Democrat Congressman: "We've taken public positions which...forced the president...into the surge...which is working"

Yet more question marks come out of the open mouth of the Pennsylvania Congressman

By Jeff Emanuel Posted in | | | Comments (9) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-PA), who recently gained media attention for his videotaped admission that, due to "temptation to want to win back the Congress," Democrats "stretched the facts" regarding their ability to actually end the war in Iraq, appears to be back for a video encore. This time, the Democratic Congressman appears in a video making two distinct statements regarding the 'Surge' strategy that has been so effective in Iraq.

The video is below; below that is a transcript.


In February 2007, Kanjorski went to the floor of the House to say:

Ms. Speaker, I rise today to join the overwhelming majority of the American people, the Congress, and many top U.S. military commanders to voice my opposition to President Bush's ill-conceived plan to send more American troops into the middle of an ongoing Civil War in Iraq

Then, in an interview from just days ago, Kanjorski said:

We've taken public positions which have now forced the president to go into the surge mentality, which is somewhat working

Recently, it was his unfortunate honesty that hurt him; this time, it will be that honesty combined with a penchant for duplicitousness that will come back to haunt him.

Read on.

“Rep. Kanjorski seems to be saying that, by opposing it via the strongest means they possibly could, Democrats "forced the President" into adopting the strategy in Iraq that has provided the most success since initial major combat operations.”

In his first statement, Kanjorski was correct in his toeing of the Democrat line on the President's proposals for Iraq: oppose, oppose, oppose. Oppose staying the course, while simultaneously opposing changing course. Deny that any impact was being made; call the 'surge' a failure, even before the troops assigned to execute the strategy being implemented by the new commander of coalition forces there
were in place to do so.

Talk down the war's progress at all costs, and say things like this: "The war is lost. The surge has failed" (Sen. Harry Reid); The surge "is a failure" (Rep. Nancy Pelosi); "The U.S. troop buildup in Iraq has failed" (Sen. Carl Levin); The president is "desperate...to shore up support for his failed "surge" strategy" (Gov. Bill Richardson); "We should stop the surge and start bringing our troops home" (Sen. Joe Biden); "As many had forseen, the escalation has failed to produce the intended results" (Reid and Pelosi); "It’s clear that the current strategy – the President’s escalation – has failed" (Sen. John Kerry); and "According to...Republicans, and unfortunately even some Democrats, the President's surge in Iraq has been a resounding success. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth" (Rep. Robert Wexler).

If all else fails, attempt to implement a "slow bleed" strategy (and call it that, for maximum effect!), which will consist of a multimillion dollar anti-military, anti-war campaign combined with legislative action that will slowly but surely deprive the warfighters on the ground in Iraq of the materiél they need to prosecute the war, in hopes that, once they run so low on funding, gear, and supplies that they can no longer effectively fight, President Bush will be forced to bring them home.

At worst case, Democrats were to treat any positive results that came from Iraq as a result of President Bush and General Petraeus's new strategy there with the snide indifference that Florida Congressman Tim Mahoney did when he responded last year to the question "What if the 'surge' is successful?" with a question of his own: "So what?"

Crediting any possible progress in that country to Iran, who is busy providing insurgents with the weapon responsible for killing the most American troops of any being used in the country, was fine, as Rep. Pelosi demonstrated last week; actually crediting the 'surge' itself, though, was to be verboten.

Whoops.

Rep. Kanjorski appears either to have missed that memo, or to have so misread it that he thought the marching orders were to admit that the so-called 'surge' was, in his words, "somewhat working," and to attempt to take credit for the counterinsurgency strategy and the accompanying increase in troop levels that Democrats so vehemently opposed at the beginning of last year.

Unfortunately for Rep. Kanjorski, we live in a video age -- and he is now on video both firmly opposing the 'surge,' and attempting to claim the credit, via " public positions," for "forc[ing] the president...into the surge."

Rep. Kanjorski seems to be saying that, by opposing it via the strongest verbal and legislative means they possibly could, Democrats "forced the President" into adopting the strategy in Iraq that has, to date, provided the most success since the overwhelmingly successful initial major combat operations.

That's quite an impressive feat. Imagine all the good Democrats could do for the country by opposing other successful proposals and actions as vehemently as they have the 'surge' in Iraq.

« Rep. Capuano's Newspeak for CensorshipComments (5) | Psst-Congress Means To Stick It To You, *Again*, And You'll Just Have to Like ItComments (34) »
Democrat Congressman: "We've taken public positions which...forced the president...into the surge...which is working" 9 Comments (0 topical, 9 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »

compliments of your power regardless of the cost or damage party. Burning down the house just to be called head of the family!
_________________
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes

If anyone took a position that forced the change in course it is our nominee, John McCain.

does this gasbag have a GOP opponent? disgusting rats.

yes, Barletta by dingo

Mayor Lou Barletta of Hazelton is opposing him. Barletta is well known from his crackdown on illegal immigrants in the city.

Barletta really needs to take advantage of these slip ups by Kanjorski. But so far, Barletta has not managed to raise the money necessary to take out the incumbent.

Kanjorski is saying that the Democrats actually used reverse psychology on the President to win the war through the surge? You know, like Lorne Michaels used to do with comedians to get them to be funnier on Saturday Night Live? Maybe Al Franken will use this in his next campaign ad.

I'm going to ask this question to the next MoveOn protestor I meet and see whether they believe it.

Defend Liberty -- Join the NRA | Live in Massachusetts? Join GOAL.

but how else could you explain his devising such a cunning plan?

"Bob Herbert Awarded Journalism Medal of Honor for Winning Iraq War"

Defend Liberty -- Join the NRA | Live in Massachusetts? Join GOAL.

and the dems none.

The 2006 election may end up being the catalyst for winning the war - but not for anything the dems did.

It forced the President to fire Rumsfield and put Patraeus in charge and follow the strategy McCain had been preaching for years.

The American people are pretty damn smart.

"Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. ... including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy,

I'm only surprised that it took this long for Democrats to try and claim credit for the success of the surge. In fairness, the claim they are making (as expressed by Kanjorski) is not entirely without merit: it's true that the thumpin delivered to Bush in 2006 led directly to a review of the strategy in Iraq and the adoption of the surge.

If only the Dems had supported Bush after he decided to place Petraeus in charge of implementing the Keane/Kagan strategy. But they didn't. Instead they denied that the surge was a change, and predicted it would fail. Then they attacked Petraeus as a liar and a traitor and denied that the surge had succeeded, then argued that it had succeeded, but only "militarily' not politically. Well yeah -- it was a military strategy.

at this point Bush is in a great position to act magnanimously, and I think he should. Extend some thanks to the Dems -- thanks for forcing me to change my Strategery in Iraq....

I watched the hearings at the Armed Seriveces committee for the promotions of Gen Petraeus to head Centcom and Gen Odierno to take Petraeus' position as head of MNF Iraq --the republicans were fulsome in their praise -- comparing petraeus and odierno to eisenhower and patton (totally warranted in my opinion) while the Dems were subdued. It leads me to believe that we could finally develop a bipartisan support for the war. So I think it's not a bad time for the President to reach out.

 
Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)


©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service