As We Keep Saying; Reframing the Iraq Debate

Did you know that “the Balkans are at peace today through the joint efforts of the United States, the European Union and the United Nations?” Makes it sound like the EU and UN were on board from the get go, doesn’t it? In fairness, NATO does consist of EU nations, whatever an EU nation is.

The above is an example of success(?) that didn’t come to fruition overnight, nor is it perfected yet. We could go over the “reasons” we are in Iraq, but why cover it all over to make the point that statements like the above and “a similar strategy should have been part of our Iraq policy from the outset but has never been seriously attempted,” from former leaders in our country is some of the reason we are where we are in Iraq today.

Former Secretary of State, Madeline “Not so” Albright believes that a fundamental shift in sectarian divisions in Iraq “will not occur through Iraqi actions alone.” Nor will it result from, “given America’s lack of leverage,…from our patrols, benchmarks, speeches or "surprise" presidential visits to Anbar province” either. “That leaves coordinated international assistance as the only option.”

Using materials likely drafted in mid-March for use in first July and now September, the former SecState has obviously reset her calendar along with the rest of the Democrats in this latest effort to “reframe the debate.”

The Bush Administration has not done a perfect job with Iraq, nor has it not dallied in diplomatic efforts at uniting the international community. There is no quick fix, nor is there any guarantee (by her own admission mind you) that a sweeping diplomatic push would work, it is not from lack of trying:

“A coordinated international effort could help Iraq by patrolling borders, aiding reconstruction, further training its army and police, and strengthening legislative and judicial institutions. It could also send a unified message to Iraq's sectarian leaders that a political power-sharing arrangement that recognizes majority rule and protects minority rights is the only solution and is also attainable.”

This “coordinated international effort,” according to the former Madame Secretary that:

“President Bush could do his part by admitting what the world knows -- that many prewar criticisms of the invasion were on target. Such an admission would be just the shock a serious diplomatic project would need. It would make it easier for European and Arab leaders to help, as their constituents are reluctant to bail out a president who still insists that he was right and they were wrong. Our troops face death every day; the least the president can do is face the truth.”

One thing the Democrats have not done is “faced any truth” out of Iraq; they’re not doing it now, nor apparently will they ever.

If we go down this “is such an initiative still viable? Perhaps” diplomatic surge, one wonders who might also assist in these “international efforts?” There are consultants out there that benefit financially from “diplomacy” out there in the world, one such is The Albright Group, LLC, which describes itself thusly:

“We are a unique team of international negotiators and seasoned diplomats, including two former Presidential Cabinet members. We have decades of combined experience managing multi-million dollar organizations with tens of thousands of employees.”

I guess in recent years business hasn’t been as forthcoming as it would have been during the 90’s, who messed with our "this is how we do business" plan.

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Perri Nelson's Website, Faultline USA, Right Truth, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, Webloggin, The Pink Flamingo, Leaning Straight Up, Conservative Cat, High Desert Wanderer, The Yankee Sailor, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Democrats/Times Reframing Iraq Debate to Mislead as Utter Defeat; what’s new?

According to that stalwart of balance and knowledge, the old gray poofter:

“As Congress reopened for business on Tuesday, the Democratic leadership promised to force a change in President Bush’s war strategy, and lawmakers maneuvered to frame the debate over Iraq ahead of reports next week by Gen. David H. Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker.”

Democratic Majority Leader, Harry “this war is lost” Reid of Nevada is quoted by the toilet paper as saying:

“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.”

I am pleased that Reid has finally gotten a grip on the calendar and date as it was only a couple of months ago that he wanted to charge full speed ahead in withdrawing from Iraq even though it wasn’t yet September; as he rightly says, “it hasn’t changed.”

“We can’t continue the way we are,” no, we can’t, but it should remain as it is if one of the minimal two choices is withdrawal and “ending the war” as though withdrawal ends anything.

As the toilet paper claims, the Dems aim to “reframe” the debate, which is just another way of saying what they have said for the better part of the Iraq theater, “the war is lost,” and regardless of any forward momentum on any subject that is the banner they will and do raise.

Elsewhere in the toilet paper the editorial board is up to it’s usual blinded by myopic vision and sticks it to the president; how unlike them:

“Iraq is a long way to go for a photo op, but not for President Bush, who is pulling out all the stops to divert public attention from his failed Iraq policies and to keep Congress from demanding that he bring the troops home. As Americans and Iraqis continue to die — and Iraqi politicians refuse to reconcile — Mr. Bush stubbornly refuses to recognize that what both countries need is a responsible exit strategy for the United States, not more photo ops and disingenuous claims of success.”

What the bathroom tissue fails to see is its own stubborn refusal to recognize that both countries need a responsible strategy that can lead to the U.S. out of Iraq with a modicum of success that will ultimately lead to a more stable and functioning Iraq. Not more editorial “pieces” and disingenuous claims of defeat.

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Perri Nelson's Website, third world county, Faultline USA, Big Dog's Weblog, The Pink Flamingo, Cao's Blog, Right Voices, Conservative Thoughts, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Like al Qaeda, Iran and Syria; Reid/Dems know the U.S. can be Defeated at Home

From The Hill; a senator we wouldn’t trust enough to be president, but certainly understand his participation in conspiring for defeat, John Kerry said, “he believes more than 60 senators would vote for a change in the Iraq strategy if they were allowed to vote their conscience on a measure to redeploy U.S. troops.”

Interestingly, two Republicans in support of the effort to support the enemy were in attendance when JFK2not made the remarks. Olympia Snowe, Republican from the North Eastern state of Maine said of the measure:

‘“We are at a crossroads between hope and reality.”’

Ain't that the issue in a nutshell?

Putting on their jammies and making believe they are working at night as they make believe during the day; CNN reports:

“Frustrated by Republican efforts to block votes on bringing American combat troops home from Iraq”

Because we all know the Republicans don’t want them home, ever.

Following the lead of their “leader,” the party playing into the hands of our enemies have decided to pull an all-nighter as a bit of political theatrics of their own; at least this is this “impression” the unbiased reporting of CNN would like us to believe.

According to CNN:

“The Senate minority Republican leadership has managed to use the filibuster -- the Capitol's tradition of unlimited debate -- to prevent Democratic bills aimed at pulling troops out of the war from reaching the chamber floor.

So Democrats are employing a bit of political theater this week to draw attention to the tactic.”

This is all there is to it and it is all with the innocent gamesmanship of politics as played by Reid and his Rosies to teach those Republicans a lesson. What CNN does not feel necessary is the reason behind the filibuster being the difference between 60 and 50 votes; 60 being the number necessary to end it.

Where this all gets interesting is the further tactic being employed by MoveOn.org consisting of “counter-filibuster” rallies tonight in 130 plus cities. It should be no surprise that the Senate Majority Leader, who has daily conference calls with fringe groups such as MoveOn and Kos would work hand in hand in developing and employing tactics of this kind.

In addition, Democratic senators “are being encouraged to schedule interviews on radio, television and the Internet.” All the better to cover the homefront for al Qaeda, Iran and its elements, Syria and actual insurgents.

Pretty good, almost eight months in and lacking accomplishment Reid and his Rosies work as aggressively as they should in helping their nation see this threat through, but instead devote their energy in employing the very tactics their allies, that are killing Iraqis and our soldiers need to add a notch to the neutering of the United States of America.

With “patriots” like these, who needs enemas enemies?

If you’d like, watch the exciting video CNN has of “workers” laboring to bring the props/cots for the all night show. NOW THAT’S NEWS!!!

Trackback:

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, The Virtuous Republic, Right Truth, Adam's Blog, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Conservative Cat, third world county, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Nuke's news and views, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, Planck's Constant, Dumb Ox Daily News, and Public Eye, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Hearing through the Bullhorn Grapevine that Iraq is Lost

Michael Ledeen this morning at NRO said:

“The fight in Iraq is part of a broader struggle that’s unfolding across the region...The same regime in Iran that is pursuing nuclear weapons and threatening to wipe Israel off the map is also providing sophisticated IEDs to extremists in Iraq who are using them to kill American soldiers.

The same Hezbollah terrorists who are waging war against the forces of democracy in Lebanon are training extremists to do the same against coalition forces in Iraq.

The same Syrian regime that provides support and sanctuary for Islamic jihad and Hamas has refused to close its airport in Damascus to suicide bombers headed to Iraq.

...the war against extremists and radicals is not only evident in Iraq, but it’s evident in Lebanon, the Palestinian Territories and Afghanistan.”

What part of the “surge” to retreat addresses this reality and why might it just disappear? What part of the Lugar-Warner amendment improves upon diplomacy in the region where the U.S. pulls out, leaving its allies hanging? How do fewer numbers of troops improve a situation that is challenging to the large number there now?

Yesterday, reference to Iraq being an issue that can only be resolved politically suggested this idea to mind:

“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.”

The military piece of the puzzle being suggested does not come close to that necessary to hold off the hoards while those political solutions are being discussed."

USA Today opinion from Friday July 13, 2007:

“In Washington Thursday (7/12), the Iraqi ambassador, astoundingly, talked of Americans as being too focused on "instant gratification" — this more than four years into a grinding war that has cost more than 3,600 American lives.”

The day to day view of “instant gratification” is somewhat offended by this remark, but it speaks more realistically of Iraq then anything coming out of our Democrat leadership and those few Republicans lacking this same spine and myopic WORLD view. The ambassador was correct in his assessment for those that actually want Iraq seen through to the time that we can drawdown as we inch along toward that goal.

To those stubbornly holding to a view that good will come of our leaving, the recent Iraq Assessment was proof that we “have” failed in our mission in Iraq. Had the assessment been more than the 50/50 that it was in the obviously moving forward positively column, the assessment would still have been proof that we “have” failed our mission in Iraq.

These views are of the same vein as hate in that hate is much simpler than love or even like. They are the same pessimistic views that can only invest intellect in the discovery of what is wrong rather than what might be right. It is the same simplistic view that ones way is the only way and anyone that disagrees is an idiot.

You won’t find many that are in favor of continuing on in Iraq, especially with an eye toward hearing from General Petreus in September disagree that war is a drag; the deaths are painful; many in the Middle East hate us; that this can and does generate bad guys etc..

What you won’t find is anyone that disagrees with our being in Iraq and want us to pull out NOW (now is the “instant gratification” of next spring) agreeing with those that want to continue the fight for now on anything Iraq. I guess that’s because we’re the stubborn ones.

Trackback: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/8656620875964312159

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, Right Celebrity, third world county, Jeanette's Celebrity Corner, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Webloggin, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, and Public Eye, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Democrats: Iraq a New Direction

• Democrats to schedule votes on troops withdrawal from Iraq in July
• Measure would begin withdrawal 120 days after passage
• Senate Majority Reid uncertain if he can overcome GOP objections
• Measure also expected to be added in defense authorization bill

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Timelines and Funding - Iraq would be just as Screwed with Our Politicians

Well, well, well. According to The Times:

“The decision by the Democratic majority to strip the measure of a timetable for troop withdrawal has raised the prospect that it could be approved mainly by Republicans with scattered Democrat support. The idea that many Democrats would be left on the losing side in a consequential vote has exposed a sharp divide within the party, drawn scorn from antiwar groups, confused the public and frustrated the party rank and file.”

The president has said from day one that he will veto any funding bill with timelines or withdrawal dates; yet Democrats insisted on playing the game using it for all the propaganda points it was worth. Ironically, at one point during the debate regarding the imposition of strict deadlines to force Iraqi political progress, Iraqi national security adviser Mowaffak al-Rubaie visited the U.S. and spoke with a number of our politicos.

During talks between Carl Levin and al-Rubaie; Levin spoke forcefully of the need for “action-forcing mechanisms” believing that this would have miraculous results. After months of wrangling with the funding bill they are forced into their own “action-forcing mechanism.”

Reporting this morning that:

“Democrats said they did not relish the prospect of leaving Washington for a Memorial Day break — the second recess since the financing fight began — and leaving themselves vulnerable to White House attacks that they were again on vacation while the troops were wanting. That criticism seemed more politically threatening to them than the anger Democrats knew they would draw from the left by bowing to Mr. Bush.”

This reveals further that the Democrats are doing nothing but looking for angles of advantage allowing for a retreat from Iraq; a political win for their party, but a damaging loss for Iraq and the U.S.

When you spend years in the minority and the beginning of a new century doing nothing but thwarting legislation it’s kind of tough to change gears and operate in a leadership sense. Harry and his crew do not know how to do their jobs as they have been more of an insurgency in their own country; doing nothing but destroying, while saying the other side was destroying.

Harry and the gang take their talking points from groups like MoveOn and Kos, which are Left-wing miscreant groups…nothing more than bullying, propaganda generating guttersnipe. These groups live in an alternate reality of their own making and have high jacked or are high jacking the Democrat party. Claims made from their bubble are that the president lives in a bubble (most politicians do).

Democrats put the most effort into schemes to win more for their party; not the nation. Iraqis could do a lot worse; they could have a Democrat majority led by the likes of Harry Reid.

Trackback for this post: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/4613504080825258674

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, The Random Yak, the so called me, The Pet Haven Blog, The Amboy Times, Colloquium, Pursuing Holiness, , stikNstein... has no mercy, The World According to Carl, Here's looking at . . .me!, Pirate's Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, High Desert Wanderer, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Democrats, Mullahs Break on Agreed Timeline Scheme

Unfortunately for “Anti-war Democrats” the reality has sunken in to a degree; “acknowledging the political realities of the Democrats' narrow control of Congress,” they have abandoned their troop withdrawal demands…for now.

This is upsetting to Reuters and “will be a disappointment for many Democrats who think they won control of Congress in last November's elections largely because voters wanted to see an end to the four-year-old war in Iraq.” Further many Democrats will be additionally peeved that not only was the 2000 election stolen; but the reality of stealing it back with lies doesn’t cut the mustard either.

Lines of Communication Muddled

Today’s announcement that congressional Democrats have dropped the withdrawal timeline reveals the inept lines of communication between the Democrats and Tehran as Foreign Ministry Spokesman Mohammad-Ali Hosseini “emphasized the need for the US to present a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.”

In an interview with ‘Der Standard’ Hosseini speaking of talks with the U.S. said:

"We will hold the meeting because we regard ourselves as duty-bound to remind the occupying forces of the necessity to correct their performance. “

"Occupiers of Iraq should know that the time is ripe for them to give more power to the Iraqi people and leave them free to determine their own fate."

Hosseini was said to have been surprised that the Democrats dropped the ball, but his outlook later rebounded when he realized that it was not Tehran’s fault as much as it was the price of doing business with the decadent and weak West.

Note that I may have made some of this post up.

Trackback for this post: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/1230266573002862200

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Perri Nelson's Website, The Random Yak, Adam's Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, Webloggin, Pursuing Holiness, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Rightlinx, Right Celebrity, Alabama Improper, stikNstein... has no mercy, Pirate's Cove, Planck's Constant, CORSARI D'ITALIA, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Supporting the Troops without the Spirit of the Bayonet

Roughly a week ago “Wake Up America,” posted regarding presidential hopeless, John Edwards and his new effort at redefining Support the Troops. The former senator has launched a new website, “Support the Troops. End the war.”

Not willing to stomach the site; a quote as quoted by Wake Up America (bold mine):

“Throughout our history, military men and women and their families have sacrificed for America. The troops in Iraq and their families continue to sacrifice today. So this Memorial Day Weekend, John Edwards is asking the American people to give some part of their weekend in return—to honor and remember all those who have gone before in service to our country, and to let our government know we want to honor our troops by ending the war and bringing them home.”

As has been said endlessly, this is not support for the troops; it is slick marketing for the support of ending our participation in the Iraq Theater in the war on terror. The Democrats have spoken and voted for quite some time now, promising to end the war; de-funding or no longer funding the war is not ending the war; that is more accurately described as retreating, running away or escaping and evading. The Democrats like to “imply” an end, but that will only lead to a new beginning, as voting is easy but ending something like what is going on in Iraq is not simply done in ink.

What is the Spirit of the bayonet?

To KILL, KILL, KILL!!!!!!!!!

Our soldiers are in Iraq and elsewhere doing what they have trained to do; Some of the skills/subjects the infantry recruit trains to:

Survive on the NBC battlefield (Nuclear Biologic Chemical), Train for Land Mine Warfare, Marksmanship (oddly the M16 is the basic tool of the infantry soldier), Rifle Bayonet Pugil Fighting, M203 Grenade Launcher (familiarization), M249 Squad Automatic Weapon (familiarization), M240 Machine Gun (familiarization), Introduction to burst fire mode and firing in Nuclear Biological Chemical (NBC) protective equipment, Infantry tactics proficiency, Hand Grenade Training, Night Infiltration, Fire Team, Urban Operations, Mortar Training, Defensive fighting positions, Squad tactics, FTX.

Supporting the troops is supporting them in the efforts they have been trained for and are involved in now. Our soldiers do not practice the skills above to be treated as mere children, nor are the skills above related in any way to a home economics course/class in high school. Their skills are honed on the battlefield for the antithesis of what the Democrat party represents.

The U.S. Army Values

• Loyalty
• Duty
• Respect
• Selfless Service
• Honor
• Integrity
• Personal Courage

These values are something the Left, msm and Democrats are lacking. The soldier does not likely wish to leave the battlefield as innocent Iraqi civilians are butchered. Nor do they likely wish to desert their fallen comrades in what to them is their duty and honor to defend and support in their efforts to vanquish the enemy. Supporting the troops is not guaranteeing their failure, which by pulling them out before the singing of the fat lady is heard is a failure over which they have no control. This is not ending the war, this is a lack of support for that which they do each and every day.

Old news from Washington

As a continuing example from Democrats and the msms definition of victory; CNN published an article this morning entitled, “Iraq funding deadline fails but gains more support.”

In the article, CNN acknowledges (they have to) that the Anti-war Democrats “failed,” but of course there is a silver lining as the:

“lopsided bipartisan vote that masked growing impatience within both political parties over President Bush's handling of the four-year conflict.”

The talking point according to Russ Feingold and taken hook, line and sinker by CNN was to Feingold the “fact” that stopping the war, ‘”was considered absolute heresy four months ago."’ A heresy one might note not really uttered by the Democrat minority prior to November.

Four loser Democrat presidential hopefuls actually stuck their necks out on this one and voted for the sad, misguided legislation. They were; Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd and Hillary Clinton, who said:

“has adamantly opposed setting a date for a troop withdrawal, and she gave conflicting answers during the day when asked whether her vote signified support for a cutoff in funds.”

Conflicting answers? Do you mean like:

‘"I'm not going to speculate on what I'll be voting on in the future," she said at midday. But a few hours later she said: "I support the ... bill. That's what this vote ... was all about."’

Far be it for Senator Hillary Rodham (Clinton) to indicate anything resembling integrity prior to the latest poll.

Support the troops by supporting the spirit of the bayonet; it’s what they’re trained to do. Don't follow the Left...

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Democrats Losing Control of Their Own Defeatist Message

President Bush has made the first concession in the fight against the Democrats to fund the Iraq Theater in the war on terror:

“Hours before the House approved a plan on Thursday to finance the Iraq war only through midsummer, President Bush offered his first public concession to try to resolve the impasse on war spending, acknowledging rising pressure from his own party and the public.”

Finally the government can work together to hammer out a deal in fighting the enemy in Iraq…….but wait (always wait for the “but wait”).

169 House Democrats voted for a separate “plan that would have required the withdrawal of American troops to begin in 90 days, with most forces out within another six months.”

So are you saying, it’s not just Bush being stubborn and perhaps Harry Reid and the rest are full of it? One doesn’t need to point that out if people have memories, but memories, especially on the Left only go as far back a weaker dig.

Of the president’s willingness in resolving the impasse on funding:

“Democrats welcomed the president’s new willingness to authorize negotiations on benchmarks but said any failure by Iraq to meet specified goals must result in penalties or they would be meaningless.”

Majority Leader Harry Reid said:

“There is a recognition that things are not going well. The only person who doesn’t believe there needs to be a change is the president.”

Republicans/Conservatives have often said that the statements and actions of the Democrats embolden the enemy; timelines are bad because you are giving the enemy the schedule by which they can operate and expect to be able to claim victory.

Iran is now working with the Democrat talking points from a slightly different angle. Rather than trumpet as an echo, they have begun turning it around and pointing out that all the Americans care about are their soldiers and not the innocent Iraqi civilians or society.

Not just theory now, but directly from the Provisional Tehran Friday Prayer Leader Ayatollah Mohammad Emami Kashani during the weekly Friday Sermon:

‘"US statesmen are today unanimously agreeing that some 4,000 US soldiers have got killed in Iraq so far and billions of dollars have been spent there, having gained no tangible results."’

‘"Everyone also knows that the number of Iraqis that have got killed ever since the US-led military attack against Iraq has so far been over 600,000, while the number of Iraqi citizens that got wounded and the war disabled civilians is several time greater and yet the Americans still refrain from talking on evacuation of their forces from Iraq."’

‘"The only important point for the US statesmen is that 4,000 US soldiers have got killed in Iraq, not caring a bit about the huge number of the innocent Iraqis that have got killed at home due to the US arrogant policies."’

The Democrats have screamed, fought and clawed to turn tail and run for so long that now Iran has a grand new PR angle. Thanks so much Harry, you sorry, UNPATRIOTIC piece of partisan, steaming pile of stool. It just got deeper, wipe your shoes off before coming in the house.

_________
Michelle Malkin posted as the "piecemeal" funding began.

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Viva Las Vegas Revolution! - Pelosi and the Passion of the Idiocy

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.):

“is threatening to take President Bush to court if he issues a signing statement as a way of sidestepping a carefully crafted compromise Iraq war spending bill.”

Speaking before a group of Leftist bloggers, the multi-tasking House Speaker said:

“We can take the president to court.” They took the majority without actually stating their true intentions, so why not give it a shot?

Defending what should be considered the indefensible when it comes to usurping the Chief Executive’s powers, Pelosi’s spokesman, Nadeam Elshami said:

‘“The president has made excessive use of signing statements and Congress is considering ways to respond to this executive-branch overreaching. Whether through the oversight or appropriations process or by enacting new legislation, the Democratic Congress will challenge the president’s non-enforcement of the laws.”’

Democrats in the weekly caucus floated another turd. One of which came from Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.); when he “suggested that the House consider a measure to rescind the 2002 authorization for the war in Iraq.” Which is pretty sad when new ideas are old considering Senator Hillary Clinton (D-New Y.); has recently suggested “time travel” as a means of succeeding in defeating the president enemy in Iraq.

Said Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), which in effect goes a long, long way in explaining just what is wrong with the Democrats:

‘“There was a ripple around the room,”’ “in support of the idea.”

This whole game is an instance of Democrats not learning the lessons of history of the actions of their predecessors during the Vietnam War; Democrats attempted to sue President Nixon to “stop bombing in Cambodia” but oddly the courts “ruled that dissident lawmakers could not sue solely to obtain outcomes they could not secure in Congress.”

Eventually they may learn that the way to ending the battle in Iraq is to cut off funding. Not really that popular an idea considering the consequences (political consequences that is; not say any possible consequences to our nation).

Finally, Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) commented that “the odds would be good,” that the president would include a signing statement on the next supplemental bill; which if I am reading this right, The Hill believes that “Bush has in the past shown a predilection for excusing his administration from contentious bills.” “Levin did not offer any clues”….as the Democrats are still working on what one of those look like.

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Fashion Tips for Compromise on Iraq Spending – post veto

Of the recent spending vetoed by the president, presidential aspirant Barack Obama took to a leadership role and had this definitive statement:

‘“I don’t know whether there are sufficient options out there. I’m concerned about simply putting in advisory benchmarks that the president is free to ignore, without any consequences.”’

I don’t know what we can do other than tie the presidents hands and damn the consequences.

Harry “Vichy” Reid said:

‘“The bill that we sent him was a bill that was representative of the wishes of the American people, and we’re going to keep that in mind as we go through these negotiations. It’s not going to be easy, but it’s important.”’

That’s right Harry we’re all spineless. Tough talk from the Majority Leader comes in the form of the fights here at home, not abroad.

Adding to the integrity of the debate is Chuck Schumer with:

‘“I think that is not as much the problem as how to do something that has some integrity and yet the president still signs.”’

Integrity made all the more difficult when lacking any.

Paraphrased and attributed to Schumer by the Times, he said:

“Democrats would not fall into the trap of being blamed for cutting off money for the armed forces.”

Don’t play the Dems for being seen as cutting off money to end the Iraq battle; they want an end to it, but refuse to actually take a stand and end it. Cutting funding is all the more difficult to slip away from, whereas using the twists of integrity can be attributed more easily to someone else.

Integrity!

"Truth and wisdom are anchors. They cannot be made to dance very well," from The Anchoress, Anchors And Dance

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Harry Reid and Dems – Victory through Loss

Today in the Washington Post there is an article regarding the war-funding deal entitled: “Negotiators Agree on War-Funding Package.” Opening with:

“House and Senate negotiators reached agreement yesterday on war-funding legislation that would begin bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq as early as July, setting a goal of ending U.S. combat operations by no later than March.”

I wonder who these “negotiators” are and why this tidbit of information is not elaborated on. The implication in this title and opening is that it has all been agreed upon and it is only now going to await the intransigent president to veto. So, we’ll see who really cares about the troops.

Further down though, if you feel like reading beyond the title and opening paragraph, it appears they are speaking of the Democrat negotiating team.

“Democrats framed the deal reached yesterday as an effort to compromise with Bush.”

Regarding the HUGE effort at compromise involved in the negotiations agreement, Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) said:

'"Our commitment is not endless, sets us on a path with the best chance of achieving success in Iraq."'

Setting deadlines and such is a means of “success?” It sure simplifies it for the reader but as with most plans for “success” from the Democrats, detail is wanting, with the exception of course being that it is a means of departing that desert oasis of death. I will grant that the Democrats would, were they able to pull off a game of this sort be “successful,” but that still does not address Iraq, only Democrat aims.

Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid has been in the news of late with his remarks that “the war is lost.” Of his recent statements Michael Barone had this to say yesterday of Reid and the Democrats on the Iraq debate:

“What's curious is that congressional Democrats don't seem much interested in what's actually happening in Iraq. The commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, returns to Washington this week, but last week Pelosi's office said "scheduling conflicts" prevented him from briefing House members. Two days later, the members-only meeting was scheduled, but the episode brings to mind the fact that Pelosi and other top House Democrats skipped a Pentagon videoconference with Petraeus on March 8.”

Which brings Dick Polman’s entry into the Reid recitation yesterday, when he remarked on the “increasingly shrill attempts to rationalize the Iraq war.” I wonder, does Polman find anything “shrill” in the attempts by those at shutting the war down?

Polman sees irony in the “attacks” by President Bush’s defenders (note that defending the warfront in Iraq is defending Bush….not good mum); supposedly all the “defenders somehow believe that it’s still 2002 and that they still hold sway over public opinion, despite all empirical evidence to the contrary.”

The irony is that the attacks against Harry Reid depend upon “the implication that Reid had marginalized himself as a left peacenik at odds with the American mainstream.” Describing Reid as “far from being a left-leaning ideologue,” he is in reality very cautious and the feeling you get is that his moves are “heavily poll-tested” prior to his statements. “This war is lost,” can be assumed to be reflecting the mainstream American opinion. Polman wrote that three days before Reid’s statements:

“the latest ABC-Washington Post poll was released. It asked Americans whether we would win or lose the war. Fifty-one percent said we’d lose, 35 percent said we’d win. Last month, meanwhile, the USA Today poll offered four choices, ranging from most optimistic to most pessimistic. The largest share of respondents opted for the latter. Forty-six percent said they didn’t think we can win; another 20 percent said victory was possible, but didn’t think it would happen; 17 percent said we’d probably win; and 10 percent said we’d definitely win.”

Polls; the method of leadership as practiced by that politician that held the Oval Office for the majority of the last decade of the 20^th century. If we are to rely upon polls we should make sure they allow for answers to be revealed that we may not have been expecting before doing the poll, no? Too often, if not always, opinion polls reflect the responses based upon response available. I'm thinking the Iraq front is a bit more complicated than that, although I may be mistaken considering those poll results.

Other shreds of evidence as compiled by the article:

No recollection of “any of Reid’s critics focusing their ire on Conservative William F. Buckley, who has long believed the war has “failed.”

To which I can say I have disagreed with from the moment he wrote of his opinion on this subject, but this kind of speaks to that fact that we are not all in lockstep on this.

No attack on retired Army three star General William Odom; director of the NSC under Reagan – writing in Feb that “it’s futile to keep American troops in Iraq (“fighting on now simply prolongs our losses and blocks the way to a new strategy”).”

Odom had previously said on NBC in ’04, ‘“We have already failed. Staying in longer makes us fail worse. If we blindly say we should stick to it, we’re misusing our power and we’re making it worse…I think we’ve passed the chances to not fail.”’ Polman adds that at that time we had lost only 720 soldiers.

I wonder what makes Odom correct other than the fact that Polman likely agrees; that and of course, regardless of party affiliation, Odom worked for a Republican administration. Earlier above Polman saw defenders of Iraq as believing they still held sway as they did in ’02, so this entry included of Odom is his means of holding sway by quoting someone that was in government in the 80’s as holding some kind of sway like a comparison of apples to oranges I guess.

Finally, Polman did not see any backpeddling by Reid following the fall out from his remarks as in Polman’s words, “why invite fresh attacks, regardless of how fatuous they might be?”

Reid:

‘"Winning this war is no longer the job of the American military. Our troops have already done their job...The military mission has long since been accomplished. The failure has been political. It has been policy. It has been presidential."’

I support the troops, I care, and it’s all the presidents’ fault. This also speaks to the reality often uttered by Democrats that Iraq needs a political solution, not a military one. This is a really neat way of stating the debate since no one really disagrees.

I guess then the question that needs to be asked is; is the military presence and fighting not necessary in holding back or fighting off those that wish this to fail because it is up to the Iraqi politicians? How long would they last in discussion of their political solution without the military portion of the solution in its place?

Harry Reid holds up the sign of victory, thusly:

When it should be held up in this way

The V for victory to Democrats is through losing the war, so that they can win the one at home.

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Improvisation – Iraq’s Miles Davis – Kind of Blue

“He has become a great improviser, the Miles Davis of the war.”
Edward Wong – NY Times.com

In a vacuum, power is something so many and too many with different ideas about how something should be; fight for. Moktada al-sadr is one of those people. Where he is interested in an Iraq without outside involvement, he realizes the best bet for this scenario is to wait on the American efforts in Iraq to come to a somewhat stabilizing fruition.

Like our Democrat leadership, although much less interested in an American defeat, a senior Iraqi official said of al-sadr:

“Mr. Sadr’s thinking was in constant evolution, groping for a workable strategy for the war.”

From the NY Times:

“Perhaps nothing is more surprising than the fact that Mr. Sadr’s attitude toward the Americans actually reflects a degree of ambivalence.”

“Anti-Americanism is the basis of his unflagging popularity. More than any other Iraqi politician, he is willing to recognize, validate and capitalize on the refusal of large segments of the Shiite population, especially the poor and dispossessed, to buy into any government that has the support of the Americans. It is one of the most vexing problems for the Americans, since President Bush’s whole strategy rests on the premise that formerly oppressed Shiites will work with the Americans.”

Every action or inaction has a reaction. The Democrats, al-sadr and others will play the necessary games in the hopes of keeping their heads above water. All rely on a certain anti-Americanism that has its present benefits, but has repercussions down the road.

Al-sadr would likely not care either way what happens to the U.S. down the road as long as he gains from the benefit of its efforts there.

The Democrats have somehow managed to make a U.S. loss in Iraq to their benefit; which is not a position that I would want to find myself in. With all the divergent ideas in Iraq, once the U.S. leaves the games will almost assuredly begin, but hopefully the central government will be able to keep it together.

In the U.S., the Democrats have done as much as they possibly can to break the nation down for that power at home. Where they have miscalculated is in the negative aspects they have touted for so long and what “reaction” that generates.

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -