Time is Running Out: Help Holocaust Survivors Now!

Lose Iraq to Win an Election?

Cal Thomas | Syndicated Columnist | Updated: Mar 14, 2007

Lose Iraq to Win an Election?

February 16, 2007

The website politico.com, reported this on Wednesday: “top house Democrats, working in concert with anti-war groups, have decided against using Congressional power to force a quick end to U.S. involvement in Iraq and instead will pursue a slow-bleed strategy designed to gradually limit the administration’s options.”

This will be lead by fervent anti-war Congressman John Murtha of Pennsylvania. House Democrats want to limit the increase in American troops the president thinks are necessary to stabilize Iraq. But what they are really pursuing – and there is no other way to say it – is failure. They would prefer the United States be defeated in Iraq so they might capture the White House in 2008. What else could they mean by a “slow-bleed” strategy? They apparently think that pulling the troops out immediately might harm them politically, but to slowly-bleed the process would make it look like a presidential and Republican failure.

This is pathetic, especially when you consider our enemies will regard it as a victory for them and will press ahead with new attacks. Why shouldn’t they when so many members of Congress are too weak to fight them?

Cal Thomas is a nationally syndicated columnist based in Washington, D.C.

Lose Iraq to Win an Election?