuse? Is that the correct answer? Did I win? Are you giving out prizes?

Oh no, wait. THAT was the dynamic duo that left his campaign. Never mind.

CyberCipher on February 15, 2007 at 11:19 AM

We are guests of the Iraqis. They have a Representative government. We are fighting terrorists, and helping Iraq prevent a civil war. That is the mission. Premature withdrawal would a victory for the Democrats, and for our enemies. The resulting real civil war would be regionally disastrous. Kurds vs Turks, Shi’a vs Sunni, Muslim vs Muslim, and Israel destroyed. And to think the left doesn’t want to escalate. I thank coalition forces, fighting for freedoms and peace.

infidel on February 15, 2007 at 11:22 AM

Am I wrong, or did Britain lose the American Revolution, not by the might or brilliance of the Americans, but more by their loss of the will to stick it out? The American experiment turned out well, but if the same were to happen in Iraq (i.e., withdrawal/surrender)… Well, there’s a different World View there… they do not have the grounding in freedom under God that our American Forefathers had. Just sayin’.

BNCurtis on February 15, 2007 at 11:24 AM

I’ll tell ya, the irresponsibility and recklessness of the radical left is stunning.

They want us to pull out of Iraq, let everything we’ve fought for and built up be destroyed to the point where we will HAVE to go back in. Into a situation where the few remaining friends and allies left alive will not trust and work with us. What a nightmare.

It is not in America’s interest for this to be allowed to happen. It is criminally insane. It is treason.

techno_barbarian on February 15, 2007 at 11:27 AM

Well, there’s a different World View there… they do not have the grounding in freedom under God that our American Forefathers had. Just sayin’.

BNCurtis on February 15, 2007 at 11:24 AM

Well, according to the left (and MSM), the terrorists are “freedom fighters”, and they are fighting infidels pursuant to Allah’s will. I guess that would make most of these guys Islamist forefathers.

Rick on February 15, 2007 at 11:31 AM

He now needs to end the war and ask Congress for new authority to manage the withdrawal of the U.S. military presence and to help Iraq achieve stability.

And he doesn’t get it; if we withdraw with the job half-done, there won’t BE any stability. But then the Dems can point at Pres. Bush and crow about how ‘his’ policy screwed up our relations with the Middle East.

And Bryan, I don’t even get a hat tip? :-)

dalewalt on February 15, 2007 at 11:37 AM

I’ll tell ya, the irresponsibility and recklessness of the radical left is stunning.

Radical left? Hate to quibble but the “radical left” are now mainstream.

Capitalist Infidel on February 15, 2007 at 12:12 PM

Make it clear that President Bush is conducting this war without authorization. The 2002 authorization did not give Bush the power to use U.S. troops to police a civil war. President Bush exceeded his authority long ago. He now needs to end the war and ask Congress for new authority to manage the withdrawal of the U.S. military presence and to help Iraq achieve stability.

This is really weak. Congress has abrogated its authority to declare war since 1945 by giving meaningless permissions to ‘use military force’ whenever there is a threat. If these clowns are really concerned about war, then they should stand up and resuse to authorize military force until the President asks for a formal declaration.

Now it’s too late for that, so instead of having the guts to stand up and de-fund the combat troops, thereby forcing an end, they merely strut and pose and interfere with the president’s conducting of the war (which as CinC, it is his obligation to do).

Jezla on February 15, 2007 at 12:22 PM

Once we’ve retreated, and I think the trajectory we’re on now all but demands it, and once the bloodbath is over and a new round of monsters have taken control of Iraq, it will be just as easy for all of them to pretend that they had no role in any of it…….. And they won’t lose a second’s sleep over any of it.

Souless Michael Foxtrots, all of them… Isn’t there anyone in Washington who understands what is at stake, what is truly going on, and has the courage to stand up to this tripe?

PinkyBigglesworth on February 15, 2007 at 12:23 PM

Things liberals will not say, “win the way, kill the enemy”.

Traitor pretty much sums it up.

Timber Wolf on February 15, 2007 at 12:26 PM

I had a discussion about this very issue with a big time Edwards supporter, and he thinks the Dems have a great strategy right now - to keep giving Bush enough rope to hang himself with - while at the same time, alienating themselves from his decisions with crap like “non-binding resolutions,” etc., and keeping the base somewhat content. All that tough talk from the Dems was all about getting power, and now, it’s about keeping it going until they can get the White House in ‘08.

Rick on February 15, 2007 at 12:35 PM

Selling out the troops and the Iraqi people, with complete disregard for anyone else’s life, safety or well-being…
and we are wondering how he missed the anti-Christian venom from Marcotte?

B Moe on February 15, 2007 at 12:40 PM

They’ll be saying the same things about Afghanistan after we retreat from Iraq, especially if there is not a Dem in the Whitehouse in 2009.

rw on February 15, 2007 at 12:42 PM

Mr. Edwards, I’m with you sir, and I’d like you to visit our Troops in Iraq and tell them that you’re going to rescue them from this illegal war of imperialism and oil.

When you become President, you can bring the Troops home too soon and Sen. Obama’s remark about wasted lives will become true. Einstein.

“President Pablo” … has a nice ring to it :-)

Tony737 on February 15, 2007 at 12:43 PM

Dear Republican Voters,

You certainly taught those RINOS a lesson.

- The DNC

MirCat on February 15, 2007 at 12:47 PM

Dear Republican Voters,

You certainly taught those RINOS a lesson.

- The DNC

interesting…

I was reading this several ways.

Anyhoo, I don’t see a retreat untill there is signifigant face saving security in most of Badbag. If Bush was serious about victory wouldn’t he be using the bully pulpit to skewer his foes? Seems like he’s playing nice so he can start pulling out when things look a little calmer.
/hope I’m wrong.

Max Power on February 15, 2007 at 1:13 PM

And they won’t lose a second’s sleep over any of it.

But they are the ‘progressives’, the lovers/supporters of rights, freedom, equality, liberty, “all be the same, or else you are nothing”, women’s rights, advocates for the little guy/gal and the downtrodden. Nauseating!!!

Never, ever, ever, refer to them as progressive, without putting the word in quotes. Hypocrites one and all.

A little aside from this topic - I work with a bleeding one of them, who stands for all they stand for, traveled from San Diego to Boston a few days ago, in her full-length mink coat, which she couldn’t “wait to put on again”. I don’t know whether to laugh or cry about such double-standards, which they shove down our throats.

You’ll be calling me Mr. President before Edwards ever gets that honorific.

Pablo on February 15, 2007 at 11:16 AM

You have my support, all the way!

Entelechy on February 15, 2007 at 1:22 PM

They will have slowly bled the US military to death. They will have made mincemeat of the idea that America is a reliable ally and a steady force for freedom against jihad and chaos.

This bothers me as much as it bothers you. It doesn’t bother anyone who opposes the war, even my sweet elderly mother who watches too much CNN and MSNBC. Living as I do in Florida, I have many encounters with elderly members of “the greatest generation,” and most of the retirement-community sentiment that I encounter is that Iraq is such a mess that we should bring our troops home now and damn the consequences. And these are solid citizens with conservative social values; never mind the radical left.

I don’t get it. I understand that many people don’t think about long-term international politics, but I really don’t get it from a basic “what’s in it for me” perspective. If we look at the Iraq war situation in the most narrow and self-centered way, we see a bunch of volunteers going to fight a war. None of this directly affects my daily life, not even the expense of it. The economy is booming — nobody I know is in any danger of being drafted — and occasionally there is good news of a thwarted terrorist plot, such as the failed London aircraft bombings of last summer. The volunteers who are getting shot at still have good morale and support the mission; so why all the anti-war caterwauling? Is it too much for the citizens of our great republic to be bothered by unpleasant news reports interrupting their nightly TV shows?

Current events are proving that you and I are a minority, Bryan; as are our blogoshpere friends and the brave folks in our military. The USA is a poor ally because our cultural and political elite is weak and self-absorbed. Our voters are easily bamboozled by the lies and deception of the media. We are stampeding to defeat in a war where ONLY THOSE WHO VOLUNTEER TO SACRIFICE actually have to sacrifice! Oh, except for the anticipated millions of Iraqi victims of Iranian regional ambitions following a US retreat.

I am ashamed by the current spectacle in Congress and, for the first time in my life, ashamed to be an American.

Anton on February 15, 2007 at 1:29 PM

The issue of readiness is a serious one. No matter what your views on the war, the surge will have a serious and long-lasting effect on ground force readiness. The candle has been burning at both ends for a couple of years now and with the surge, it’s burning in the middle as well. Some forces in the surge will deploy without the standard training regimen, but the effects on readiness beginning at the end of this year will be profound. Troops in Iraq will have to be reduced significantly in 2008 to allow units time to refit and retrain.

NPP on February 15, 2007 at 1:46 PM

Bryan,
Those last three paragraphs sum up our current state of affairs as concisely and clearly as it could be said.
Wish more people would read and consider what you have written.

I am ashamed by the current spectacle in Congress and, for the first time in my life, ashamed to be an American.

Anton on February 15, 2007 at 1:29 PM

I am right there with you.

billy on February 15, 2007 at 2:09 PM

Edwards is just another typical DEMOCRAT traitor.

Somebody should start “swiftboating” this little bastard.

georgej on February 15, 2007 at 3:54 PM

I just don’t get this. Here is a good looking sheister lawyer, one term senator - lost reelection - and now he is urging Congress ???? Mr Edwards -go find an ambulance with a victim - seems u were pretty good at that.

iam7545 on February 15, 2007 at 4:20 PM

John Edwards is the biggest piece of sh** and doesn’t deserve any wiggle room… in 2003, before getting on the Kerry ticket, he wanted to be the pro-war Democrat:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3131295/

MATTHEWS:Let me ask but the war, because I know these are all students and a lot of guys the age of these students are fighting over there and cleaning up over there, and they’re doing the occupation.

Were we right to go to this war alone, basically without the Europeans behind us? Was that something we had to do?

EDWARDS: I think that we were right to go. I think we were right to go to the United Nations. I think we couldn’t let those who could veto in the Security Council hold us hostage.

And I think Saddam Hussein, being gone is good. Good for the American people, good for the security of that region of the world, and good for the Iraqi people.

MATTHEWS: If you think the decision, which was made by the president, when basically he saw the French weren’t with us and the Germans and the Russians weren’t with us, was he right to say, “We’re going anyway”?

EDWARDS: I stand behind my support of that, yes.

MATTHEWS: You believe in that?

EDWARDS: Yes.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about-Since you did support the resolution and you did support that ultimate solution to go into combat and to take over that government and occupy that country. Do you think that you, as a United States Senator, got the straight story from the Bush administration on this war? On the need for the war? Did you get the straight story?

EDWARDS: Well, the first thing I should say is I take responsibility for my vote. Period. And I did what I did based upon a belief, Chris, that Saddam Hussein’s potential for getting nuclear capability was what created the threat. That was always the focus of my concern. Still is the focus of my concern.

So did I get misled? No. I didn’t get misled.

MATTHEWS: Did you get an honest reading on the intelligence?

EDWRADS: But now we’re getting to the second part of your question.

I think we have to get to the bottom of this. I think there’s clear inconsistency between what’s been found in Iraq and what we were told.

And as you know, I serve on the Senate Intelligence Committee. So it wasn’t just the Bush administration. I sat in meeting after meeting after meeting where we were told about the presence of weapons of mass destruction. There is clearly a disconnect between what we were told and what, in fact, we found there.

MATTHEWS: If you knew last October when you had to cast an aye or nay vote for this war, that we would be unable to find weapons of mass destruction after all these months there, would you still have supported the war?

EDWARDS: It wouldn’t change my views. I said before, I think that the threat here was a unique threat. It was Saddam Hussein, the potential for Saddam getting nuclear weapons, given his history and the fact that he started the war before.

MATTHEWS: Do you feel now that you have evidence in your hands that he was on the verge of getting nuclear weapons?

EDWARDS: No, I wouldn’t go that far.

MATTHES: What would you say?

EDWARDS: What I would say is there’s a decade long pattern of an effort to get nuclear capability, from the former Soviet Union, trying to get access to scientists…

MATTHEWS: What about Africa?

EDWARDS: … trying to get-No. I don’t think so. At least not from the evidence.

MATTHEWS: Were you misled by the president in the State of the Union address on the argument that Saddam Hussein was trying get uranium from Niger?

EDWARDS: I guess the answer to that is no.

I did not put a lot of stock in that.

MATTHEWS: But you didn’t believe-But you weren’t misled?

EDWARDS: No, I was not misled because I didn’t put a lot of stock in to it begin with.

As I said before, I think what happened here is, for over a decade, there is strong, powerful evidence, which I still believe is true, that Saddam Hussein had been trying to get nuclear capability. Either from North Korea, from the former Soviet Union, getting access to scientists, trying to get access to raw fissile material. I don’t-that I don’t have any question about.

MATTHEWS: The United States has had a long history of nonintervention, of basically taking the “don’t tread on me and if you don’t we’ll leave you alone.” We broke with that tradition for Iraq. What is your standard for breaking with tradition of nonintervention?

EDWARDS: When somebody like Saddam Hussein presents a direct threat to the security of the American people and, in this case, the security of a region of the world that I think is critical.

He quickly realizes that he’s pissed off a lot of liberal primary voters and tries to say he would have gone about it differently than the President, but he can’t seem to explain how, because he just go through saying he’d have done it exactly like the President and stands by how the President went about it. He actually tried to flip flop in a matter of minutes because he feared alienating the far left voters… yet he had no where to go because the comments I just cited leave absolutely no wiggle room for him. What would he have done differently, sent a hooker over to the hotel rooms of the foreing ministers of France, Germany, and Russia?

This guy is worthless and I hope soon enough we never hear from him again.

RightWinged on February 15, 2007 at 4:28 PM

Another example of why America is not the nation of our forefathers - weakness in the face of the enemy and lack of resolve brought to us be the Left.

Edwards is an example of the Left who is an aid and comfort to the enemy and prefers to sacrafice the national interests for his own partisan political gain.

Australian PM Howard was right that the enemy should play to our elections and do everything they can to support the Left. Our own Left will do unto us, and our allies, as no enemy can.

When, when, when will the citizens of the United States wake up and see the Left for what they really are?

omegaram on February 15, 2007 at 6:52 PM

The Democrat of the past:

In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility—I welcome it. I do not believe that any of us would exchange places with any other people or any other generation. The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light our country and all who serve it—and the glow from that fire can truly light the world.

And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.

My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.

Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.

-JFK

Vs. The Modern Democrat:

Ladies and gentlemen, our course is clear. The time has come to knuckle under. To get down on all fours and really lick boot. -McNeal

You know… it’s too bad that the good Kennedys die, and the terrible ones live forever.

Jones Zemkophill on February 15, 2007 at 7:56 PM

Bryan, I completely agree with your assessment and with most of the comments in this string.

Edwards letter was a call for people in agreement with him to be politically active - to influence their Representatives and Senators by calling. He believes activity like that will make a difference.

Edwards letter and this string was a “wake up” call to me.

I have been withholding support from the Republican party and Bush because of the “amnesty” issue. I believe Bush is dead wrong about it

BUT, the Dems seem to be dead wrong about almost everything.

If we conservatives only support those who agree with us on everything - we. will. lose. big.

If we do not support with calls and small contributions those who more closely hold our views they will fail and lose - and then what will we have and who should we blame?

roydee43 on February 15, 2007 at 11:10 PM

You must be logged in to post a comment.