I know, I know, old news, but oddly I hadn't looked at this prior to just moments ago.
Its been covered? Without a doubt, I'm sure that it has.
Why is it "The Surge" started for the Democrats the day the term was uttered? For the Democrats, why did it not start when the build up had been completed and the tactics with the numbers increased put into action? Did Senators Byrd and Clinton write this three months ago?
The headline at the Daily News is all that is necessary (although, yes I did read the entire thing), to understand that Byrd, Clinton and the rest do not have what it takes to deal with changing realities. Byrd, Clinton and the rest do not have the ability to shift with changes as they arise and deal accordingly, unless dealing accordingly is giving it all up regardless of lives, finances and the rest that has been invested to this point. Byrd, Clinton and the rest that feel they should lead this nation, whether from the Oval Office or points lower in the scheme of politics are not fit to consider beyond the next election cycle.
If you believe they have our interests at heart you are sadly mistaken. They have bigger ideas and what those ideas are do not matter as they will never come to fruition, not just because they are unworkable pipe dreams, but because their myopic tunnel vision, their lack of anything peripheral (unless in regard to the fight for leadership) is a liability that will put this nation and the world in general in greater peril; peril that could prove to be realized too late if we allow them to drive their rhetoric as though it were reality. It is not.
To them, Iraq is a civil war that no one voted for. No, they voted for something else and were caught off guard when what they supported and voted for was taken as the vote stated. No nuance, no political gerrymandering, just their vote, just taken at their word with the assumption that they possessed the integrity they claim exists.
It hasn't gone perfectly as none have in the past. Histories lessons have taught them that it is a lost cause, however this is only because they refuse to accept the possibility of any lesson of historical value beyond their self-misled view of Vietnam. No, no, no they cry, 'this is not WWII!" No it is not, nor is it Vietnam.
History is the past with lessons to be acknowledged and drawn upon without forgetting the reality that we live in the present. Nobody voted for a civil war; this is not agreeing or denying that a civil war is at hand. Rather it is the concern that once in it, do we have what it takes to see it through.
Iraq and the greater war on terror is not something to be trifled with as though it was an electoral creation of politicians that can make it go away with the next Gore-esque alarmist peal. Iraq is part of the real thing. Iraq and what we do or don't do has ramifications that the Byrds the Clintons, the Obamas and all the rest cannot honestly take the time to fathom for fear of seeing it for what it truly is, making it all too difficult to ignore and continue on as they do.
Nope, no one voted for a civil war; is that any reason to give up?
Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, The Virtuous Republic, The Random Yak, guerrilla radio, Jeanette's Celebrity Corner, Right Truth, Adam's Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, Webloggin, The Amboy Times, Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Nuke's news and views, Planck's Constant, CommonSenseAmerica, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, and Public Eye, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.