"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
------------------------------------------------
Showing posts with label Petraeus/Crocker War Plan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Petraeus/Crocker War Plan. Show all posts

Wednesday, September 05, 2007

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 - Top Blogs


  • Linkfest Haven, the Blogger's Oasis
    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.

    Wednesday, July 25, 2007

    Now Hear This: The Editors Have Spoken Again

    Will someone please, please, please flush the toilet Paper???

    According to the emotion and angst filled, non logic using editorial board members at The NY Times:

    "Prolonging the war for another two years will not bring victory. It will mean more lives lost, more damage to America’s international standing and fewer resources to fight the real fight against terrorists."
    This group whines like Mike Gravel at a Democrat Debate, why are they so invested in the never changing need to get out? Who are these people? Who are the members?

    Because we are still in Iraq (big surprise!) it is nothing but an utter failure. Because we are in Iraq, "Al Qaeda’s top leadership (has) regrouped and (is) resurgent in its old strongholds along the Pakistani-Afghan frontier." Is the logic(?) that we could then invade Pakistan or send more military to Afghanistan? What kind of a "quagmire" would be created by sending more soldiers to Afghanistan; do we really want to get involved in something like that? Who would we place the blame upon for that battlefield not going right or according to "plan" or an ever increasing number of casualties and deaths?

    NO BLOOD FOR POPPIES!!!!

    What would our "exit plan" be? Does that question not really enter the equation because we're already there? Hasn't Afghanistan gone on long enough? When will the Afghanis take responsibility for their own safety and government, why should they still need us?

    Of Iraq, the board asks:

    "What is President Bush’s plan for a timely and responsible exit?"

    (bold/italics/case/ul mine) This according to those that "know" that getting out of Iraq is "THE essential precondition for salvaging broader American interests in the Middle East and for waging a more effective fight against Al Qaeda in its base areas in Pakistan and Afghanistan."

    This is the boards over riding "intelligence" estimate. The rallying point that Iraq is for "extremists" would no longer be if we left. This is the answer they "stubbornly and damagingly" hold onto and refuse to view any other way.

    Of Petraeus and Crocker's plan the editors are aghast at the gall in the "assumption" that "a large-scale United States military presence in Iraq will continue for at least two more years." Forget the fact that it is a "war plan" and not the "change in direction" or "exit plan" the editors envision and "assume" is the only answer to Iraq and is the only question in the minds of Americans with regard to Iraq.

    The board sums it all up in a voice revealing the thin line between it and a Kos-hat (see a*s-hat):
    "Mr. Bush does have a choice and a clear obligation to re-evaluate strategy when everything, but his own illusions, tells him that it is failing."
    One "illusion" here is that the board considers itself part of "everything" or perhaps "everything (that matters anyway)." Another "illusion" is that the "surge" and this newest plan isn't a re-evaluation of strategy. The last "illusion" is the boards unbending surety that it is failing and overall Iraq has failed.

    It must be nice to know.

    Trackback: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/1606177156462559660

  • DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

    Please give this Post/Blog a Vote - Top Blogs


  • Linkfest Haven, the Blogger's Oasis
    Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Right Truth, Big Dog's Weblog, Webloggin, Stuck On Stupid, The Amboy Times, The Bullwinkle Blog, Cao's Blog, Leaning Straight Up, Conservative Cat, Pursuing Holiness, Conservative Thoughts, third world county, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Planck's Constant, The Pink Flamingo, and Dumb Ox Daily News, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

     

    © blogger templates 3 column | Webtalks