"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 ------------------------------------------------
Italics of the twist (not necessary for those with even slight intelligence) from a former soldier and former presidential wannabe. In my opinion the general is fitting in just fine.
"Last week, Rush Limbaugh labeled any American soldier who supports an end to the war in Iraq as "phony." We challenged Limbaugh through an email campaign to invite VoteVets.org's Jon Soltz to his show and repeat these same insults to an Iraq war veteran's face. Over 10,000 people responded and emailed Rush -- but to our disappointment, he has refused to respond to our request."
Oh the disappointment. How does one repeat that which they didn't actually say or connote?
What does it mean when a former general sees things this way...hmmm, how's the war going?
"And so it should. Richard The Dick Turbin Durbin is whining and continuing with the usual proven to be false rhetoric as losers tend to do.
They are trying to get a differing Murtha Slow Bleed Ignorance with Schumer parroting that which Reid yammers on about and they are quoting the poll taken in Iraq and NOT listening to the Generals and Commanders in the field. Imagine that.
I guess no one has informed these idiots that we are winning or, they KNOW we are winning and this is not to be allowed...for political gain.
Feingold's amendment is nothing more than another slow bleed travesty. It is "Rather" evident that they haven't a clue and they will soon be overwhelmed by the Conservative Tsunami.
Don't fall for the Leftinistra ignorance and stupidity.
Vote description: Webb Amdt. No. 2909; To specify minimum periods between deployment of units and members of the Armed Forces deployed for Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.
By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN and CARL HULSE A proposal that Senate Democrats put forward as their best chance of changing course in Iraq died on Wednesday, as Republicans stood firmly behind President Bush.
Everyone has likely had an opportunity to hear the latest from Senator Chuck “the shill” Schumer on the Senate floor the other day about our “success” in Anbar province in Iraq:
“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.”
This is unfortunately, but not surprisingly an instance of outright dishonesty from one of the senators from New York.It also is an instance where misunderstanding leads us from the overall big picture that is Iraq in the war on terror.
Is Kurtz the end all expert and will you following the reading of his article be one as well?No, but it should help enlighten those of us who are often guilty of oversimplifying issues at times as well.There is nothing simple about Iraq and the greater war on terror except perhaps accepting it, but even that isn’t simple for many; as Kurtz says:
“My own view is that, whether we stay in Iraq or leave, the United States and Europe are destined to return to the Middle East in force, and remain there indefinitely. Our shrinking world, and the pressure of events, will force our hand. Neither Democrats nor Republicans have accepted this unfortunate likelihood, but I do think this is what we are headed for, whatever we do about Iraq. Tilghman’s naive claim that the salience of local tribal and sectarian identities in Iraq somehow means that al Qaeda isn’t present as well shows how much we’ve got to learn. Unfortunately, over time — and whether we want to or not — Americans are destined to become experts how to play the tribal game.”
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.”
“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.
Today it seems we have more chance of finding Noah’s ark, than getting Democrats and their adherents like the NY Times editorial board to see the light.
Last Friday 8/3 I avoided posting about the NYT editorial board and its continuing hissy fit with regard to NSA wiretaps et al., because I had had just about all I could take from them and the media in general on this subject. Rather than report honestly, each issue that comes up is treated as the latest "dirt" affording the hopes of the next Pulitzer.As to the usual course they went at the administration as stampeding Congress:
“Since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the Bush administration has repeatedly demonstrated that it does not feel bound by the law or the Constitution when it comes to the war on terror. It cannot even be trusted to properly use the enhanced powers it was legally granted after the attacks.”
Read this opinion and almost any other and if you didn’t know where you were reading it from, throw in a couple four letter words and you would be surprised when told it wasn’t from Kos.
Over the weekend as the Congress let out for vacation having accomplished little more than the national government of Iraq it passed temporary acknowledgement of the authority to monitor international communications to the executive.
In perfect NYT fashion, the board still living in the Nixon era sees “conspiracy” and the latest Bush version of Fascism:
“Ever since, the White House has tried to pressure Congress into legalizing Mr. Bush’s rogue operation. Most recently, it seized on a secret court ruling that spotlighted a technical way in which the 1978 law has not kept pace with the Internet era.”
This morning we get a taste of what it means to have passed the barely appropriate version of foreign surveillance from the view of the editors at NRO:
“That task has never been more vital than it is today, when transnational terror networks, seeking access to weapons of enormous power, vow to attack us after killing nearly 3,000 Americans. Yet our defense is hindered by an improvident and outdated legislative scheme, the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. FISA was an overreaction to Nixon-era abuses, which included employing the CIA to conduct domestic spying on the administration’s political enemies. FISA purports to require that the president, before monitoring foreign communications, satisfy a federal court (specially created by FISA) that there is probable cause to believe the surveillance target is an “agent of a foreign power.”’
If the Democrats are not serious, we know a group, it’s affiliates, off-shoots and wannabes are; so do we continue playing games or are we going to give ourselves a fighting chance at keeping up as best as we can with the communications and/or possible communications of our enemies?
The behind theTimes offers up a dish on Defense Secretary Gates’ “blunt” review on the progress in Iraq.What strikes me in the tone of “articles” on our efforts in Iraq is that what is honest assessment is viewed as some kind of admonition of guilt for something; each is an ‘we told you so’ moment for the msm.
For all its supposed wisdom and intelligence it always gets down to its not being over yet therefore and even without actually saying it, it has failed.
“In one of his bluntest assessments of the progress of the administration’s Iraq strategy, Mr. Gates said, “I think the developments on the political side are somewhat discouraging at the national level.” He said that despite the Sunni withdrawal, “my hope is that it can all be patched back together.”’
Following this revelation that all is not perfect and that the new strategy is not a silver bullet on its own, the toilet paper then leads us to the place it wants the reader:
“Mr. Gates gave little indication whether he was leaning toward recommending a shift in the administration’s strategy next month, when officials are planning to review whether progress has been achieved by sending nearly 30,000 additional American troops to Iraq.”
What is this “shift” the paper refers to?Or rather what do they want and expect the “shift” to be?If this “shift” is not what the toilet paper means by “shift,” will there be holy hell to pay?
The “shift” is a euphemism for “redeployment,” “retreat,” “draw-down,” “time-line,” and “withdrawal.”Now, were the media actually unbiased, “shift” it would not matter so much whether a “shift” was new tactics, more soldiers, or withdrawal for example.But, “shift” has only been allowed to be one thing and as the president hasn’t ordered this “shift” anything else is wrong and a recipe for failure; especially since we have already failed.
These people (the msm and antiwar folks) have lost and so has the nation; therefore there can only be one “strategy” or “shift.”This unbending “shift” is what has been standing still, unbending and stubborn since the onset.
The administrations and military’s strategies and reassessments deal with changing realities oftentimes from failures (how else does one learn) and other times from what works.The other side of the argument being the msm and Left, has never had a different strategy.The idea when entering into a field of battle is to win and you keep morphing and changing in an effort to do just that.
This does not mean endlessly, but it should recognize how rapidly things have moved from the first day into Iraq even though they don’t want to or even can’t if they tried.
As has been said many a time here; this is too big for such a huge of seriousness.
Rather than being a case of vindication it is more relief that we are not insane.Some may want to jump up and down with a loud ‘I told you so’ but it is more than that.The relief comes from the crack in the veneer that blocked the light of fact.
There has never been any doubt in the mind of many that Iraq can be a violent place.The daily death and mayhem is not ignored, the separated families are not mere trifles, and the challenges are recognized; but through it and standing for continuing with our actions was and is not a political game of we can’t lose this.
It is the ramifications of not succeeding, of not quitting too soon or let’s try this hopefully improved tactic.It is not that we want this to go on endlessly throwing our military at the enemy as if they are so many chips in the pot.Iraq obviously cannot go on for years and years more as though it’s not big deal.
We have learned through the historical lessons of our military that its success is in its ability to adapt and improve based upon what it is faced with; because of our nations past, even in the face of failures, that we can complete and do what we set out to do.
Not blind optimism, rose tinted glasses or blind faith, but an understanding that if what we are up against involves a long struggle then we cannot expect an over night success or even success in half a decade.
As Debra Saunders wrote of an article in the Times that Janet Elder wrote based upon the papers poll “found that the number of Americans who think it was right for the United States to go to war in Iraq rose from 35 percent in May to percent 42 percent in mid-Jul” which lead to another poll:
“the increased support for the decision to go to war was "counterintuitive" and because it "could not be easily explained, the paper went back and did another poll on the very same subject."’
Now that makes me smile, but only just; it is this very fact that should cause so much concern.The media is the trough that we feed from.It is not our ally or friend, it is a business and a business that influences the views of so many.It would not be so out of touch if it actually did its job, rather than play its own version of power politics.
It has taken pushing, shoving, posting and screaming to allow this one glimmer of reality through and it shouldn’t have.Rather than catch on and look into the various aspects of what is going on in an effort to report more accurately and with less bias (which they don’t recognize), they will likely regroup and push back harder.
They will push back harder because they don’t want to lose.Much like the Democrats in office, it is not so much about “the war” it is about power.There is a bit of a tizzy going on these days, which is best brought forth by Spree at Wake up America, “Democrats in the house starting to panic;” where she finds the time or energy I have no clue, but the wheel once invented doesn’t really need to be re-invented so pop over while I go back to sleep.
Oh, yeah…wouldn’t it be nice if they weren’t in a panic about their own a*ses?
"Former Rep. Lee Hamilton, who also served as the vice chairman of the 9/11 commission, says the Iraq war distracted the United States when it had al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden on the run in the tribal region between Afghanistan and Pakistan.
He says it's now time to finish the job."
This latest assessment is based upon the recently release National Intelligence Estimate (Democrats have failed this "intelligence" test). Why does the Co-Chair of the Democrat Majority revered Iraq Study Group believe the U.S. should strike?
"If there's anything we should have learned, it's that we must not let al Qaeda have a sanctuary, which they certainly do in Pakistan today."
If there's anything we should have learned, it's that we must not let al Qaeda have a sanctuary!!!!! Democrats UNITE!!! It's time to leave the distraction that Iraq is behind!!! Take to the hills of Pakistan, which according to the sage Co-Chair it:
"has to be carefully calibrated, worked out with the Pakistanis. We will finish it off in every corner of the country.
I think we have to find ways and means, perhaps it's use of covert actions, perhaps it's use of special operations, perhaps it's the pursuit of the Taliban when they're in Afghanistan, to let us go after them as they move back into Pakistan.
Whatever it is, I do not find acceptable a sanctuary for al Qaeda in Pakistan. We have to be able to go after them."
I find this refreshing as it is a rare occasion when I find myself agreeing with a Democrat, retired or not. In these days of partisan polarization it is a welcome moment when sides of the aisle can come together in a way that they haven't done since perhaps the days following September 11, 2001.
Let this be a wake up call to all - A call to both sides of the aisle - Pakistan, the haven where al Qaeda is regenerating.
A call to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid - bring the vote up again - let's take it from the distraction, take it to where the enemy truly is!!!
Wait a second...? What about the distraction? Might it not become a nation, like Afghanistan was that would be a haven for Iraq if we leave? Nah, it's just a distraction...the Iraq Study Group has spoken.
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?”
“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.
“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 1/3rd 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.
Apologies up front as it's just kind of my mood today.
Reading Byron York this morning regarding last nights Democrat Debate on MSNBC with Brian Williams asking and anticipating a military type response (I assume, but that’s from my war-mongering stance, I guess), Williams asked:
‘“If, God forbid, a thousand times, while we were gathered here tonight, we learned that two American cities had been hit simultaneously by terrorists and we further learned beyond the shadow of a doubt it had been the work of al Qaeda, how would you change the U.S. military stance overseas as a result?”’
I am struck by the responses received.This from Senator Barack Obama I will use as the sample:
'“Well, first thing we’d have to do is make sure that we’ve got an effective emergency response, something that this administration failed to do when we had a hurricane in New Orleans.And I think that we have to review how we operate in the event of not only a natural disaster, but also a terrorist attack.”'
'“The second thing is to make sure that we’ve got good intelligence, A, to find out that we don’t have other threats and attacks potentially out there; and B, to find out do we have any intelligence on who might have carried it out so that we can take potentially some action to dismantle that network.”'
'“But what we can’t do is then alienate the world community based on faulty intelligence, based on bluster and bombast.Instead, the next thing we would have to do, in addition to talking to the American people, is making sure that we are talking to the international community.Because as has already been stated, we’re not going to defeat terrorists on our own. We’ve got to strengthen our intelligence relationships with them, and they’ve got to feel a stake in our security by recognizing that we have mutual security interests at stake.”'
Please note that there are other responses from a couple of the other candidates that York analyzes and I suggest reading the piece.My thoughts on the responses, using the above go in a slightly different direction…so there you have it.
I realize politicians on all sides of the spectrum do not like giving direct answers.They usually like to dance around a bit to the tune they feel that we can all dance to best as well; they also like to touch on points they have prepared in advance and fit those in where possible.The good senator did not answer the question.
Regardless of its relationship to reality, Williams gave the scenario that Obama then uses to, in a sense respond with a Jeopardy type answer.Not to the, ‘with all your steps addressed senator; what would you then do’ sense of the question.Why is that and does it really make one think we would be safe in the hands of a commander and chief?
Setting the political aside, which I’ll admit can be difficult; the response rang with the dull peal of a pillow in a bell like most thoughts in my feeble mind. Gagdad Bob has been running through the “10 Commandments of the Nihilist,” over the past week or so and although each one may touch upon, in varying degrees to the senators response; one in particular came to mind.
“I'm sure you've noticed that speaking with a conservative is easy, since they are logical, coherent, clear, dispassionate, and able to explain exactly what they believe and why they believe it. You may not agree with them, but you will know exactly what they think -- i.e., small federal government, low taxes, school vouchers, economic liberty, don't make stuff up that's not in the constitution, etc.”
“But why is it the opposite with illiberal leftists? Why can they never give a straight answer? Why all the evasion and double-talk that they confuse with "nuance?"
My feeling, although I am very swayed by the doog Gagdad is that they’re just full of it; but why be so full in the wrong way?Obviously, more understanding is necessary regarding “cognitive style.”As Gagdad continues, of the left or illiberal left:
“they chronically confuse abstract and concrete, and internal (subjective) and external (objective). Furthermore, this is how they are able to make reality conform to their fantasies, for they can always identify exceptions to general rules. For example, it is a truism that America is the most wealthy and prosperous country because it has the most free economy. But how difficult is it to find a particular person who is not prospering?”
“Conversely, the leftist will champion a generality such as "universal healthcare," but entirely overlook the particulars -- that is, how the cruelty and inefficiency of such systems actually affects individuals who, for example, must wait six months to get an MRI while there is a tumor growing inside them.”
Do you get where I going with this? I certainly hope so as I really don’t.It’s just that where one may wish to lay it all on being full of something of the fecal variety, it is actually something much deeper (you can think fecal variety here if it makes you feel better).They, in their own reality, believe in what they say and believe that they are saying it?Huh?Look, I didn’t say I understood what I was talking about, but if you wish to lose some of the disheartening feeling that you may often feel when listening to the likes of Harry, Nancy, or Obama you should read more on the differences at One Cosmos.
As for me I’m still grappling with it.But, considering and being able to think upon the senator’s answer that regardless of the psychology behind it this frame of mind in dealing with the external threats to our existence as we know it is outright wrong headed.You can imagine depth of the accomplishments in an Obama presidency or any of the other Democrats running when you get right down to it.
"Under criticism from lawmakers of both parties for the dismissals of federal prosecutors, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales insisted Tuesday that he would not resign but said, “I acknowledge that mistakes were made here."
"demanded that President Bush and his chief political adviser, Karl Rove, explain their roles in the dismissals." They also are "vowing to get to the bottom of who ordered the dismissals and why."
This invariably leaves the paper the latitude to open the thesaurus to pull out and describe the white house effort to explain the situation as "scrambles." This helps to assure the reader that, YES, something is up.
Two sources for the paper want to be able to continue their relationships and keep on sharing the info you have to love that they wish to continue their jobs with backstabbing optional (italics mine):
"two Republicans, who spoke anonymously so they could share private conversations with senior White House officials."
There are of course questions as to whether these dismissals were politically motivated, which of course is one of the leading concerns of Democrats. Diane Feinstein asked:
“Who authorized all of this? Who asked for that change?”
Good question, which according to Democrats makes this a BIG DEAL, yet it is nothing of the sort. As to political motivation? Isn't that how this all works?
"One of President Clinton’s very first official acts upon taking office in 1993 was to fire every United States attorney then serving — except one, Michael Chertoff, now Homeland Security secretary but then U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey"
Business as usual with the exception being Bush did not do this in 2001, nor at the onset of his second term. Yes, it is political and there was nothing wrong with it when Clinton did it and there is nothing wrong with it NOW.
Finally the Times can write in such a manner as to lead the reader, especially the circling sharks that indicates, something may be up:
"Inside the White House, aides to the president, including Mr. Rove and Joshua B. Bolten, the chief of staff, were said to be increasingly concerned that the controversy could damage Mr. Bush."
Their concern of damage is just that, about damage. It doesn't have to be any kind of wrongdoing that might concern them, but the "controversy" that has been generated by the Democrats; strengthened by the ham handed and limp response that does not include mentioning the reality that, 'yes it is politically motivated and their is nothing wrong with politics when working in politics.' Just ask the Democrats about that one, they should understand.
"the revised policy involving a war that has lasted nearly four years, claimed the lives of more than 3,000 U.S. troops"
I'm somewhat surprised CNN said the war "has lasted nearly four years," V.S. "nearing the fifth year...." Be sure to keep an eye/ear out as we close in on the end of the fourth year....it will change to "in the fifth year...." This is how it was referred to last year; the msm did not have time to keep it correctly at three years...most references were this was the fourth year.
(The legislation is) "not an attempt to embarrass the president. ... It's an attempt to save the president from making a significant mistake with regard to our policy in Iraq." - Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Delaware
Hey "Slow Joe" - what the president is doing is not an attempt to embarrass the Senate; he is just trying to save you all from continuing your significant mistake with regard to your policy in Iraq. Not sure what your policy is other than to get out, but...
"I am not confident that President Bush's plan will succeed," - Sen. Richard Lugar R-Indiana
Not competent? Oh, sorry, Sen. Lugar is not confident, which I guess means.....something of significance?
"There is no strategy. This is a pingpong game with American lives. These young men and women that we put in Anbar province, in Iraq, in Baghdad are not beans; they're real lives. And we better be damn sure we know what we're doing, all of us, before we put 22,000 more Americans into that grinder." - Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-NE
I agree, we had better make damned sure we know what we're doing when we up and pull out...sorry 'phased redeployment.' Now there is a positive/supportive victory motivated statement.
"I wonder whether the clock has already run out," - Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine.
I wonder about you too. Shouldn't you know? What, you're just guessing? You mean you don't know anything for sure? Shouldn't you then speak more forcefully as though you do, like the Democrats?
"I think all of us are talking about a phased redeployment which would leave American troops in the region to send a strong message, not only to the Iraqi government that we want to help them, but also to neighbors, like Iran, that we're not abandoning the field." - Sen. Barack Obama D-IL
"Troops" in the region...where? Iran won't see us as "abandoning the field?" "Strong message?" Um, yeah, this would be an extremely forceful message to Iran.....? Wouldn't remaining in the region (between borders in a place called Betwixt), be seen as an "occupation?" Can't we just continue talking? Maybe it will all just work itself out? Might we consider "Betwixt" a U.S. territory/possession and if so would it be exempt from increases in the minimum wage?
I read nothing but defeat; not in Iraq, but in our leaderships(?) comments. They know nothing and likely never will, at least not until they think for themselves rather than just working toward remaining employed.
"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.
Signed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid the letter, among other things says (from CNN):
"Surging forces is a strategy that you have already tried and that has already failed."
"Like many current and former military leaders, we believe that trying again would be a serious mistake. They, like us, believe there is no purely military solution in Iraq. There is only a political solution."
"The letter also urged Bush to begin withdrawing U.S. troops within six months and shift the mission of the remaining force toward training and supporting Iraqi troops and battling terrorism."
Like many, but not all, nor a majority of current or former military leaders. Like *ssholes, everyone has an opinion. The leaders speak the truth (very rare), when they say, "they like us, believe there is no purely military solution in Iraq." I have never heard that only a "military solution" is what is in the works, have you? Although they don't have to lie in making this statement, they do reveal a vast ignorance in the basics........military action often is a part of political solutions. To think of the two as wholly separate animals is just wrong!
Great job in November.....Oxymoron: Democratic Leadership.
