Dems declare war is Lost

[Gypsy]

Originally Posted by one-zero

Weasly Reid was just on news earlier saying he meant to say "we lost war if the current policy was continued"...

must be taking some incomming...hehehe

Yeah right. He said EXACTLY what he meant to say....

[letinsh]

Crotchety Old Bastard had an interesting response:

Dear Senator Reid,

Thank you for finally putting this whole Iraq War mess to bed. The timing couldn’t be better for my family.
You see, my son is serving in this “lost war” with the 82nd Airborne Division; actually on his third tour. My family will be very happy to have him home within 30 days because then he can attend my daughter’s graduation from college and Commissioning Ceremony.

My bride is skeptical of all of this but I reassured her that I know for a fact that he will be home soon because based on your statement and being the Senate Majority Leader, you will kill all funding for this “lost war” immediately.
My bride was still unconvinced and I explained it to her this way.

If Senator Reid, based on the information that the Senate Majority Leader has, has determined that this war is lost; there is nothing left to do but come home. The way I see it, if you were to vote for anything less; you would be personally liable for any future wounded or God-Forbid dead soldiers.
Although, I have the utmost confidence that you will do the right thing and de-fund this war immediately; I have retained legal council just in case.

So, know this Senator; if you don’t de-fund this war within seven days, I will hold you personably liable for any harm to American servicemen. If the war is lost and you have the power to end it then just do it. Stop whining like a bitch and just do it.

Tort law: an overview

Torts are civil wrongs recognized by law as grounds for a lawsuit. These wrongs result in an injury or harm constituting the basis for a claim by the injured party. While some torts are also crimes punishable with imprisonment, the primary aim of tort law is to provide relief for the damages incurred and deter others from committing the same harms. The injured person may sue for an injunction to prevent the continuation of the tortious conduct or for monetary damages.

Negligence

From Wex, everyone's resource for law learning
Failure to exercise due care. When a person fails to exercise the care that a reasonable, prudent person would exercise under the same circumstances, that person is said to be negligent.

Intention
Intentional torts are those wrongs which the defendant knew or should have known would occur through their actions or inactions.

I have listened to your bullshit long enough. You, a person in high authority in the US government, have made a definitive statement that an action is occurring with no redeeming value. Said action is causing harm and death to US citizens. You have the unique power to stop said action and thusly stop the harm.
So Harry, I say have the balls to actually do it or find yourself liable.

Governing is not just whining and pandering. At some point you have to actually govern. It is painfully clear that you have neither the intellectual power nor the fuzzy kiwis to actually do it.
Feel free to share this with Neville Nancy as I plan the exact same action for her pathetic ass.

The soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen that you are endangering by either your idiotic statements that empower the enemy or your overt inaction that contributes to their danger; are American citizens. In either case, you have endangered them and you alone have the ability to correct it.
See you in court.

Very sincerely,
Crotchety Old Bastard
PS: I am asking all veterans, friends and families of servicemen and simple good Americans to please add a comment to this post. I will forward it to Senator Reid.

PSS: I know that Senator Reid’s comments likely upset many of you as it clearly did me. I have my flesh and blood that has been endangered by this jack-ass so please forgive the salty nature of this post.

[Gypsy]

You go, COB. I've read his blog before...this is outstanding.

[JPH]

Originally Posted by CoLawman

Kyo called for action on a separate thread. Are we going to start taking our forum speak to a different level? We joke about nominating TR, TS and the Colonel to public office. We can no longer afford to joke. We need to direct our anger and our concern for this nation in a concerted and effective means.

All rhetoric aside I would whole heartedly support any honorable man who would be willing to accept both the challenge and responsibility of running for public office. If such a person were not either willing or ready for POTUS then lets take a state set an example, and go from their.

JPH

[x-factor]

Originally Posted by Team Sergeant

Probably the Indo President.
And how did the Indonesians deal with the threat of communism.

Harshly, to say the least.


TR - Excellent letter. I'd like to commend you for being ardent and well-reasoned, without descending to shallow, partisan cheap shots. Your letter was in the best traditions of American politics. The Democratic Congress' behavoir of late has been in the worst (and I say that as a Democrat...though perhaps soon to be an Independent).

[steeve20]

Senator Reid

I am very distressed buy your recent statement on the war. The war is not lost. As a member of the Armed Forces you put me and my fellow soldier in jeopardy. It’s obvious that you do not care for the U.S. citizens including your constituents who are fighting this war. I can only hope that you are removed from office by your state citizens the next election. I don’t belief the current congress has the integrity to remove you from office.

With no respect to you

MSG Steven Holliday
ALARNG


I encourage everyone to write to him. I am providing the link below.

http://reid.senate.gov/contact/[/

[kgoerz]

I'm not writing a letter. I'm going to have alec baldwin call him.

[Matta mile]

"I'm not writing a letter. I'm going to have alec baldwin call him."~Kgoerz
Excellent approach (funny too)!
MM

[echoes]

He is at it again. I wonder how many emails he got, and didn't read?

Reid: Bush in Denial Over War in Iraq

Updated 9:23 AM ET April 23, 2007

By DAVID ESPO

WASHINGTON (AP) - With a veto fight looming, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Monday that President Bush is in a state of denial over Iraq, "and the new Congress will show him the way" to a change in war policy.

Full Story:
http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/new...omb74o0&src=ap

[jbour13]

I twisted my head as if I were a dog hearing an unfamiliar tone when I came across this. This was posted by the New York Times.

Author unknown - April 24, 2007 -- Fresh from his declaration that "this war [in Iraq] is lost," Senate Demo cratic leader Harry Reid is moving quickly to hasten America's unilateral surrender.

And to cast the Middle East into murderous chaos.

Reid yesterday promised that the Democratic-controlled Congress will within days pass legislation requiring U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq over the six months starting Oct. 1.

Never mind that such legislation:

* Likely wouldn't pass either house of Congress . . .

* . . . and, even if it did pass, certainly wouldn't survive a veto.

So the point must be not to make policy, but to send a message: That Harry Reid's Democratic Party is against war in the Middle East, maybe?

Or that war in the Middle East is OK - so long as no Americans are fighting?

Or, maybe it's all about politics?

To be sure, Reid won't risk calling for an immediate pullout. He cautioned his party's bug-out-now wing to be patient, despite "the restlessness" of those who "voted for change in November [and] anticipated dramatic and immediate results in January."

The problem, said Reid, is that "George W. Bush is still the commander-in-chief - and this is his war."

And there's the real problem: From the start, Reid and the Democrats have seen the war in Iraq as a partisan opportunity.

They refuse to present a unified front to the rest of the world - especially to America's enemies - because, in their pinched view, to do so would be to weaken their own prospects for retaking the White House in 2008.

No, Reid didn't repeat his declaration of defeat during yesterday's speech from the Senate floor.

It probably has dawned on him just how big a political blunder he committed - witness Sen. Chuck Schumer's gentle contradiction of the majority leader over the weekend, insisting that "the war is not lost."

Then again, Reid didn't have to repeat his original remarks - because the imposed timetable he announced, if enacted, would bring about precisely the same result.

That is, a precipitous U.S. withdrawal from the region - if Reid thinks the bug-out would stop at Iraq, he's dumber than he sounds - followed by:

* A rapid, al Qaeda/Iranian-driven descent into regional chaos.

* Most likely, a general war.

* And, almost certainly, a Mideast nuclear-arms race as Saudi Arabia, Eygpt and (probably) Turkey rush to arm themselves in anticipation of an Iranian bomb.

At the very least, Reid has to understand that his rhetoric can only encourage short-run insurgent attacks on Americans in Iraq.

Their blood stands to be on his hands.

And that's a terrible price to pay for a political payday that's so tentative that even an instinctive gut-fighter like Chuck Schumer recoils from the risk.

Harry Reid needs to put a cork in it.

Today.

I don't condone the NY Times and their typical antics for politicizing events to the nth degree, but I felt that it was worth posting to show that even liberal media outlets are getting tired of this crap.

[TENGU]

I am so outraged about the idiocy of most of the Democrats in congress, that what good is the statue on Treason and Sedition any more. What does it take to make these cowardly appeasers understand they only embolden an enemy that cannot be reasoned with, bargained with that must be destroyred!
I have writen to my congress reps like some of you brothers have, I grieve for the deaths of the warriors from my old unit... What is there to do, short of outright revolution, to kick the bums out and take back the America I grew up with and love? And how about those same Democrats and our President that want open borders? I only share these thoughts here, since you all can understand what I mean. Otherwise I am called a Warmonger, Bigot, Hater of immigrants, (though I came to this country as a LEGAL immigrant), Should not the likes of Reid, Pelosi Rosie be arrested and tried for at least Sedition???

[Ret10Echo]

This is pretty lengthy, but this is part of the text of the recently passed Emergency Spending Bill that will require a pullout. For the full text follow the link:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...bill=h110-1591

SEC. 1315. REVISION OF UNITED STATES POLICY ON IRAQ. (a) Findings- Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or have served bravely and honorably in Iraq.
(2) The circumstances referred to in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243) have changed substantially.
(3) United States troops should not be policing a civil war, and the current conflict in Iraq requires principally a political solution.
(4) United States policy on Iraq must change to emphasize the need for a political solution by Iraqi leaders in order to maximize the chances of success and to more effectively fight the war on terror.
(b) Prompt Commencement of Phased Redeployment of United States Forces From Iraq-
(1) TRANSITION OF MISSION- The President shall promptly transition the mission of United States forces in Iraq to the limited purposes set forth in paragraph (2).
(2) COMMENCEMENT OF PHASED REDEPLOYMENT FROM IRAQ- The President shall commence the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, with the goal of redeploying, by March 31, 2008, all United States combat forces from Iraq except for a limited number that are essential for the following purposes:
(A) Protecting United States and coalition personnel and infrastructure.
(B) Training and equipping Iraqi forces.
(C) Conducting targeted counter-terrorism operations.
(3) COMPREHENSIVE STRATEGY- Paragraph (2) shall be implemented as part of a comprehensive diplomatic, political, and economic strategy that includes sustained engagement with Iraq's neighbors and the international community for the purpose of working collectively to bring stability to Iraq.
(4) REPORTS REQUIRED- Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and every 90 days thereafter, the President shall submit to Congress a report on the progress made in transitioning the mission of the United States forces in Iraq and implementing the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq as required under this subsection, as well as a classified campaign plan for Iraq, including strategic and operational benchmarks and projected redeployment dates of United States forces from Iraq

[The Reaper]

I think the "but we support the troops" line by the Dims national leadership is ringing about as true as the old, "but some of my best friends are black" comment.

The fact is, as they have already stated, they see the troops as an underclass of losers who couldn't get real jobs, and are only stating their support because they believe public sentiment and political expediency demand it.

As soon as they think they don't have to say they support the troops to keep popular support, they (for the most part) will drop us like a hot potato.

Just my .02, YMMV.

TR

[Ret10Echo]

Standard use of the word "BUT" which negates everything previous. They frontload the "Support the troops" and flag wave, immediately followed by a detailed tearing down of what they presented up front.

Additionally if you read through the rest of the bill that it has been booby-trapped with a lot of other spending such as Katrina relief, Veteran support and the list goes on and on. So the veto pen comes out because of the &^%#!&@^%#&! pullout, but a lot of other stuff goes down with it. And don't think that all of those "other" things won't magically pop up in MSM.

[echoes]

Col. North is right on the nail, IMO!

Military Responses to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's Comments
By Lt. Col. Oliver North
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,268845,00.html
April 26, 2007

Washington, D.C. — If Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is right, nearly sixty percent of Americans agree with him that the war in Iraq is already lost. And if he is correct in saying that losing the war will increase Democrat majorities in future elections, then it may be fair to conclude that Americans now love losers.

I’m not buying any of it — and neither are the troops who are fighting this war.

In the days since Mr. Reid announced that “this war is lost,” I have heard from dozens of the soldiers, sailors, airmen, guardsmen and Marines that I have covered in eight trips to Iraq and two to Afghanistan for FOX News. Some of those who correspond with me are there now, others are home and some are preparing to deploy again. None of them agree with the Majority Leader’s assessment.

• One e-mail from Ramadi, Iraq observed: “Good thing this guy Reid wasn’t around in 1940 when Winston Churchill promised the people of Great Britain nothing but ‘blood, toil, tears and sweat.’”
Another, a National Guardsman, recently returned from Mesopotamia with a Purple Heart, noted that the Senate Majority Leader has become “Al Qaeda’s most powerful ally.”

• At Mississippi State University, a Marine corporal I last saw along the banks of the Tigris River — now a college student — asked me, “Do those people who think we’ve lost this war have any idea what things will be like if we really do lose?”

It’s an important question that none of the potentates on the Potomac who just voted to withdraw U.S. troops appear willing to address.

According to military folklore, Napoleon kept a corporal at his side to ensure that the orders issued in battle were understandable by the troops who had to carry them out. Whether true or not, it’s time for Mr. Reid and Ms. Pelosi to find such a corporal who will ask them such questions, for if the Democrats continue their current course, we may well lose this war. This way, they will have embraced defeat and all that comes with it.

What would losing the war in Iraq mean? It’s a picture so dark and depressing that it makes the collapse in Vietnam — 32 years ago next week — look like a Sunday school picnic by comparison. The fall of Saigon was horrific for the people of the Republic of Vietnam and their neighbors in Cambodia and Laos. More than five million became refugees and by the most conservative estimates — no one knows for sure — at least a million others perished.

For most Americans, the consequences were minimal. The vast majority of the 2.8 million of us who had fought and bled there mourned the loss of 58,253 of our comrades, swallowed the bitterness of defeat, and got on with our lives. Our nation spent a few hundred million tax dollars on refugee relief and resettlement — and tried to forget what people in Mr. Reid’s party called “the long nightmare of Vietnam.”

But classified U.S. intelligence assessments, military contingency plans and staff studies evaluating the consequences of a precipitous U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, coupled with the lack of funding for political reform measures — as contained in the legislation just passed by Mr. Reid’s party — paint a far more dismal picture than anything that happened after Vietnam.

Within months, an immediate upsurge in vicious sectarian violence fomented by Iranian intervention on behalf of Shiite militias and Wahabbi-supported, al Qaeda-affiliated terror groups. As U.S. forces retreat to a half dozen staging areas for retrograde through Kuwait and Jordan, American casualties will dramatically increase from suicide bombers seeking “martyrdom” in their victory.

Inside of 18 months, the fragile, democratically-elected government in Baghdad will collapse, precipitating a real sectarian civil war and the creation of Taliban-like “regional governments” that will impose brutal, misogynistic rule throughout the country. The ensuing flood of refuges into Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Turkey and Iran will overwhelm relief organizations, creating a humanitarian disaster making what’s happening in Darfur pale by comparison.

The Kurds in Northern Iraq are likely to declare an autonomous region that could well result in Turkish, Iranian and even Syrian military intervention.

In the course of withdrawing U.S. combat brigades and support units, billions of dollars in American military equipment and ordnance will have to be destroyed or left behind. More than $40 billion in reconstruction projects for schools, health care facilities, sanitation, clean water, electrical distribution and agricultural development will be abandoned. Plans to exploit the new West Qurna oil field in southeastern Iraq will be forsaken.

The governments of Kuwait, Jordan, Abu Dhabi and Bahrain, intimidated by Iranian boldness in acquiring nuclear weapons, will likely insist on the withdrawal of American military bases from their territories. Such a move will jeopardize U.S. naval operations in the Persian Gulf and logistics, intelligence collection and command and control facilities supporting operations in Afghanistan.

As Iraq becomes a battleground for the centuries-long Sunni-Shiia conflict, radical Islamic terror organizations will use the territories they control to prepare and launch increasingly deadly terror attacks around the globe against U.S. citizens, businesses and interests.

Senator Reid and his cohorts in Congress who believe that “this war is lost” have acted to ensure that it will be. No one asked them: “If we lost, who won?” The answer should be obvious.