Pelosi and Reid to Bush: Surrender already!

Congressional Leaders Call on President to Reject Flawed Iraq Troop Surge

...

Clearly this address presents you with another opportunity to make a
long overdue course correction. Despite the fact that our troops have been
pushed to the breaking point and, in many cases, have already served
multiple tours in Iraq, news reports suggest that you believe the solution
to the civil war [sic]
in Iraqis to require additional sacrifices from our troops and are
therefore prepared to proceed with a substantial U.S. troop increase.
Surging forces is a strategy that you have already tried and that has
already failed. Like many current and former military leaders, we believe
that trying again would be a serious mistake. They, like us, believe there
is no purely military solution in Iraq. There is only a political solution.
Adding more combat troops will only endanger more Americans and stretch our
military to the breaking point for no strategic gain. And it would
undermine our efforts to get the Iraqis to take responsibility for their
own future. We are well past the point of more troops for Iraq.
In a recent appearance before the Senate Armed Services Committee,
General John Abiz aid, our top commander for Iraq and the region, said the
following when asked about whether he thought more troops would contribute
to our chances for success in Iraq:
"I met with every divisional commander, General Casey, the Corps
commander, General Dempsey. We all talked together. And I said, in your
professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American troops now, does
it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq? And they all
said no. And the reason is, because we want the Iraqis to do more. It's
easy for the Iraqis to rely upon to us do this work. I believe that more
American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more
responsibility for their own future."
Rather than deploy additional forces to Iraq, we believe the way
forward is to begin the phased redeployment of our forces in the next four
to six months, while shifting the principal mission of our forces there
from combat to training, logistics, force protection and counter-terror. A
renewed diplomatic strategy, both within the region and beyond, is also
required to help the Iraqis agree to a sustainable political settlement. In
short, it is time to begin to move our forces out of Iraq and make the
Iraqi political leadership aware that our commitment is not open ended,
that we cannot resolve their sectarian problems, and that only they can
find the political resolution required to stabilize Iraq.

...

-more-

Check out the glaring typo about a third of the way through.

Nance, your proofreader is stupid enough to get stuck in Iraq!

Anyhow, essentially Nance and Pinky are promulgating the ideas of the generals responsible for the "quagmire" in Iraq as a means of affecting the withdrawal of troops and negotiation with savages.

This press release would more properly be titled "Congressional Leaders Call on President to Surrender".

We are not certain that the "surge" will succeed, specifically because we do not know what these additional troops will be allowed to accomplish.

If they are charged with merely defending the status quo, then yes, it will fail.

But if we free them to do their jobs -- seeking out and killing the terrorists in their strongholds -- then we are four-square behind it.

Unfortunately, it's the Disloyal Opposition, led by Reid and Pelosi, that has made it nigh near impossible for our warriors to do the nasty business that would ultimately defeat the enemy.