Editorials Condemn Democrats "Slow Bleed" Approach

Via email:

On Friday, House Democrats approved a non-binding resolution they called the "first step" in their effort to cut off funding for American troops in harm's way. The Washington Post says the next step is a plan crafted by Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) and supported by Dem Leaders which would deny our troops the resources they need to succeed "by crudely hamstringing the ability of military commanders to deploy troops":

"His aim, he made clear, is not to improve readiness but to 'stop the surge.' So why not straightforwardly strip the money out of the appropriations bill -- an action Congress is clearly empowered to take -- rather than try to micromanage the Army in a way that may be unconstitutional? Because, Mr. Murtha said, it will deflect accusations that he is trying to do what he is trying to do."

An editorial in the Daily Oklahoman blasts the Democrats' "slow-bleed" strategy:

"[I]nstead of simply voting to cut off the war's funding -- which is Congress' constitutional prerogative -- the House Democratic leadership apparently will try to choke it off. ...

"Members of both parties should oppose this shameful strategy that would undercut the troops in the field."

Of course, Democrats won't actually say they will choke off funding -- they say they only want to "redirect" dollars away from our troops so they can micromanage the war effort. Investors Business Daily quoted Congressman Murtha, saying as much:

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

But what is "redirecting money" other than another way of saying "choking off" funding for reinforcements that our troops on the ground need in Iraq? If you "redirect" dollars from our troops on the ground to some other purpose, you're choking off dollars for our men and women in harm's way.

The New York Post calls the scheme what it is: an effort to "completely undermine" the Global War on Terror "by limiting funds":

"It is an initial step by newly empowered congressional Democrats to completely undermine the war by limiting funds - to deny the troops the beans and bullets they need to win, and to broadcast to America's enemies in the Middle East and around the world that the United States has lost the will to protect itself, and its friends."

The New York Daily News says the Democrats' plan will shut down funding and stop our troops in their tracks:

"Like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's point man, Jack Murtha. Seldom in the history of the republic has an elected official so delighted in the idea of preventing American troops from doing their jobs, and yesterday the Pennsylvania congressman was practically licking his chops at the prospect of shutting down their funding and stopping them in their tracks. Actual Murtha quote: 'They won't have the equipment, they don't have the training and they won't be able to do the work.' ...

"And their intention is to attach such fussily strict conditions that increasing troop strength will become impossible.

"Well, never mind that Gen. David Petraeus, the new ground commander in Iraq , says he needs these new troops."

The New Jersey Star-Ledger said the plan by Dem Leaders "would put Congress in the inappropriate position of micromanaging the war." And the Denver Post cautioned that "Congress needs to take care not to micromanage the war effort beyond its funding and oversight responsibilities."

No matter what they call it, Dem Leaders have crafted a scheme that will deny America 's troops in harm's way the resources they need to succeed in the Global War on Terror.

While we're on the subject... Contrary to what you might read in Kossack Land, it is NOT a smear to call John Murtha out on his proposal. It is not "swiftboating" John Murtha to put a spot light on his plan to lose this war. Murtha is a part of te leadership on this issue now and it would be inexcusable not to take him at his word. If Murtha has been taken out of context, he should say so...his silence on the issue speaks volumes.