DeMediacratic Nation: Glass Half-Empty or Half-Full; Levin Breaks the Glass

CNN: “White House SNUBS…..” White House “snubs;” thanks for the unbiased headline.

Levin on Fox News Sunday in response to Brit Hume’s question; “You just heard Steve Hadley outline the progress that he says has been and is being made in Iraq. Do you have any quarrel with that?”

Levin:

“They try to make it out in their own self-assessment that this is a glass which is half full rather than it being half empty. As a matter of fact, this is a cup or a glass with a big hole in the bottom.

This is not a half full, half empty issue. They have made no progress in the one key area that everyone agrees must have progress or the violence will not end, and that's on the political side of things.

There has been no progress in terms of resolving the differences over oil royalties, over elections in the provinces, over de- Baathification.

Everyone agrees — and by the way, even the prime minister that Stephen Hadley touts as being a positive force and someone who is able to put together this situation — even that prime minister, Mr. Maliki, has said recently that the reason that the violence continues in Iraq is the failure of the Iraqi politicians.

It's not that there's military chaos. It's that the politicians in Iraq have refused to make the compromises which are essential if there's going to be an end of violence in Iraq.

That's the issue. There's been no progress in that area. That's why it makes no sense to wait till September.”

Talk about turning it on its ear; nothing accomplished yet so let's stop. The interview is typical of a politician revolving around a question, sounding like he’s answering it, but in reality has not; however, in reading the transcript it is one where the politician reveals the differing definitions of success and the “surge,” where “surge” is concerned he is grossly dishonest.

The dishonest part of Levin’s argument is the piece that all of the Democrats are flaunting and confusing the debate; they either know this and are playing games with our action in Iraq or they don’t. If they don’t they’re incredibly stupid.

Hume points the senator to a video clip from earlier in the week, during which Levin says:

“The purpose of the surge was to give the Iraqi political leaders the space to work out a political agreement.

And as he has pointed out and as our leaders agree, although the surge is now complete, there is no evidence of political progress on the part of Iraqi leaders. None whatsoever.”

The dishonesty stems from the fact that from the moment the “surge” of troops began the Democrats touted its failure speaking as though the increase in numbers was what was supposed to make the difference. The increase in numbers means nothing until that increase in numbers starts moving on the ground with the “surge” tactics.

Levin says, “although the surge is now complete,” and this implies that it has failed. The surging of troops is complete and the surge tactics are only one month old. You can read the interview and it appears that he acknowledges this but in his words he does not.

“The surge is now complete, there is no evidence of political progress…” The tactical surge is NOT complete, it is 1/3^rd into its activity; the date that had been agreed upon was September, to which it does not matter on the subject of the surges success what it looks like at the present moment. Ultimately, Levin and the rest have until September to put this into the minds of the American people and the media; thereby making it complete and utter failure by September regardless of facts on the ground.

HUME: How many troops do you think would be necessary to fight Al Qaeda there, Senator?

LEVIN: We have not made an estimate because we want to focus on new limited missions without trying to get into a debate as to how many troops would be needed for each of those new limited missions. That would change the subject.

They have not made an estimate and do not want to change the subject they are trying to change. Iraq is lost. They intend to bring down the number of troops in Iraq, yet continue what we are doing today; that makes Iraq a loss. They will stretch this loss out as long as possible and for all it is worth.

LEVIN: The only folks who can solve the problem in Iraq are the Iraqi leaders, and they have to solve it politically, and we can't do it for them.

The Democrats and those spineless enough to agree with them would have us believe the mission can continue with fewer troops. With the numbers down our soldiers mission will be able to concentrate on “counterterrorism training and force protection.” Hume suggests that this only “covers the waterfront.” Levin says no, because our most of our military is involved in a civil war right now. By this logic we could just leave and everything will be just fine. Where does that “civil war” go?

Let’s try this plan: Iraq is lost. Put all the Iraqi leaders in a sealed room of a sealed building and let them work it out and come and solve it politically. While solving in politically allow devastation, murder, blood and death to continue unabated outside; but leave them to solve it politically.

Once they have solved it politically, open the doors and let the light of day enter (if you can see it through the smoke). What happens to that political resolution now?

One piece, not the other, no two can be combined. Politically the problems cannot be resolved without military assistance. Militarily the problems cannot be resolved without political assistance.