Mr. Baar, did you actually read Murtha’s proposal? Most people (if not all people) who actually think about how to best support our troops support Murtha’s ideas because they are (wait for it) common sense military strategy.

But go ahead and keep defending the White House conservatives who have proven time and again that they are better at weaseling their way out of a battlefield (ie, Vietnam) than actually planning how to win on a battlefield (ie, no plan for victory in Iraq and constantly moving goalposts once America realized they didn’t have a plan).

Why are you still defending ineptitude?

–

As for Lieberman, he voted against supporting and honoring our troops. Read the first clause of the resolution he interrupted his Sabbath to vote “no” on.

You, Mr. Baar, keep harping on what you perceive to be a contradiction in the separate votes regarding the non-binding resolution and the vote to confirm or deny Gen. Petraeus.

First, the resolution is non-binding because the Congress is a political organization representing all stripes. Had it been binding, the minority Republicans would’ve pulled out all the stops to deny the American people the very thing they want — an end to this war.

Second, as the Senate demonstrated with the Roberts and Alito appointments (when then-minority Democrats could have filibustered) the Senate is quite willing to be very flexible and accommodating of the President’s desired appointees. It is exceedingly rare when the Senate will not confirm one of Pres. Bush’s appointments.

Third, you keep spelling “Petraeus” wrong.

Fourth, one must ask one’s self why Gen. Petraeus was even up for the position requiring his confirmation. The answer one would find is that his predecessor disagreed with the surge strategy and resigned because of it, like so many earlier military brass who have disagreed with their Commander-in-Chief.

To the point, the surge strategy you, Pres. Bush, Sens. McCain (R-AZ) and Lieberman (LfC-CT), and Gen. Petraeus (among others) are promoting is already behind schedule in training Iraqi troops — an overall process that was years behind schedule to begin with. Moreover, we’re seeing the expected result beginning to take place as the Iraqi insurgents regrouped and restrategized and also moved out away from Baghdad into other previously more stable areas of the country (as Democrats, reasonable Republicans and conscientious military leaders all warned).

…The inability to make any sense of Iraq (from the start to the “end of major combat ops” to today) is precisely what is already destroying the Republican Party as reasonable conservatives realize their elected officials are too partisan to see their errors and as the nation’s independents recognize tomfoolery when they see it. It was the Republicans who lost last November, remember?

That you and fewer and fewer others still defend and try to spin this Iraq War as you do is not testament to your steadfastness or resolve but is rather evidence of your inability to remove partisan blinders.

What’s more – do you not realize the absurdity of suggesting a debacle of a war, wholly bought and paid for by Bush and the GOP, is going to bring down the Democrats? Is there a secret plan afoot to make Iraq popular again? Another Cheney charm offensive? Good grief, man.

That’s the truely bizarre things Democrats have done with Gen Petreaus.

Lieberman said it best,

Senator Lieberman argued that the non binding resolution, “proposes nothing. It contains no plan for victory or retreat… It is a strategy of “no,”while our soldiers are saying, “yes, sir” to their commanding officers as they go forward into battle.”

Confirming Petreaus’s mission and sending him to War and then offering the Murtha’s slow bleed to deny him reinforcements and supplies not the stuff of Lincoln.

The inability to make any sense of Iraq is what will destroy Democrats in 2008. The party will rip itself apart.

pretty crazy.