NY Times quoted Lott on "horrif[ying]" "slow bleed" term without noting its origin
A February 16 New York Times article on the congressional debate over President Bush's plan to increase the number of troops in Iraq reported that "Republican leaders ... have accused some Democrats of pursuing a strategy to cut war financing gradually -- 'a slow bleed,' Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi, the Republican whip, put it, 'a terminology that horrifies me.' " Lott's quote suggests that it is the Democrats who chose the "terminology" that "horrifies" him -- reflecting a false claim first made in a Republican National Committee press release. But the Times article neither refuted the claim nor explained the origin of the "slow bleed" term.
In fact, 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 Murtha (D-PA) "call it their 'slow-bleed' plan."
Bresnahan clarified in a February 16 Politico article that the term was not "used by any Democrats or the anti-war groups supporting their efforts."
Great job Lindenbully!!!!!
Is this the end of "Cut & Run"?
You want to 'cut and run' from 'cut and run'? Traitor!
But I've been cut & run from day one, so I'm stayin' the course.How's that for resolvitude and steadfastliness ?
Thanks, now I think I'll go slit my wrists before we end up attacking Iran...
If holding the Bush administration accountable on Iraq is considered metaphorically a "slow bleed", then what kind of bleeding is it the Bush administration (and Congressional Republicans) are accomplishing by promoting more death and more destruction (and mo' money!) in Iraq?
The U.S. invasion of Iraq did not serve the National Security interests of the American People in any sensible way... neither does the U.S. occupation of Iraq (now four years ongoing) serve the National Security interests of the American People in any sensible way.
If trying to point this fact out, and trying to hold the Bush administration and Congressional Republicans accountable for the lies and the greed behind the Iraq invasion and occupation is metaphorically a "slow bleed"...
...then how do you describe the bleeding that has taken the lives of 3,132 U.S. Troops (and tens of thousands of Iraqis) so far, for no reasons whatsoever of National Security to the American People?
How about a "real bleed"?
...as the blood that has been spilled for the lies and the greed behind the Bush administration's (and the Congressional Republican's) Iraq invasion and occupation, is real blood, not metaphorical.
Slam dunk.
Whenever a slogan appears bad, the competing strategy, which for some reason is never given a slogan, is worse.
Here we have "slow bleed" vs "fast bleed".
Dem democrats, why they hate the po troops so mcuh? Why dey wanna em' to bleed at'll?
"Slow Bleed" sounds like a pretty good name for an action movie. Maybe cast Steven Segal in the title role. No idea for the plot but I am thinking about it.
As for those Repubs and their slogans - nothing better to do.
If you think writing a Seagal movie plot involves thought, you've never seen one.
I guess it's only fitting, since Puddinhead George's Iraq policy has been a SLOW MOTION TRAIN WRECK!