"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

Monday, June 19, 2006

Senators spar over U.S. commitment in Iraq

Some comments Senator Diane Feinstein according to CNN:

"Three years and three months into the war, with all of the losses, the insurgency, the burgeoning civil war that's taking place -- what was it, seven bombings in Baghdad yesterday? -- an open-ended time commitment is no longer sustainable," Feinstein said on CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer."

"I don't think it's sustainable from the military point of view in terms of troop commitments. I don't think it's sustainable in terms of what Americans think about the war," Feinstein said.

"A timetable, some goals, some discussion with the Congress by the administration. The president might not have wanted to have done that early on, but three years and three months and a bogging down, I think, suggests that the time has come for some discussion as to where we go from here."

Feinstein said she will introduce a resolution with two other Democrats -- Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, the ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, and Minority Leader Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada -- calling for "phased redeployment."

According to Feinstein, "an open-ended time commitment is no longer sustainable." But is a withdrawal plan wisely tenable? Wouldn't it likely be a mistake due to its being based on nothing but time? How does that resolve the Iraq part of the war on terror? It doesn't, but what it does do is make the entire undertaking pointless, a waste of time, life and resources.

Feinstein, CNN and presumably the rest of the media find the military action unsustainable and losing the support of the American public; this after "three years and three months" of gloom and doom from the msm. Besides, hasn't this been the headline since day one? The only thing not changing is the opposition to Iraq of the Dems and msm. Iraq continues to move forward and improve each day; though admittedly not bloodlessly. Even the cold war cannot claim no blood.

Of Senator Pat Roberts suggestion that a timetable speaks to audibly to the enemy;

Feinstein said she's simply putting a sharper point on what Iraqi national security adviser Mowaffak al-Rubaie said last week. Al-Rubaie told CNN that it is possible that fewer than 100,000 coalition troops would be in Iraq by the end of the year, and nearly all would be gone by the end of 2007 or early 2008.

"I don't know why we are so afraid to stand up and say, look, we want to see an end to this thing," Feinstein said. "It seems to me that the time has come. Three years and three months into a mission that was supposed to take 30 or 40 days -- that isn't cutting and running."

If the Iraqi national security adviser feels the number of coaltion soldiers would be less than 100k, why does Feinstein feel the need to put it into an official "timetable," especially with so many unknowns and unknowables? My guess is it is due to the fact that the Democrats still do not have anything more useful to add to the conversation.

"Three years and three months into a mission that was supposed to take 30 or 40 days -- that isn't cutting and running." Enough time has passed to allow Dems like Feinstein to stand a little more erect when they call for a timetable. Whereas once they were calling for a "timetable" 45 days into the action, they can now claim 3.25 years and think this is enough and is not cutting and running. Lets 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.

"Why are we so afraid...?" Why has the time come? Because the mission isn't complete? Democrats want plans and answers; which they get but continually reask as they don't listen to or hear. Why? I don't know, but it likely has more to do with wanting to do things their way and only their way.

What would happen if a timetable were agreed to? The Dems could claim a victory. What if after carrying out the withdrawal according to the timetable, regardless of its wisdom and all hell broke out in Iraq? The Dems could claim a victory, because Bush and his Iraq failed. Not very positive is it.

I don't think the action in Iraq has ever truly been as much about Iraq as it has an intense dislike or hatred of our president. That's politics as usual, which in the case of war isn't the wisest tack to take.


© blogger templates 3 column | Webtalks