Republicans Vote To Continue Their Slow Bleed Of Our Troops In Iraq

[bigtree]

February 17, 2007


All the argument is a whore and a cuckold, a good quarrel to draw emulous factions and bleed to death upon! --Shakespeare


It's become a 'cute' strategy for some republicans to accuse the Democrats of planning a "slow bleed" of our troops in Iraq because of their announced plans to direct the White House on the troops' training, equipping, and deployments in upcoming funding legislation as Bush vows to continue his bloody occupation. Over 3,133 U.S. soldiers have been killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal occupation, with February already shaping up to be one of the bloodiest months for our troops as another Marine lost his life today in al-Anbar.

Nothing could be more offensive than sing-song attacks on the integrity of those who have advocated against Bush since the beginning of the invasion, but, even more offensive, the attacks which are coming from the republican leadership are on the integrity of battle-hardened veterans like Rep. John Murtha.

"I volunteered for a year's duty in Vietnam," Murtha told reporters in January. "I was out in the field almost every single day. We took heavy casualties in my regiment the year that I was there. In my fitness reports, I was rated No. 1. My record is clear."

Without any shame, republican Rep. John Boehner has repeatedly described Murtha's plan to attach conditions to the upcoming Iraq supplemental funding bill as a "slow bleed" of the soldiers in Iraq. However, Majority Leader John A. Boehner did not serve in the military and can only speak about issues related to our nation's military as a politician, not as a person who has any life experience which would lend his attacks on Murtha's commitment to the troops any credibility at all.

The man who stood beside Boehner as he taunted the distinguished veteran and chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, was none other than G.O.P. Leader Roy Blunt who had also declined to serve when he had the opportunity.

Indeed, the majority of Congressfolks have not served in our nation's military, yet feel no compunction about sending other Americans to fight and die in their war of convenience; nor do they feel any hesitancy at all about standing behind these troops as they send even more of them to fight and die in the middle of Iraq's warring factions. From their positions of relative safety behind the sacrifices of our soldiers, Boehner, Blunt, and others are content to keep our soldiers bogged down in Iraq in defense of Iraqis whose majority of citizens have said that they support attacks on our forces, and whose majority has asked over and over that we leave their country.

Nothing could be as deadly as the certain attacks on our troops in Iraq which are now averaging three soldiers killed every day in the increased occupation. There can be no other more pernicious "slow bleed" than the unnecessary deaths of the 3,133 U.S. soldiers who have been killed in Iraq defending the republicans' and the Bush administration's lies and excuses for keeping our nation's defenders hunkered down in the middle of the civil war zone.

And now, Senate republicans have voted to continue enabling Bush in his "slow bleed" of our soldiers in Iraq as they blocked the latest Democratic effort to reign in his bloody occupation. Their argument is nothing more than a cheap political trick designed to allow Bush to continue sending more of our soldiers into his Iraq quagmire. The blame for the American blood that will surely be shed in Iraq as a result of Bush's escalation is firmly with the republican obstructionists as they callously "slow bleed" our troops into oblivion.


http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bigtree

[Old and In the Way]

1. Excellent commentary, Bigtree

I am curious of knowing the vet breakdown on the vote....I suspect there are more vets voting to vote on this issue than the Rubberstamping Chickenhawks who'd prefer to support their AWOL pResident by avoiding this vote.

[bigtree]

2. thanks, O&ITW

if this is going to be the leadership's strategy, "slow bleed" can be easily used to describe their own willingness to sacrifice our soldiers.

I must be a few days early. Next week the name-calling over the funding will reach a fever pitch.

[bigtree]

3. CNN onscreen text: " 'Slow Bleed' Strategy? Iraq Funding Debate"

Fri, Feb 16, 2007 6:48pm EST

Several times during the 7 p.m. ET broadcast of the February 15 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, the onscreen text read " 'Slow Bleed' Strategy? Iraq Funding Debate," putting part of the headline of a Republican National Committee statement in question form. In introducing the program, host Wolf Blitzer said: " 'slow-bleed' strategy -- that's what Republicans are accusing Democrats of plotting in the Iraq debate," while the onscreen text read: " 'Slow Bleed' Strategy?" CNN also repeatedly used " 'Slow Bleed' Strategy? Iraq Funding Debate" in CNN congressional correspondent Andrea Koppel's report on the House debate, during which Koppel read from an RNC "statement calling" comments by Rep. John P. Murtha (D-PA) "the Democrats' 'slow bleed' strategy to choke off funding for troops in harm's way." Neither Blitzer nor Koppel informed viewers of the origin of the "slow bleed" term.

As Media Matters for America noted, the RNC seized on the term "slow bleed" to describe the Democrats' Iraq strategy after it appeared in a February 14 article by Politico congressional bureau chief John Bresnahan. As Media Matters also noted, Bresnahan did not attribute the term to anyone and did not put it in quotation marks, suggesting that it was The Politico's own characterization. Nonetheless, the RNC asserted in a press release that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Rep. John P. Murtha (D-PA) "call it their 'slow-bleed' plan." So Republicans went further than "accusing Democrats" of having undertaken a "slow bleed" plan, as Blitzer said; they actually falsely claimed that the term was the Democrats'. In a February 16 Politico article, Bresnahan clarified that the term was not "used by any Democrats or the anti-war groups supporting their efforts." Bresnahan also noted that "he RNC, however, attributed the phrase to Democrats, and it was used in their e-mail alert."

Koppel also said, "ust as Democrats did earlier this week, Republicans today gave war veterans center stage" and then aired three video clips featuring two Republican congressmen, who are veterans. Koppel asserted that Rep. Sam Johnson (R-TX) "was one of a group of Republican vets who shared personal experiences to remind colleagues what happens when congressional support for a war falters."

However, on the February 13 edition of The Situation Room, when Koppel aired a quote from Rep. John Conyers (MI), a Democratic veteran, she asserted that the "Democrats' strategy" of "put the party's military veterans front and center" was "in hopes of insulating themselves against Republican accusations Democrats don't support the troops," ascribing a partisan motivation for the Democrats' actions while imputing no such motivation to the Republicans' similar actions two days later. Further, just as in Koppel's February 15 segment, her February 13 report concluded with her referring to "press releases ... the Republicans are churning out" and featured Rep. Adam Putnam (R-FL), chairman of the House Republican Conference, who she said was "overseeing the effort."

During the show's 4 p.m. ET broadcast on February 15, CNN Internet reporter Abbi Tatton also read from an email she said was sent by the RNC, "saying that the plan would put the lives of troops in 'greater danger, as resources slowly dry up.' " Tatton did not note that the statement falsely attributed the "slow bleed" term to congressional Democrats.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200702160013


From the 4 p.m. ET hour of the February 15 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0702/15/sitroom.01.html

From the 7 p.m. ET hour of the February 15 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0702/15/sitroom.03.html

[bigtree]

4. ‘Slow Bleed’ Conservatives Voted Against Billions In Equipment For U.S. Troops

The right-wing has begun a coordinated effort to smear Iraq war critics by describing their legislative plan as a “slow-bleed strategy.”

The phrase was first used in an article Wednesday by John Bresnahan of The Politico; within hours, the Republican National Committee issued a release falsely claiming that Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) “call their plan the ’slow-bleed strategy.’” In fact, as Bresnahan clarified in a subsequent article, “slow-bleed” was “not a term used by any Democrats or the anti-war groups supporting their efforts.”

Nevertheless, conservatives continue to use the phrase to attack war critics. During this week’s Iraq debate, at least five members — Deborah Pryce (R-OH), Roy Blunt (R-MO), Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI), Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), and Adam Putnam (R-FL) — used the phrase on the House floor. Watch a video compilation:

If only their rhetoric matched their voting record. In October 2003, as insurgent violence in Iraq was growing and military equipment shortages were becoming increasingly problematic, Rep. David Obey (D-WI) proposed an amendment shifting $3.6 billion to pay for better equipment and other quality-of-life measures for U.S. troops. Not one of the five voted for it.

That’s a real recipe for “slow bleed.”

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/16/slow-bleed-smear/

[bigtree]

5. dupe

[bigtree]

6. shitload of articles with pinheads using the "slow bleed" smear

The ones I posted are the only direct rebuttals I could find . . . so, I laid this one out. Published here:


top of the page: http://www.opednews.com/

Republicans Vote To Continue Their Slow Bleed Of Our Troops In Iraq

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_ron_full_070218_republicans_vote_to_.htm