Democrats: An End to the War; Short, Bittersweet and the Crux

President Bush spoke for the eighth time on the subject of Iraq this evening; the consensus to most talking heads was it is not much in the neighborhood of new material. A reason for this lack in new material can be attributed to the opposition’s repetition of the past four years; the president is still speaking to the same arguments. This is not to say it is the fault of the Democrats that the president is repetitive, but more in line with yelling in a canyon and hearing an echo in response. Would it be nice if he were to take a new tack? Yes, it would, but it would also be nice if the Democrats tried a new refrain as well.

Senator from Rhode Island, Jack Reed responded to the president with the same tried and still not true material. A piece of which is “ending this war.” This has basically been the crux to the debate; Democrats and their supporters see this as a “war” and the president and his supporters in this vein see this more as a battle in a “war.” These are two very diametrically opposed views and part of that, which has made the debate all the more difficult to move forward in a way that might reach consensus.

Jack Reed referred to the issue in Iraq as a civil war, which is nothing new; so far so good. Setting aside the implausibility inherent in succeeding at what is being attempted with the numbers employed now, but with fewer troops and/or with new geographical post, we can end “this war.” Senator Reed is not wrong if this is a singular and unique war with no relatives in sight. Where Senator Reed and the Democrats fail is if this is as the president has continuously stated; a front in a greater war, this to the Democrats is the great gamble and one with which they have bet our future on.

In a perfect world with pieces that fit like a jigsaw puzzle, the Democrats might have a chance at completing the image of the cute puppy on the box cover. In another perfect world, as horrifying and pitiful as it would be, were the president wrong, amends could be made; not perfectly mind you with all forgiven, but made nonetheless; take it or leave it. Pride or martyrdom in death, like that sought by our enemy is mistaken but to the greater thinking world, admitting error is possible and more likely by no other nation than the United States; we’re great at proselytizing (think Democrats).

The catch is the more likely scenario. The United States and its allies disengage from the battle in the greater war; redeploy, draw down, withdraw and bring an end to the “war” only to find that we have given massive and unimaginable ground reminiscent of a Hamburger Hill magnified, but the planet is the hill. We then spend decades making up for the loss of momentum that we had within our grasp, yet threw away in our haste to end the “war.”

The preceding regarding battle versus greater war has been said and/or written before by many people, as this is the case, please forgive the repetition; at I have a lot of company.

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Is It Just Me?, Rosemary's Thoughts, Right Truth, Big Dog's Weblog, Adam's Blog, The Populist, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Cao's Blog, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Did you hear the one about Petreus’ Interest in Changing Direction in Iraq?

Yeah, it’s true I guess at least according to Senator Jack Reed, a Democrat (oddly) from the great state of Rhode Island.

According to Reed who just happened to arrive back from a trip to Iraq got some “impressions” while speaking with General Petreus.

Reed put together some thoughts based on these “impressions,” that give one the “impression” that no matter what Petreus said would fully fit in with Reed’s “impressions.”

Said Reed:

"The prospect of anything changing over the next several weeks or months, certainly through September, are very bleak indeed."

As a result of Reed’s “impression:”

"We're ready, I think, for a vote on the policy. I don't think we have to wait."

It is my “impression” that direction, “impression” and “appearances” suggested to Reed to use friendly terminology by saying that Petraeus “appeared eager to come out with new ways to respond to the continuing security problems there” as a means to bolster the “cut and run somewhere” argument.

This is by means of giving the “impression” that Petraeus wants out; not that Petraeus has on the ground ideas to improve tactics in the mission based on the daily tide in battle.

Marking and assisting in the murky “impression” that Senator Reed would like to provide comes this sinister “impression:”

“"I got the impression from Gen. Petraeus that he wasn't waiting. Now he might be overruled by people in the White House and, you know, wait until September. But he seemed very eager to come forward as quickly as possible with a new direction and policy."

While we’re at it, let’s decide on the next six presidents that way we can get onto the more pressing issues of 2031__________________

Did you know:

"There was a time when events shaped history. It was the ‘facts on the ground’ that would influence the future and help us understand the past. We might debate the meaning of it all and we were free to debate the events that triggered changes.

While scholars and historians will discuss Lincoln and the Civil War forever, or debate the real origins of World War One, it clear that ‘facts on the ground’ now play a lesser role than ever in determining history- or the future.

Now, feelings have entered the equation....."

Trackback: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/4665500643942976785

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.