February 14, 2007

There’s a Word for the ‘Slow Bleed’ Strategy of War Opponents

Filed under: Taxes & Government,US & Allied Military — Tom @ 11:12 pm

It rhymes with “reason.”

This story comes is accompanied by yet another example of Democrat site-scrubbing (two previous ones on unrelated matters within the past week are here and here). For the record, here’s what was scrubbed (bold is mine):

Chairman Murtha will describe his strategy for not only limiting the deployment of troops to Iraq but undermining other aspects of the president’s foreign and national security policy.

The bolded text is a textbook definition of the word that rhymes with “reason.”

Bryan at Hot Air says it best for those who wish to read posts rated PG-13 or cleaner. Many others (here and here for starters — consider yourself warned) are not so sparing in their language.

________________________________

UPDATE: Wizblog is on it, as is Matt at Weapons of Mass Discussion.

UPDATE 2, Feb. 15: At OpinionJournal.com

Awaiting the Dishonor Roll
Congress “supports the troops” while emboldening the enemy.

….. A newly confirmed commander is about to lead 20,000 American soldiers on a dangerous and difficult mission to secure Baghdad, risking their lives for their country. And the message their elected Representatives will send them off to battle with is a vote declaring their inevitable defeat.

UPDATE 3, Feb. 15: A former Gore adviser understands what is at stake (HT Instapundit).

UPDATE 4, Feb. 15: Taranto at Best of the Web nails it

So the idea is to keep the troops in harm’s way but take all steps possible to prevent them from prevailing, in the hope that the Democrats will benefit politically from American defeat.

You don’t have to agree with the president’s policies to find this appalling. If Murtha thinks he has a better way, let him run for president next year and make the case. To pursue a strategy of subversion instead is cowardly and despicable.

Leftists have officially given lie to any conceivable claim that they “support the troops.”

UPDATE 5, Feb. 15: Barnett at Hewitt — “The Cat’s out of the Bag”

UPDATE 6, Feb. 16: Ray Robison at American Thinker says it’s about De-Legitimizing the Troops. Yes, it is.

UPDATE, 7, Feb. 17: Dictionary Meets Reality — Here’s something from February 6 by the AP’s David Espo that MoveCongress.org can’t purge (HT Gateway Pundit), though AP might decide to at some point –

Apart from legislation, Democrats have embarked on an effort to undermine public support for the war by holding numerous hearings.

The News Buckit makes the important distinction here: “Of course up until this point, the pat claim was that Democrats were acting according to public discontent, not acting to cultivate it.” It’s been about “cultivation” from the very start.

Share

4 Comments

  1. Let us say the sitting president has policies which harm American workers while rewarding rich business buddies and pays lip service to environmental protections while cutting funding for research on alternative energy. Would it be treasonous to say you are going to attempt to *undermine the president’s domestic policy*?

    Of course not Tom.
    Anyone with half a brain would want to derail the so-called foreign policy of this president and administration, especially given the recently revealed story of Powell not be able to *sell to the White House* talks with Iran way back in 2003.

    Comment by Big News — February 15, 2007 @ 7:31 am

  2. Oh my.

    First, and obviously if the language were nothing to be ashamed of, why was it scrubbed? “Anyone with half a brain” knew that it clearly indicated actions that fit the textbook definition of the word that rhymes with reason.

    Assuming you don’t agree with the scrubbing (otherwise you have no beef here):
    - I am assuming you’re talking about some mythical president in your first paragraph, because it doesn’t describe the one currently in office, except maybe the last item, which should be handled by the markets anyway.
    - If you want to derail the foreign policy of the president, who per the constitution is commander in chief, you have an up-or-down vote on funding. You don’t do a slow bleed, which when you look at the details deliberately intends to deny the military the resources it needs for the troops in the field and will be more likely to put them in harm’s way.
    - Powell, unfortunately, has been show to have undermined the president while he was at State.
    - The talks-with-Iran concept isn’t exactly news. Everyone’s wanted to do that since 1979. Iran is a country funding worldwide terror that may at last be imploding. If it does, that vindicates a decision NOT to talk with them in ’03, doesn’t it?

    I deleted your condescending sentence and had to replace quotes and apostrophes because of a site glitch. Your sentence had a spelling error anyway.

    Comment by TBlumer — February 15, 2007 @ 9:16 am

  3. so sorry for the spelling errors. feel free to edit my comments as needed in order to preserve your rightwing reputation.

    so, let’s do a treason test. let’s say a weakened president’s domestic policies were being opposed by opposition party members in congress…so bitterly that two partial government shutdowns result. treasonous or valiant?

    valiant, right? because government should be norquist to the point of drowning in a tub, huh? (feel free to disagree with grover…but watch the wingnut cred). if this activity doesn’t rhyme with reason, why the distinction?

    and, yes, disagree with the scrubbing. disagree with apologizing for saying lives were wasted as well. they were. we’ve accomplished nothing but destabilizing and installing Iran as the dominant force in the region. you speak of unintended consequences much. you should take that one up.

    Comment by Big News — February 15, 2007 @ 7:30 pm

  4. #3, the editing was done primarily to protect you from embarrassing yourself. 8 year-olds can do better than what was edited out. I do not tolerate personal insults and condescension in my house. If you want to engage in it to your heart’s content, get your own blog, or stay at it if you have one.

    Even though I linked to the dictionary so you could read the definition on your own, I guess I’m going to have to work with it here, because you obviously don’t get it. Words mean things around here, and aren’t thrown around recklessly.

    (BTW, isn’t it funny how the shutdown thing works? Reagan as president shut down the government and then Gingrich as speaker shut down the govt. It had NOTHING to do with the O’Neil congress failing to send Reagan something acceptable, and NOTHING to do with Clinton vetoing spending measures and continuing resolutions. Horsecrap — it was a joint effort both times, with the “winner” being the party the formerly mainstream media gave the more favorable coverage to.)

    Domestic policy squabbles as you described:
    1. DO NOT involve “the offense of acting to overthrow one’s government or to harm or kill its sovereign.”
    2. DO NOT involve “a violation of allegiance to one’s sovereign or to one’s state.”
    3. DO NOT involve “the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.”

    Therefore, they are not treason (sort of, uh obvious).

    The slow bleed definitely involves Numbers 2 and 3.

    By undermining the president’s foreign policy, a stated intention, it endangers troops already stationed in Iraq and perhaps elsewhere, something that someone who has sworn to “protect and defend the Constitution” cannot do while keeping his/her oath. Hence the violation of allegiance. Number 2 proven.

    The slow bleed strategy is by definition an act of treachery by a Congress that won’t have an up-or-down vote on funding until (it thinks) it can move public opinion, partially by co-operating with many parties whose hostility to the US is well-known and well-documented (treachery); by blabbing about anything that should be kept secret for national security reasons if it makes the president, the military command, or our soldiers look bad (breach of trust by individuals sworn to secrecy; and by flat-out lying enough times to a sycophantic media that the disengaged start believing the lies thanks to repetition (breaches of faith with the American people). Number 3 proven.

    Also see the updates from the learned ones above.

    Now go somewhere where your inability to construct an argument won’t be a handicap.

    Comment by TBlumer — February 15, 2007 @ 8:00 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.