The Violence in Anbar has gone down Despite the Surge, NOT Because of the Surge

Senator Chuck Shill Schumer remarked on the Senate floor yesterday regarding the “Surge” in Iraq and its success to date:

“I rise today to discuss the situation in Iraq and the continuing efforts of this administration to paint a rosy picture and cling to straws when the situation on the ground and common sense suggest just the opposite.”

Most would attribute the Senators “rise” to the use of Viagra, however common sense tells us this is not so. To suggest “just the opposite,” of what is actually going on in Iraq as Schumer does is to “cling to straws” when news with even the slightest hint of “good” cannot be allowed. Schumer’s remarks are nothing more than the Iraq debate reframing debate strategy the Democrats have begun prior to Petraeus and Crockers report. We’ve entered September and Harry Reid noticed yesterday that this was the case following the Dems earlier confusion on the calendar a couple months back:

“Many of my Republican friends have long held September as the month for the policy change in Iraq. It’s September. The calendar hasn’t changed. It’s time to make a decision. We can’t continue the way we are.”

According to the Shill occasionally good news is allowed to slip out prior to Democrat pre-emptive measures to downplay it:

“We've heard of success stories every six or eight months. This province, this town, this city. “They're cleared, they're safe.” And then because of the basic facts on the ground, we revert to the old situation. And let me be clear: the violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge.”

“It wasn’t that the surge brought peace here. It was that the warlords had to create a temporary peace here on their own. And that is because there was no one else there protecting them.”

Many may wish after hearing these remarks that they possessed a pair of dark sunglasses like the senator as there would be no more squinting for us even while driving directly into the rising or setting sun on the horizon.

Almost as soon as Senator Reid revealed his parties recalibration of the calendar, Schumer reverted back to the Iranian Jalali which puts them in the year 1386; one that helps us understand the continuing confusion on the “surge” timeline for the party:

“Just seven or eight months ago when the President began the surge….”

“Now then, those on the other side and the president say, “Give us a chance. You're already declaring defeat.” If this were 2003 or 2004 or 2005 or maybe even 2006, those words would have some resonance with the American people. But there's been new plan after new plan, new hope after new hope, and they all are dashed within months. Why? Why? Again, because the fundamentals on the ground don't change. The Kurds, the Shiites, and the Sunnis dislike one another more than they like any central government.”

Chuck, “if this were 2003 or 2004 or 2005 or maybe even 2006,” you would be saying, ‘2003 or 2004 or maybe even 2005.’ It is more than obvious through the senator’s words that deadlines, dates and the like do not matter as now is the time. Whatever happens in Iraq, we can rely on its not being seen or acknowledged if there is any hint of the positive. It is oh so easy to deconstruct for the sake of the negative because to actually do something one has to have what it takes; this is unfortunately something dearly lacking from the Liberal party in this country.

“So the surge—by the President's own stated goal—is failing. The central government is weaker. The fundamentals on the ground continue to deteriorate. There continues to be no loyalty to a central government in Iraq and no loyalty to Maliki, who seems to almost revel in his incompetence. The bottom line is very simple. We are worse off, not better off. We’re not even in the same place in Iraq today than we were six months ago.”

Now is the time for all weak men to come to the aid of their party; screw the nation and the future.

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Rosemary's Thoughts, Right Celebrity, Faultline USA, Nuke's News & Views, Shadowscope, Pirate's Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, Webloggin, The Pink Flamingo, Leaning Straight Up, CommonSenseAmerica, High Desert Wanderer, Pursuing Holiness, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

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 -

Counterproductive Symbolism from NRO

The Editors at National Review have a few choice, yet even handed words for the Democrats and their friends on the Right(?) like Chuck Hagel of NE.

Opening with:

"At a time of crisis, count on U.S. senators to step up with symbolic measures that hold absolutely zero risk to themselves. That is what Senators Biden, Levin, and Hagel have done by offering their non-binding resolution disapproving of the Bush surge in Iraq. The only effect the resolution can possibly have is to weaken the commander in chief and dampen the morale of U.S. troops. These senators in effect want to say to the thousands of troops who will be part of the surge, “The U.S. Senate has no confidence that you can possibly accomplish your mission. Carry on!”'

The opening, fodder for the Left, but what isn't? Iraq, the surge and the opponents of the surge is the subject, but it gets to the root of too many politicians: 'do as little as possible and everything will be fine.' It's not just Iraq or the global war on terror, it's everything.

Iraq though, is perhaps one of the bigger concerns of the day. Pundits from the Right have called for the Dems/opponents of the surge to describe how their plan(?) would work and what results they expect. It's an awfully good question and one they cannot answer and won't. The only good long term planning/vision of the party of the Left is electoral and nothing else.

Have we gone as far as we have in Iraq, investing financially and physically as we have only to duck out? Why are Democratic offers in Iraq just variations of defeat? Can they fathom what victory is outside the realm of elections?

Is there anything the Democrats have called for with regard to any subject that isn't just the opposite of what the president offers? Soundbytes fade as do memories, anyone can voice opposition and come up with realistic and horrible sounding outcomes to a plan, that's the easy part. The tough part is the one they have opted out of and that is looking toward and planning for victory; on this and other subjects they don't bother because they don't have what it takes.

From the Editors at National Review Online: "Counterproductive Symbolism"

Democratic Leadership Prepares Limits to Free Speech

I found this post at Right Truth, incredibly disturbing. San Fran Nan is just a Grandmother huh? The Democrats slowly let the American people in on their plans......

From Right Truth, "Nancy Pelosi to undermine free speech":

It seems that the Nancy Pelosi plans to 'ram through a new law that would seriously undermine free speech – and put restrictions on conservative groups and others who encourage ordinary citizens to directly deal with Congress.' (hat tip Mind of Mog who says, "Oh gee, just what I wanted… that shrew Pelosi to curb my free speech.")

Will Pelosi's plot apply to bloggers?

“The . . . plan is perhaps the most comprehensive regulation of political speech ever proposed, and would make small grassroots causes report quarterly to Congress — the same as K Street lobbyists representing wealthy interests before Congress,’ Viguerie says.

“The reporting requirements and more severe penalties being written in response to recent congressional corruption scandals would apply to those who have no Washington lobbyists, who make no political contributions, and who do not provide gifts, travel or anything of value to politicians,” Viguerie continues.

For the rest of the post get over to Right Truth.....

More Troops in Iraq Seems to be the Plan

Rightwing Guy has a post up with his reaction to the possible increase in the number of military in Iraq - very worth a read

"More Troops in Iraq Seems to be the Plan"

Will more troops end this conflict in Iraq? Well Presidential hopeful John McCain believes and other key Republicans believe that about 20,000 - 40,000 more troops would help end the violence and take control of the capitol city of Baghdad, which in turn would help ease the violence in other problem providences as well.

While most Democrats are riding high from their election victory and overwhelming numbers of them support a “phased withdrawal” to begin in the next 4-6 months, John McCain has been out calling for more troops, he unlike many Democrats wants to win this war.

Read the rest HERE.............