Taranto: "108 Democrats ... are now on record opposing victory"
In his December 19 "Best of the Web" column, James Taranto claimed that 108 Democrats "are now on record opposing victory" for voting against a resolution that expresses the commitment of the House of Representatives to achieve victory in Iraq. Taranto referred to these Democrats as "pro-surrender Dems."
In his December 19 "Best of the Web" column, Wall Street Journal opinionjournal.com editor James Taranto claimed that 108 Democrats "are now on record opposing victory" for voting against a Republican resolution (House Resolution 612) "[e]xpressing the commitment of the House of Representatives to achieving victory in Iraq." Taranto referred to these Democrats as "pro-surrender Dems." Democrats attacked the resolution as a "political stunt" and offered a competing resolution (House Resolution 613) -- immediately blocked by Republicans -- that praised the Iraqi elections, but made no mention of "victory" or an end to the conflict.
Taranto also falsely referred to a previous proposal (House Resolution 571) for immediate withdrawal as Rep. John P. "Murtha's" (D-PA). The proposal that Taranto labeled as "Murtha's" was, in fact, a one-sentence Republican proposal sponsored by Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) that news reports described as a "political trap" that was "aimed at embarrassing war critics." As Media Matters for America has documented, Taranto has also falsely attributed this position to Murtha in the past.
From the December 19 edition of the Wall Street Journal's "Best of the Web":
Watching President Bush's political recovery on Iraq, one is tempted to think that this has all been part of a rope-a-dope strategy. In recent weeks Democrats have taken a host of outrageous positions on Iraq: John Kerry* accuses our troops of "terrorizing kids and children." Howard Dean says victory is "just plain wrong." On Friday the House voted 279-109 in favor of a resolution "expressing the commitment of the House of Representatives to achieving victory in Iraq," which means that 108 Democrats and socialist Bernie Sanders are now on record opposing victory. (Fifty-nine Dems voted for victory, and 32 of them, along with two Republicans, voted "present.")
Most of the pro-surrender Dems--including last month's media darling, Jack Murtha--also voted against Murtha's proposal for immediate withdrawal, so it seems they want to turn tail and run, but not before taking some more casualties--a position they seem to have calibrated carefully with an eye toward completely discrediting themselves.
[...]
* Did we mention he's French-looking?
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
Historians will mark the 109th as the worst ever - corruption at the highest levels, failing in their job of oversite and investigation, giving up Congressional power to the executive, huge budget deficits, stunts like Shiavo and the meaningless Iraq Resolutions. Throw the bums out.
>>Watching President Bush's political recovery on Iraq
Polls show that a majority of Americans still disapprove of the way Bush is handling Iraq. Nor is there any hope that violence will end soon, or that Iraq will become a country friendly towards the US.
This is what Republicans and Right-wing Commentators do... they take complex subject matter like HRES 612, pick a few words from it, "commitment ... to achieving victory in Iraq" and then use that as a weapon to bash people.
If any normal human being reads the entire resolution it is NOT simply a commitment to achieving victory. It is MUCH more.
This tactic is kind of like a "bait and switch", i.e. the resolution is poorly worded in body, almost designed to infuriate the Dems, but labeled to make it look simpler than it is -- "commitment to achieving victory." And all Reps back it, the Dems don't (they Reps knew) and then the Reps can wave the paper in their hands in front of the media and say, "See! They don't support our troops!" All the while knowing that the public will not read the resolution, not read or hear an analysis of the resolution by the media.
than the fact that our House of Representatives has wasted precious time and effort on another useless piece of legislation--is "I support victory in Iraq" any more compelling than "I support the traditional use of Christmas symbols"?--is, as you pointed out, that every last Republican voted for it.
Whence came the term "knee-jerk liberal"? The fact that there is always more dissension among Democrats shows that they are the ones who are willing to do more research, think more deeply, and vote their conscience more often. In contrast, there is nothing more "knee-jerk" than a typical conservative.
Here's a quick and ghastly thought: our 'representatives' in Congress are making $76 an hour while they ponder such silliness. I obviously went into the wrong line of work.
I concur with GA.
This is a gross, opportunistic, partisan attempt to paint the opposition with laughably broad strokes.
Until we can make our legislature write laws that actually deal with the issues they're supposed to (instead of amending them with pork and nonsense), we'll never be rid of these kinds of rhetorical aerobatics.
Our lawmakers will take a bill involving, say...child abuse, and some jackass will attach an amendment that says everyone must kiss George W. Bush's feet at every opportunity. Then, when sensible congresspersons vote against it, the amender says "Why do you hate the children? Are you a child molester or something?"
And the corporate media traipses right along...
Victory in Iraq means we get to go home. So let's see, Iraqi army beaten : yes. Dictator deposed : yes. Found all those non-existent weapons : yes. Found that retired terrorist from the 1970s : yes. Dictator on trial : yes. New Constitution : yes. Free elections : yes.
Last week we started letting playing card folks go. Dr. Germ was released. We're done. So what's it take to call it Victory?
why Taranto hates America?
Yet again the Republicans stand up a strawman, knock it over and declare victory. Being in favor of "troop withdrawal" isn't being in favor of "defeat" anymore than being in favor of "staying" is siding with "victory". Bush set up a false dichotomy when he said "it's either victory or defeat" in Iraq. This assumes there is no third possibility which is stalemate. The insurgents don't have to "win" in Iraq. Their strategy is not to lose which automatically weakens the possibility of an all out "victory" in Iraq.
This same argument was presented by LBJ concerning Vietnam. He too framed the debate in absolute terms and as history proved out, he was wrong on all accounts. Vietnam, which was a civil war, was unwinnable. Domino Theory was false: Indochina didn't ALL become communist; the world didn't ALL become communist.
Now Bush wants us to believe that yet another civil war, one a 500 year history of irreconcilable RELIGIOUS differences, can be won, and that some Reverse Domino Theory applies: if Iraq become democratic, ALL the Middle East will become democratic, in the Jeffersonian sense of the word, which is of course absurd, like putting a table cloth on a rottweiler and calling it a table, as if a facade defines the reality of what's underneath. All signs indicate that Iraq will end up an Islamic Republic with close ties to Iran, unless the USA stays indefinitely and polices the situation. If so, how is that "victory"?