"How did it come to pass that an opposition's measure of a president's foreign policy was all or nothing, success or "failure"? The answer is that the political absolutism now normal in Washington arrived at the moment--Nov. 7, 2000--that our politics subordinated even a war against terror to seizing the office of the presidency." - Daniel Henninger - WSJ 11/18/05
"the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts." - George Orwell

Tuesday, June 20, 2006

Curious Comments from some Leftward Leaders on Iraq

Sometimes the talk about getting out of Iraq quiets down, though it never truly leaves. Democrats have been calling for a departure from Iraq for almost as long, if not longer than we have been there (for the logic on calling for a departure from Iraq longer than we have been there, try to follow the logic of any Democratic talking points).

Recently it's been all the talk/debate for a "cut and run," which of course the Democrats deny is what they are calling for. "Cut and run" by any other name, is still "cut and run;" just like amnesty for illegals - the end result is still the same. If they would prefer we could not call it "cutting and running;" how about "stupid" and/or ignorant of reality, unwise, ignorant bliss, unrealistic, foolish, imprudent, farcical, imbecilic, or ill-advised to name just a very few.

We seem to have gone through this every few months or so with nothing from the Left changing.

Recently Howard Dean, the head of the DNC and former presidential candidate was interviewed by Wolf Blitkrieg on CNNs "The Situation Room. As the statements say it all, I won't try to tie anything together with any further coherence they he did:

Well, I think the Democrats have been pretty clear about what they want.
Look, the bottom line here is not what the specifics of the plan are. The bottom line is the president doesn't have a plan, and the Democrats believe that we should be heading in another direction, which is what the American people believe.
Presumably to offer a view of our soldiers derieres as they E&E out of Iraq. As well, specifics are only necessary if we are talking about the Bush administration.

In response to Karl Roves comments regarding the Democratic "cut and run" tactics:
I thought Jack Murtha, as a 37-year-old decorated Marine, had the best retort. Karl Rove is sitting in his air-conditioned on his big fat you-know-what, and he's never served. George Bush has never served abroad. Dick Cheney's never served abroad. Don Rumsfeld's never served abroad.Republicans are great at sending other people's kids to war, but not so good at following up. You know, it's not good enough to just be tough. You got to be tough and smart.
Let's go a step further with this and insist that you cannot say anything against the Iraq frontline in the war on terror unless you have served there.

The Democratic line on "if you didn't serve, shut up and sit down" has never and will never cut it; yet, as with all of their arguments regarding anything they just repeatrepeatrepeat....

Speaking of John Murtha, here are some of his most recent comments:

Regarding Lebanon in the early 80's -

We didn't cut and run. President Reagan made the decision to change direction because he knew he couldn't win it.

This was a foolish move by President Reagan and one in this day and age that cannot be taken lightly; unless you're a Democrat. Why doesn't Murtha consider this cutting and running?

President Clinton made a similar decision a decade later after the "Black Hawk Down" debacle in Somalia.

Ok, another example of cut and run - still not a good idea. One thing these two instances have in common is the example it sent to those that would be our enemies; the U.S. doesn't see anything through - they will back down.

On Iraq, he said:

It keeps getting worse and they don't want to admit they made a mistake. ... At some point, you got to reassess it like Reagan did ... like Clinton did in Somalia, you just have to say, `OK, it's time to change direction.

Countless arguments countering the Democratic and Media or DeMediacratic claim that we are losing in Iraq, but I won't waste anytime going into them as it's pointless. Bottom line, the Left accuses the Right of not facing reality and only seeing positive results from Iraq; yet this is what the Left is doing only it is nothing but bad news. The bad news they are addicted to does not allow for anything of a positive nature to see the light of day. Even if things were truly going horribly wrong in Iraq, odds are something would go right; but not as they see it.

For more on the recent senile rantings of Fred "Jack Murtha" Mertz, give this post and it's site Murtha Must Go! a look.

John Kerry's has been redoing his math for a timetable, which regardless of when he says it, is always a year away. At that rate we would never leave. If that doesn't make sense, see any Democratic talking point. JFK2Not recently said:
A deadline gives Iraqis the best chance for stability and self-government, and most importantly, it allows us to begin refocusing on the true threats that face our country.
Huh? That doesn't make any sense. Just promise to cut any life saving umbilical and the Iraqis will get it together and be just fine, as right now they're just hanging out and not attempting any progress. Can you imagine a "plan" like this coming from a senator of a 200 plus year old Democracy? Kerry is a member of the very same senate that cannot accomplish anything; why would they expect this to work for a fledgling government in Iraq?

Finally, Carl Levin had this to say:
The administration's policy to date that we'll be there for as long as Iraq needs us will result in Iraq's depending upon us longer. Three and a half years into the conflict, we should tell the Iraqis that the American security blanket is not permanent.
"Three and a half years into the conflict..." I've never heard of our "security blanket" being permanent. Where does he get that idea? Has he not been listening?

As far as being there as long as Iraq needs us? There may come a time (not likely) when it appears Iraq is not pulling it's own weight in this venture; that might be the time for a threat of withdrawal.

What do these Democrats expect anyway? What is truly realistic in their minds? They sound as though they look upon Iraq as just any other government situation to deal with. One where they talk about it, debate it, then pass legislation, then wash their hands of it because it has been taken care of by them. They forget that most of what they do has to be fixed and this forgetfulness makes them think Iraq can do it in the blink of an eye (which three years is), under some very difficult circumstances.

Immigration is one of those things the U.S. is dealing with right now. They're looking to make a fix which will not be any better than the one a decade or so ago. A fix for something they didn't do right before and aren't going to do right again. We'll be revisiting the immigration debate after they have resolved it this time, because they'll pass another lemon that does nothing but exasperate the situation.

tag: tag: tag: tag: tag: tag:


© blogger templates 3 column | Webtalks