Maybe not yet, but soon, I expect we will see it mounting.

You may ask why?  If the people showed a mandate by overturnign the republicans so forcefully why would they backlash now?

A couple reasons, I think.

One reasons is that the Democrat’s are giddy with power.  They have chaffed at being the second party since 1994 and they have never been graceful about it.  Now that they feel the Republicans are on the ropes, there is little they will not do hurt the republicans, and the war is their first target.

The War however may turn out to be more dangerous for them to end then keepign it going.

The danger is that to appease the nutroots they have to end it soon.  Hillary just released a telling video making this point.  She has been hammered by the far left for years on her consistent support of the military and they war.  But now that she has announced her bid for the Oval Office, that position is no longer acceptable,  If she wants their support, she has to flip.

And flip she did, in a big way.  Not just with a 6-18 month draw down.  She wants it to start in 90 days.  Of all the cut and runners, she is the cut and runniest.  Or something.  NO slow bleed here, she wants us to bleed out quickly.

Investers Business Daily ran a story just a few days ago, and they slammed the Democrats (with emphasis on Murtha) fairly decisively.

Unparalleled Perfidy

War On Terror: The party of John Murtha shamelessly seeks to defund and defeat U.S. troops on the battlefield and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. The Congress the terrorists wanted is doing their bidding.

Ouch!

…We saw recently the futility of having 100 commanders in chief when the Senate tried to pass a resolution of disapproval of the war in Iraq and couldn’t agree on the terms of our surrender.

Now it’s the House of Representatives’ turn, led by Rep. John Murtha, who believes the fine young men and women we send to defeat terror and our sworn enemies are cold-blooded killers. While the House works on its own nonbinding resolution, Murtha has bigger plans and considers such a resolution only a prelude to the real battle in March over appropriations for the war.

Murtha plans to stop the Iraq War by placing four conditions on combat funds through Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year. The Pentagon would have to certify that troops being sent to Iraq are "fully combat ready" with training and equipment, troops must have at least one year at home between combat deployments, combat deployments cannot be longer than a year, and extending tours of duty would be prohibited.

"We’re trying to force a redeployment not by taking money away, (but) by redirecting money," explained Murtha.

As we’ve noted on several occasions, Democratic talk of "redeployment" has encouraged terrorist groups around the world.

Jihad Jaara, a senior member of the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, said before the 2006 vote: "Americans should vote Democratic," adding that "it is time the American people support those who want to take them out of the Iraqi mud." The statement could have come from Murtha, Kerry, Hillary or any number of Democrats.

The first money quote:

We find it scary that the Democratic and terrorist game plans are indistinguishable.

Yea that sums it up well.

Sen. Hillary Clinton, who was for the war before she was against it, has denied she supports cutting off any money for U.S. forces. But she has admitted she would cut off funds to our Iraqi allies to "get their attention." Such a move would likely lead to a collapse of the fledgling Iraqi democracy and a withdrawal of U.S. forces amid chaos similar to what happened when the 1974 Watergate babies cut off aid to our allies in South Vietnam.

If Clinton and Murtha et al. have their way, we may yet see U.S. helicopters lifting off our embassy roof in Baghdad and a jihadist bloodbath like the killing fields of post-Vietnam Cambodia.

Here is the second money quote.

If her husband’s cowardly withdrawal from Somalia after the bodies of U.S. soldiers were dragged through the streets of Mogadishu inspired Osama bin Laden to plan 9/11, imagine what a Democrat-led defeat in Iraq might spawn.

But the most interesting section of the piece was this survey they posted on winning or losing in Iraq.

Now granted I normally do not give surveys any real credit.  They are notoriously fickle.

But as other continually throw surveys in my face about the publics lack of support for the war, here is one that offers a slightly different perspective.  If offers the question "should we win?"

The survey shows that 2/3rds of americans see a victory as important, and 58% are still hopeful wewill succeed.

Apparently the mandate was not as forceful as they thought.

And that is the whole point that so many people have been trying to get through the anti war nutroots heads:  Failure here will have long reaching effects beyond Iraq.  The majority of Americans get it, the Sheehanistas are the ones who do not.

The smacking continues with Brit Hume going after Murtha on Fox News Sunday, as noted on Hot Air:

HUME: That sound bite from John Murtha suggests that it’s time a few things be said about him. Even the “Washington Post” noted he didn’t seem particularly well informed about what’s going on over there, to say the least. Look, this man has tremendous cachet among House Democrats, but he is not — this guy is long past the day when he had anything but the foggiest awareness of what the heck is going on in the world.

And that sound bite is naivete at large, and the man is an absolute fountain of such talk, and the fact that he has ascended to the position he has in the eyes of the Democrats in the House and perhaps Democrats around the country tells you a lot about how much they know or care about what’s really going on over there.

I will close this with a video of a guy who gets it.  Listen for yourself, or read the transcripts. 

I hope at some point in time the Democrats listen.  I can hope, can’t I?

Trackback URI | Comments RSS