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.

Sustainable Stability IS Victory in Iraq

How is the board feeling this morning, betrayed? Who do O’Hanlon and Pollack think they are returning to Iraq and actually viewing what it is like on the ground today and actually reporting back that Iraq has improved since their last visit?

Michael O’Hanlon recently wrote on June 10, 07 in the same pages of the NY Times that “Cities like Kirkuk and Mosul remain tinderboxes.” Today, writing of Tal Afar and Mosul:

“This is an ethnically rich area, with large numbers of Sunni Arabs, Kurds and Turkmens. American troop levels in both cities now number only in the hundreds because the Iraqis have stepped up to the plate. Reliable police officers man the checkpoints in the cities, while Iraqi Army troops cover the countryside. A local mayor told us his greatest fear was an overly rapid American departure from Iraq.”

In the January 2005 issue of Policy Review, O’Hanlan wrote “Iraq Without a Plan,” (reproduced by permission of Policy Review at The Brookings Institution) which he opened with:

“The post-invasion phase of the Iraq mission has been the least well-planned American military mission since Somalia in 1993, if not Lebanon in 1983, and its consequences for the nation have been far worse than any set of military mistakes since Vietnam.”

Pollack in January wrote a Saban Center Analysis, also available at The Brookings Institute; “Things Fall Apart: Containing the Spillover from an Iraqi Civil War.” In May it was The New Republic with “Civil Defense: The Surge That Would Really Save Iraq”

The bottom line is that O’Hanlon and Pollack left of Center foreign policy analysts, are anti-Iraq heroes to the likes of the NY Times Editors and the rest that are so far Left they almost fall off; so their writing of improvements will make many vested in defeat very unhappy.

“Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms.”

If Harry Reid insists on not believing General Petraeus, will he believe these two? We’ll have to wait until after his weekly conference call with MoveOrg, Kos and the rest.

Trackback: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/5057231118536742876

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Is It Just Me?, Perri Nelson's Website, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Committees of Correspondence, Big Dog's Weblog, Right Truth, DragonLady's World, Cao's Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, Leaning Straight Up, Jo's Cafe, Pursuing Holiness, Stageleft, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, and High Desert Wanderer, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

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 -

Be Patient Harry, There’s Still Time to Lose

In this mornings post from Sigmund, Carl & Alfred (posted somewhere at RCP, so vote for it) the question or better yet the subject under discussion is whether or not the horrific action taken by Cho Sueng Hui was “an act of terror or a crime.”

In reading “Coming Full Circle: Crime and Terror,” I am struck by the ease of comparison with which, one can make between the killing spree of a mentally tapped individual and that of a belief system, namely Islamic extremism, that wishes to do us harm. Can what happened at Virginia Tech Monday serve as a microcosmic glimpse of a world as an example, can used as a means of discerning or envisioning what might happen on a global scale left untreated?

The Iraq Theater has become just such a thing. From the beginning bitterly opposed by many on the Left and more forcefully so now; the battleground recently described by the Senate Majority leader, Harry “scared soiled” Reid, with “this war is lost.”

Setting aside an intense hatred for President Bush; the obviously political maneuverings of the political Left; the burning question that truly needs an honest answer is, “can we ever justifiably defend ourselves with proactive force?”

The United States went into Iraq with the intention of overthrowing a clear and if not present, then a very near future danger. With most European nations, namely Jacques Chirac’s France overtly thwarting the effort, posing as a man of peace and in honesty lacking, only protecting his nations economic interests; sought to protect the undeniably Fascistic and terroristic Saddam Hussein.

Self-led to believing themselves as peaceful, this peace movement, or better yet the Union of Moral Equivocates justified doing nothing by saying ‘who are we to judge?’ Painting the President of the U.S. and all those in agreement with them warmongering, blood for oil, terrorists and the real enemy.

The recent death in the streets of Iraq is proof in the pudding to Reid and others that this little sideshow Saturday morning serial Iraq adventure is a lost cause and lost. Is this honestly his belief or is he, as he and many leftward lurching politicos seem more likely intent on this self fulfilling prophesy becoming truth. ‘See? We were right all along….’

Many yell back at Harry and his hipsters that their stance and statements only embolden the enemy and weaken our resolve. If qaeda can only inflict more death and mayhem, the naïve and nihilistic infidel will win it for them. Why can’t Harry and the others go far enough in their equivocation to more seriously consider that angle as more than merely rhetoric? It is hard to ignore that once the main stream media felt it more difficult to ignore positive up ticks in Baghdad that it would make our enemy more vicious and inhumane, which makes them put their tactics of playing to the press all the more necessary. It is also equally hard to ignore that this game plan works on those that are there intended viewers.

Due more to the intransigence of our homeland naysayers and a lack of will on our political leadership to take the fight to the enemy without concern for media backlash, the battlefield in Iraq has dragged on long enough with no apparent end in sight to add to the rolls of those that want us out. Had we taken the tactic of and/or reacted more forcefully we would today still be in Iraq, but with a clearer view of what it might actually be like to step in down a bit. Instead, time has gone past long enough that has allowed Reid and his restive bunch to suggest redeployment with no consequence as a media viable alternative to the tactics now being employed.

Just a short week ago, Delaware senator Joe Biden, writing in the Washington Post suggested in an OpEd piece his offering of the same “glass half full” vision, but with a difference. Joe has a plan; a plan in his own words that has “been promoting for a year.” Oddly though, it sounds eerily similar to our present plan that is beginning to show indications of forward moving results. His sees his vision of “making federalism work for all Iraqis,” as “a strategy that can still succeed and allow our troops to leave responsibly.” The only missing piece appears to be the need to mention the military presence, like the one there now that will be necessary to accomplish his plan. This, sadly is the tactic the Democrat party has made a staple of their diet. As the president’s actions have repercussions, talk gets better press and does not have repercussions…at least not at first.

This inaction can have unforeseen repercussions especially when one considers as stated by SC&A:

“Terror is strategic weapon, designed to inflict fear- and thus increase leverage in negotiations or bargaining. Terror isn’t always the world away we think it is. In our society, terror has been used by striking workers and by strike busting management, to put pressure on the ‘other side’ and to improve negotiating positions.”

This very terror in the streets of Iraq is having the desired effect that being a “leader” of a Western, enemy nation admitting defeat and calling for retreat. Consider the recent abduction of the Royal Navy and Marine personnel by Iran; claiming the personnel were in their waters while everyone on the planet knowing this was not so, British authorities and leaders were frozen into inaction, but they sure tried to talk big, but talk is cheap. The U.N. couldn’t even bring itself to condemn this act and the condemnation itself would have just been talk as we all know that is all the U.N. does.

The Iranian leadership knows this and with the inability of the U.N. to even verbally chastise Tehran they were home free to play to kidnapping in such a way that they appear the victim.

This is all following over three years of talk with Iran regarding their “peaceful nuclear” intentions. Iran has never said it would give up its ambitions, but has become emboldened by the day into grandstanding that it never will; however with an olive branch offering interest in talking which allows the inactive ones the feeling vindicated in the knowledge that a favored outcome is still possible.

Tie the return of the “15 victims of a misunderstanding” in with their having been paraded around on Iranian state TV more as guests than hostages; add to that the return of Jalal Sharafi and showing him on Iranian state TV decked in hospital garb giving the impression that he was mishandled by his “abductors,” and you have an Iran adding the colorful hues of victim hood to their nuclear ambitions.

No sooner did Ahmadinejad announce the industrial production phase of their nuclear intentions and he was threatening that Iran may be forced to rethink its “peaceful” intentions when he said to the aggressive and pushy Western powers, ‘"Iran has so far moved in a completely peaceful path and wants to continue following this path, they should avoid doing something which forces this nation to review its behaviour."’

So continue to talk, continue to call Iraq a “defeat” Harry and we won’t have to play with this funny idea of defending ourselves proactively anymore. We’ll either have no choice at some point but to take action after an attack or we won’t have any choice but to partake in another long term cold war; a cold war with the global warming effect of a nuclear weapons armed radical Islamic Republic that we can only hope loves their children too; sadly though, we pretty much realize they don’t.

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Opinion on Opinion on Bush Challenged on Iraq - an Opinion

I love opinion pieces especially when I have an opinion about one. Today’s Washington Post has a really fun one, entitled “Bush Challenged on Iraq.”

Something the public has never been able to see and judge for themselves is President Bush pissed off, angry, what ever you want to call it. Interesting because if you think about it, we don’t see a lot of politicians get pissed; it may just be passion, but that’s subjective isn’t it.

This to Dan Froomkin is an example of the president’s “bubble.”

“Bush is well known for living inside a protective bubble where accommodating staffers keep opposing views -- and those who hold them -- at bay.”

Or Bush is well known for having a bubble around him as the media sees it. Or the media, in its insistence that the president lives in a bubble continues to view him as living in a bubble. Or the media, from within its bubble believe its actually the president that is in a bubble…..

The “bristling” or “visible anger” came about when Senate Majority leader Harry Reid:

“compared Iraq to Vietnam at one point in a closed door meeting with Bush. Specifically, Reid suggested that Bush was pursuing a lost cause at the cost of American troops in order to protect his legacy.”

Though he did not receive a direct reply from the president, Bush was “visibly angered.” Oooooo…..Watch out….he’s gonna pick the beagle up by the ears!!!!! Crazy Texan!!!

The president "denied this forcefully, after which Mr. Reid touched his arm in a gesture of friendliness." A gesture of friendliness or Gotcha! A gesture of friendliness or an act cowardice; not unlike his call for withdrawal, upon having possibly popping the “bubble” surrounding the hornets nest? Kind of callous to call it a concern for a legacy as well, but hey, no, it's just friendly.

Bush in the bubble gets angry, but Reid is friendly rather than the drug store soda jerk he appears to be.

When you are in a position of leadership, as the president is (at least we think he is, but it’s the handlers of the bubble that are really in control), with Iraq, Afghanistan and the greater war on terror to deal with, wouldn’t you perhaps bristle at hearing the tired refrain of Iraq’s comparison to Vietnam for the likely millionth time?

But that’s just my opinion. Too bad I don’t have the influence the msm has.

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -