"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

Thursday, April 12, 2007

Repeat a Lie Long Enough…and Sticking to It (with slight adjustments)

Senator Joe Biden misses the mark when describing/responding to Senator John McCain’s OpEd of less than a week ago in the Washington Post.

While acknowledging (diplomatically) McCain’s argument regarding the consequences of failure in Iraq, but to stick with a “failing policy” is a “mistake.” Senator Biden sees this as lacking reality and that really, “the problem is that for every welcome development, there is an equally or even more unwelcome development that gives lie to the claim that we are making progress.” He then goes on to cite examples, which you can read by visiting the “piece.” The problem I see with Mr. Biden’s logic is that with every action in LIFE, there is an “equally” welcome or unwelcome development to follow; oftentimes not in a singular fashion (if very lucky it will be singular; most times it’s exponentially, but I won’t get into the math of it as I don’t like math). As individuals we face consequences for our decisions and the actions we choose to follow.

This is where a sense of necessity and perseverance comes into play in the Iraq Theater of the war on terror. Mr. Biden, as well as most Democrat politicians, chooses to see the one side of the situation in Iraq, decide it is a failure and then choose to do everything within their power to make it so. This is not just an example of an “equally or even more unwelcome development.” It is an outright attempt at willingly thwarting an action or operation to arrive at an advantageous political situation; that they hope to use in resting power in government. This “game plan” they have chosen will also have its likely own “equally or even more unwelcome development;” a development that they have thus far chosen to ignore in their call for a “new direction.”

Is the glass half empty or half full? I realize these arguments I make can be turned right around on me; but I don’t know that it would be denied by those (or at least some), that hold a belief of “failure” that “yes” in this instance we do see the “glass as half empty,” which makes it necessary that we get out and get out at the soonest.

Once example, referenced by the Senator; the “most damning evidence,” by his estimation is that of Tal Afar. Accordingly where Senator McCain cites this location as an example of “results,” to the Senator from Delaware this is “illusory.” This “model” of “results” is based upon a 2005 “surge of about 10000,” soldiers (don’t know how many were American and Iraqi of this number). The city was pacified until “we left Tal Afar, just as our troops soon will leave the Baghdad neighborhoods that they have calmed.” He then goes on to quote the toll of violence this month alone in Tal Afar.

Setting aside the fact that the “surge,” as it is referred, to calls for not clearing and leaving; but remaining and holding. The Senator follows this up with the premise that a “larger strategy for success” is a must. Yet this “larger strategy” or any strategy as championed by the administration is always spoken of or to as set to fail, failing or a failure; hence the title of this post. Self fulfilling prophecy is not just a theory; it often makes itself truth even if we only think it as such.

That sounded to be a great closing remark for this post and probably should have been, however as with all propagandistic marketing and sales ads (mine included), there is always a “but wait!”

Senator Biden does have a “plan.” Which he offers with this introduction: If the president’s plan won’t work, what will? Without guarantees (nothing wrong here and very politically apropos), here is the “plan.”

“History suggests only four other ways to keep together a country riven by sectarian strife:

We allow or help one side to win, which would require years of horrific bloodletting.

We perpetuate the occupation, which is impossible politically and practically.

We promote the return of a dictator, who is not on the horizon but whose emergence would be the cruelest of ironies.

Or we help Iraq make the transition to a decentralized, federal system, as called for in its constitution, where each major group has local control over the fabric of its daily life, including security, education, religion and marriage.

Making federalism work for all Iraqis is a strategy that can still succeed and allow our troops to leave responsibly. It's a strategy I have been promoting for a year.”

Based upon his “Or” and that it is the nicest and fittest package I’m guessing the great Senator from DE is suggesting the “we help Iraq…..” as his strategy; anything missing here? Such as sounds about the same as the “failing” strategy or as wishful? Can we bring the troops home with this “strategy?” If so, when?

If you repeat a lie long enough….

Please note suggested reading: for further instances of our changing world, where up is down, black is white, where thought needs control…..read here for further perspective regarding Imus’ near arrest by the “Thought Police (to the tune of Cheap Trick’s Dream Police);” our ever changing “progressive view” that changes how we look at things making the bad guys not so bad; and the eerie truth of what might be necessary regarding Iran.

  • DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

    Please give this Post/Blog a Vote - Top Blogs

    © blogger templates 3 column | Webtalks