Wednesday, July 11, 2007
|
|
Winning In Iraq And Losing In D.C.
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
2:30 PM
|
|
The latest news on the plans of the defeatists in the Senate is posted at VictoryCaucus.
Quin Hilyer has some ideas on how to turn the tide inside the Beltway as effectively as it has been done in Anbar.
To Quin's many fine ideas I would add a political component: From among the Senate Republicans who support a timetable, one or two should become either targets for primary challengers in 2008 or, if need be, targets for defeat by Democrats in the fall of 2008. Unfortunately there don't appear to be any GOP wobblers who could be defeated in a primary, though there are least two --Senators Domenici and Smith of New Mexico and Oregon respectively-- who could fall to a Democrat in the general election if even 10% of the GOP base defected from their cause.
It is crucial to not that neither Senator Domenici nor Senator Smith has yet crossed the political Rubicon that is support for date-certain defeat. Indeed, no GOP senator up for re-election has yet voted for a timetable that passed, and so the need doesn't exist yet to organize other than a general boycott of the NRSC. But if enough Republicans defect to allow such a bill to pass, then the course is clear: I can't support someone who doesn't support victory. I suspect there are tens of thousands of Republican activists who feel the same way.
Some GOPers argue that working for the defeat of any Republican incumbent is never a good idea, especially if he or she votes the right way on some issues. I hold that view generally, and have supported senators like Arlen Specter over their conservative challengers because Senator Specter gets the big ones right. On the other hand I cheered for the defeat of Lincoln Chafee in '06. Chafee's defeat --even though the majority in the Senate went with him-- is an argument for enforcing party loyalty on the two key issues of the war and SCOTUS nominees. We are better off with clarity as to who is in charge of this incompetent, defeatist Congress, a clarity that a Chafee re-election would have obscured. It's Harry Reid's Senate that has accomplished zero six months into it's run, unless you want to count encouraging the enemy to persevere as an accomplishment.
Even if a GOP senator gets everything else correct, if their vote allows the war to be lost, I don't know how a Republican activist can contribute to or work for their re-election. These senators may argue they are voting their conscience, but my conscience will demand that I at a minimum hope for their defeat as a clear expression of what the party expects on the key issue of our time. All of the GOP presidential candidates support the surge and a victory policy. The vast majority of Republicans do as well, and they believe very much that there is no alternative to winning in Iraq that leaves America safe and the jihadists defeated and without a new refuge. It is also a crucial part of the Republican platform to take the threat from iran very seriously and to agree with President Bush that Iran cannot be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons. The tiny isolationist fringe within the GOP is loud but very small, and the demands for retreat from Iraq among Republicans is almost non-existent.
What GOP senators are doing is trying to placate some Democratic and independent voters, betting that their GOP voters will have no where else to go. This is a trend that has to be reversed, and the only way to reverse it is to send the very sharp message that on the war, there are no "free votes" if a defeatist bit of lawmaking is the result.
Contact the key GOP senators up for re-election in 2008 who have been reported to be wavering in recent weeks (though it isn't necessarily so given the MSM's agenda journalism):
Senator Lamar Alexander, Tenn: (202) 224-4944. E-mail link here.
Senator Norm Coleman, MN: (202) 224-564. E-mail link here.
Senator Pete Domenici, NM: (202) 224-6621. E-mail link here.
Senator Gordon Smith, OR: (202) 224-3753. E-mail link here.
Senator John Sununu, NH: (202) 224-2841. E-Mail link here.
Senator John Warner, VA: (202) 224-2023. E-mail link here.
There are three Democratic senators from red states who should also hear from the pro-victory voter:
Senator Max Baucus, MT: (202) 224-2651. E-mail here.
Senator Mary Landrieu, LA: (202) 224-5824. E-mail here.
Senator Mark Pryor: (202) 224-2353. E-mail here.
As Michael Yon and the New York Times' John Burns have written in the last week, we are making great progress in these early days of the surge, and General Petraeus and the troops deserve the opportunity to not only succeed, but for the American public to understand they have succeeded.
UPDATE: Earlier today Senator Domenici was on The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer. Here's the exchange:
WB: Here's what you said the other day. I 'll read it to you and make sure it is an accurate quote: "There's nothing to wait for. Everybody that has any knowldge of the reports would indicate that the are not going to show any degree of a big change that we needed and we are just wasting tiome." What do you mean "We are just wasting time?"
PD: This was put to me in light of "Why are you making this announcement today?" when I made it. "Can't you wait a while to make it?" And I said there's nothing to be gained from me, Senmator Pete Domenici, announcing my frustration and my willingness to change directions in this war. I'm not going to vote for any of the Democratic proposals that say we are getting out tomorrow or that we're getting out next week. I'm waiting, but I am ready.
This just does not make any sense, and the anger growing with Republican ranks over the double-talk erupting in the Senate among Republican senators trying to have it both ways is going to rival that which was ignited by the immigration debate, but with even more profound consequences as the loss of the war will be an enormous blow to the country, and no one will forget the Republicans who assisted the Democrats in engineering that defeat if it comes to pass.
UPDATE: I spent most of today's program taking calls only from active duty military or reservists or National Guardsmen who had served in Iraq, asking them for their reaction to Harry Reid's "the surge has failed" declaration in the Senate today. With one exception they reject his characterization and resent the debate deeply, judging it to be ill-inofrmed and politically motivated. What is most disappointing about the collapse of seriousness in the Senate on the subject of the war is the collective indifference on the part of a majority (but not yet 60) senators to the facts on the ground in Iraq.
Listen for yourself here later tongiht. I start taking the calls in segment four of the first hour and they continue through the end of segment one of the third hour when I had a previously scheduled guest. They are powerful testimonies to the fact that coalition troops are winning and can prevail in Iraq if they are not undercut by the Reid-led Senate and Pelosi-led House.
One example of the utter and indefensible ignorance of the lawmakers: Yesterday Joe Biden shrilly declared that the war was breaking the army, and driving out its best warriors. Slow Joe has obviously not been reading up on the 101rst:
MOSUL, Iraq, July 5, 2003 -- The 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) celebrated America's 227th birthday in grand style the Fourth at the division headquarters, located at the palace overlooking the banks of the Tigris River.
The Independence Day festivities culminated in a mass reenlistment ceremony, where 158 Screaming Eagles stepped forward, raised right hands in front of their fellow soldiers and swore to continue defending the Constitution of the United Sates.
"We say this is a great day or a great evening in the Army, and a great moment for that soldier, because the Army gets [better] every time a single soldier raises his or her right hand and agrees to stay in our ranks," said Maj. Gen. David H. Petraeus, commander of the 101st Airborne Division and Coalition Forces in Northern Iraq. "Tonight is a night that I think is unprecedented, and that is 158 great soldiers who will raise hands, take the oath and stay in our ranks for a number of more years."
Read the whole thing. Then write and call these senators.
|
|
|
Nope,they've got something precious called--I kid you not--"World Cultures" in Calif High Schools now. EEEeeeeeeeeekkkKK! |
|
|
They DO still teach History don't they...? |
|
"Uncommon Ignorance was the Common Characteristic
of the American Left."
Easy to spot Trait of the Left: Beligerant Self
Absorbsion, Agressive Self Pity.
Mr.Toad's Law is bottomless in its vacuosity. That he proudly waves it,says everything. Where ya pickin' up them crystal globes?
B-Rob's History Lessons: Back to school,Bubba. Just a cursory reading of American forces in the European Theater in '43,until Sicily, is hair raising. Today's Drive By's,much less the Losers of the Left,would have been waving White Flags aplenty. God help us if the same bunch had seen the FIRST DAY casualty figures for Iwo Jima in '45! |
|
Iraq is a total disaster. Al-Qaeda couldn't be happier that we're there because we're giving moderate Muslims every reason to hate us with all the civilian casualties.
I don't just blame Bush for this - he certainly pushed for the war, and, in my opinion intentionally lied to get us into war, but the Dems were all too complicit and aren't serious about trying to rectify the situation. Neither party has the ethical upper hand.
|
|
“How long has it taken AlQ to kill 6,000...?”
Well, ignoring that Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia is only one of numerous diversified organizations involved in murdering our soldiers (which also includes the Sunni resisters and various Shi’ite militias that resent the occupation), this question cuts both ways.
If it has indeed taken Al Qaeda’s thugs this long to kill so many, why are we so afraid of them? Why have we elevated these pathetic scumbags to a threat equal to that of militarized Germany in 1940? Why have we sent a large portion of our military might into Iraq?
Why is the thought of using international contacts and police, plus committing smaller contingents of Special Forces to work with intelligence assets to take these psychotic lunatics out (and this time actually having the guts to pull the trigger when they’re in our sights) such a verboten thought in Republican circles? And while we’re at it, let’s use the same assets to make sure they don’t get their hands on nukes.
Traffic accidents kill more people than these losers do every year, but we don’t declare a war on speeding and mobilize the entire army to direct traffic.
|
|
|
Try 10 to 15 years. Madrassas education throughout the muslim world has been skyrocketing for the past 15 years. That's a lot of little brainwashers still coming our way. When oil becomes a tertiary commodity and their funding dries up, the war will basically be over. They understand this as well. So you can blame the green revolution as much as GWB for the surge in Islamofacism overtness. |
|
That's pretty funny. "O'stupidity" Did you think that up yourself, or did mommy help you?
If you would read (if you can, of course...I don't want to harm your self-esteem), I did not compare WWII to the GWOT.
I referred to the casualties in ONE BATTLE...
Kasserine Pass. Look it up. It's in all the history books.
(By the way.....we won that one!) |
|
So libs care about winning the war. Just like you guys did in NAM?
Even when the South was kicking the tar out of the North. That was until YOU guys cut off all the funds for fighting the war.
Yes I remember it to DAMN well! |
|
It is expected that we must endure lefty after lefty pointing out, "Why is Al Q getting stronger if we are fighting them over there?"
How long does a lefty think "the fight" should take? Now if you are a liberal fighting a fight and you sense the first inkling that you are losing, you change direction and give up or change your goal, but if your an Islamic extremist who has been brainwashed from 5 years old onward, defeatism is not part of your thought process. This "fight" has only begun. We are fighting an Islamic reformation. They (the moderate muslims that respect life)are just as much fighting these extremists as we are. So libs, these guys dont give up, they just fight harder. So "the fight" isnt over until they are gone. Their so called "hearts and minds" where never ours to disswade or lose. Their minds were made up in the madrassas long ago. The real fact is that they (the extremists) now know that the back door fight is over. They are now coming out of the woodwork because THEY HAVE TO. They will continue to "get stronger" for a while. I propose that the term "getting stronger" is a misnomer. I suggest that the extremists have decided to become overt, rather than the covert fight they have been waging for decades. |
|
Doc,Mike & Paddy:Toady & Co.ain't gonna get it,'cause they ain't interested in Winning.
Ya know,Victory. Abu-Grab,my arse,Lads!
None of these Nutters ever ventures that they--GASP--hate the Butchers.Never,Ever.
They DON'T want Victory. They want our Defeat--
errr...That's Re-Deployment. Consequences will,as per usual,be Booooosh's fault. So, the mass slaughter and pit of Islamist Hell that iraq would become would be W's catastrophe, NOT theirs. Promise. |
|
For a little perspective, the battle of Kasserine Pass was the first battle involving U.S. troops in North Africa in WWII.
We lost 6,000 men in that battle alone.
How long has it taken AlQ to kill 6,000...?
Just imagine how Lefty would be behaving if this were anything like WWII.....gas rationing, food rationing.....blackouts....
You think his whining is irritating now.....!! |
|
From CentCom http://www.centcom.mil/sites/uscentcom2/Lists/Press%20Releases/Current%20Releases.aspx
Success from the Surge Continues. We are there so lets not throw in the towel as that will give Al Qaeda an Oil Based Economy that will further strengthen the influence that the Caliphate and Sharia already has in England and Europe. After Europe America is Next. Liberals and MSM LET US WIN! Sharia will make your "Liberal" Wants and Desire IMPOSSIBLE!
7/11/2007
SUSPECTED SECRET CELL TERRORIST DETAINED BY COALITION FORCES
7/11/2007
TWO TERRORISTS KILLED, 20 SUSPECTS DETAINED
7/11/2007
IA, CF DISCOVER AL-QAEDA SAFE HOUSE NORTH OF BAQOUBA
7/10/2007
TIPSTERS LEAD TO CAPTURE SOUTH BAGHDAD'S MOST WANTED TERRORIST, CACHE
7/10/2007
AIRPOWER SUMMARY FOR JULY 9
7/10/2007
SIX IRAQIS WOUNDED IN SEPERATE ATTACKS
7/10/2007
INSURGENT TARGETS POLICE CHECKPOINT
7/10/2007
OPERATION FOUR BROTHERS NETS DETAINEES, WEAPONS
|
|
It's no use explaining numbers and history to the Losers. Their everchanging argument goes like this:
"4 million Iraqui civillians have been killed by US troops since Feb."
Then when you point out that is not true and that our guys are killing the terrorists at a 17 to 1 clip they change to this:
"Numbers of dead have never been a determinate as to who wins the wars"
This is asinine of course, because it is the PRIMARY way of determining who won a war. The other way is that the Loser usually has had enough of being killed and quits the field.
So numbers matter, then they don't, but wait, there is one number that will make Losers quit.
It is the magical number "1". If "1" American is killed, the Losers will quit.
Funny, how everything else in their lifestyles is based on the opposite sentiment. "If only 1 child/woman/gay/whale/tree can be saved by walking and riding mules to Oregon, then we should do it."
|
|
Doc,A86,Mike,syn,Buzzbinator...I'm new at this Blogstuff,but the flood of Nutters above seemed a tad too precious! Thanks for 'heppin me see the
MMatters grouping.I'm on a learning-curve... The fatuous,emotional sillyness is common to them all,of course. None of this free &
open exchange is tolerated on the Left Sites.
Instant Purge,sentenced to 'Trolldom'. When MoJoe
or al start showing their massive historical ignorance,I start having FUN.None of them have exposed themselves to "the unaccustomed torture of critical thought." Yep,I'll bet the genius above has read Dr.Hanson's Classical works--Uh-Huh! Keepin' hisself up on the Peloponese,I've no doubt.
Syn:The quote is from Irving Kristol(aka-our godfather),but your point is Good. The Twerpsters
use Neocon as a new millinea pajorative,meaning anyone with a set of 'um. Something utterly unknown to Lil'Bistro Lefties chained to their keyboards and latte machines. |
|
This analysis is by Brad Wilmouth @ http://newsbusters.org/node/9290
supports my Position on the Alphabet Media
On November 28, 2006 Keith Olberman on his MSNBC Countdown show said 'the NBC News decision to label violence in Iraq as a "civil war" was comparable to the 1968 decision by Walter Cronkite to declare the Vietnam War a "stalemate," as the former CBS News anchor lost confidence in America's ability to win the war. Olbermann led the show quoting from Cronkite's 1968 statement, including the proclamation that "the only rational way out would be to negotiate," as the Countdown host contended that Cronkite had "truly matched his signoff 'And that's the way it is.'" Below is a transcript of relevant portions of the November 27 Countdown show:
.......Is this the 'Walter Cronkite moment' of the Iraq War? Retired Colonel Jack Jacobs on the why and how the sectarian violence in Iraq qualifies for this fearful phrase. Craig Crawford predicts the impact, its relative position on the Cronkite scale, and the backlash. Dana Milbank on the impact on the President on the latest leaks about the Baker commission report and Mr. Bush's impending summit meeting with Nouri al-Maliki. Mr. Bush thinks it is not civil war in Iraq, but it is too dangerous to meet Iraq's prime minister in Iraq."...Olbermann started his show by saying: "Good evening from Los Angeles. 'We have been too often disappointed by the optimism of the American leaders both in Vietnam and Washington to have faith any longer in the silver linings they find in the darkest clouds,' the observer began exactly 38 years and nine months ago tonight. 'To say that we are closer to victory today is to believe, in the face of the evidence, the optimists, who have been wrong in the past. To suggest we're on the edge of defeat is to yield to unreasonable pessimism. To say that we are mired in stalemate seems the only realistic, yet unsatisfactory, conclusion.' And the observer's conclusion: 'It is increasingly clear to this reporter that the only rational way out would be to negotiate -- not as victors, but as an honorable people who lived up to their pledge to defend democracy and did the best they could.' Our fifth story on the Countdown, after years of erring on the side of caution about Vietnam, Walter Cronkite, on February 27, 1968, truly matched his signoff 'And that's the way it is,' and America never saw that war the same way. Wishing neither to make an undue analogy nor be too introspective, but on the advice of a panel of experts, NBC News and MSNBC have today decided to call it in Iraq, the way it is, 'civil war.'"
I want to Win the War but the Democrats and MSM do not because they What all Americans to be defeatist like them so that the UN's Corrupt and Feckless Mentality will Run America. I Rest MY CASE!
|
|
Liberals & the Left of our Generation either plays dumb or just not very Intuitive. It is called Comparative Analysis. Not obsessed with Cronkite but his Coup de Grâce for Vietnam is being repeated today by his Grandchildren in the MSM! The Politicos still follow their Lead. Again the domcrats and MSM want Vietnam's MSM and Politcal loss of Vietnam to be repeated in Iraq. Why? Neuter the US Military and America's Fighting Spirit to fight when cornered!
Ever hear of the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism at ASU? Cronkite under study at CBS was Marvin Kalb who is a Senior Fellow at the Harvard's Joan Shorenstein School of Journalism and Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy and Faculty Chair for the Harvard's Kennedy School of Government.
What is the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy[? A forum at Harvard University which explores the intersection of press, politics and public policy in theory and practice, striving to bridge the gap between journalists and scholars, and between them and the public. It is a major source for research on U.S. campaigns, elections,and journalism.
Cronkite Restired but still around and the Model for Liberals
see Martha's Vineyard Gazette article of June 27, 2007
http://www.mvgazette.com/news/2007/06/29/walter_cronkite.php
"Almost 40 years ago, after a careful assessment of the state of the Viet Nam war, Walter Cronkite delivered an editorial on CBS, saying it was time for a negotiated withdrawal.
President Lyndon Johnson, in response, was famously quoted as saying: "If I've lost Cronkite, I've lost middle America." Five weeks later, the President announced he would not run for reelection.
If he were still an anchorman, Mr. Cronkite would have delivered a similar editorial long before now about the Iraq war.
"I'd be as strong as I was in the other war. We ought to be out of there. I've being saying that practically since that war began, since we invaded. I don't think we should be there," he said.
There's not much chance, he concedes, of George Bush registering his words and responding: "I've lost Walter Cronkite, it's time I quit."
The question is, could anyone in the media wield that kind of influence today?
"No, because there's not another me out there," said Mr. Cronkite.
Nonetheless, he said, "There are a lot of journalists out there today, who if they chose to take that strong stand and course would probably enjoy a similar result.
"I am a little disappointed there were not more of my brethren in the press saying out loud [what they] should have been saying for a long time: We don't belong in the war we are pursuing."
"I don't think there's any doubt that I'm a liberal. I am not ashamed of that, I have no problem defending it and I wish I could impose upon more people my concepts of liberalism and perhaps be a little more active in the running of our country, in the sense of electing the right people in there."
Liberalism - which has come to be a term of derision in some quarters - is to him simply a matter of taking the broad view and working with other opinions. The liberal, he said, seeks to understand all aspects of a situation rather than pursue a single-minded goal.'
|
|
1) Liberals universally claim that we should be focusing on fighting al Qaeda and that Iraq is a distraction from that because al Qaeda is mostly in Pakistan. But al Qaeda has declared repeatedly that Iraq is now the primary front -- the main battlefield -- in their war against the west. So how can it be a distraction for us and yet be the main battlefield for them at the same time? Or is it your contention that al Qaeda is simply too stupid to know where the real battlefield is?
2) If we are not going to fight al Qaeda in Iraq because al Qaeda is really elsewhere, where do you propose to fight them? In Pakistan? Are you advocating an invasion of Pakistan? If so, what will you do differently there to make the invasion more successful than the invasion of Iraq? And if we are not going to invade Pakistan, HOW do you propose to fight them?
3)Here is another claim I hear constantly from liberals: fighting al Qaeda in Iraq just makes them stronger and allows them to recruit ever more terrorists for their cause. If that is the case, WHERE can we EVER fight them successfully? Won’t fighting them in Pakistan also simply make them stronger and stronger? Or are you advocating that we simply get it over with, surrender and agree to live under an Islamic dictatorship of Sharia religious law?
4) Do you actually believe that if we withdraw now from Iraq, this will DEMORALIZE al Qaeda, WEAKEN al Qaeda, and REDUCE their motivation to attack us elsewhere?
5) If fighting al Qaeda in Iraq increases their recruitment and makes them stronger, while leaving Iraq would demoralize and weaken them, why are they so determined to make us leave? Wouldn't that be a rather stupid thing for them to work for?
6) Another claim I hear constantly from liberals is that the war is bankrupting our country. The war in Iraq is costing us about $144 billion a year, a huge sum of money to be sure. However, that represents about 5% of total Federal Government spending. How can 5% of our government spending bankrupt us? If 5% is too much to spend on a war against our mortal enemy, how much are you willing to spend?
7) If your liberal dreams come true, and you have the presidency and strong control of both houses of Congress come 2008, and you withdraw us from Iraq, what will you then do to end the global jihad against the west, a jihad supported spiritually and financially by millions of Muslims around the world? Look for ways to appease them? Negotiate with them? Ask the UN for help against them? Send them foreign aid to end their poverty? These are the standard liberal responses to threats from abroad -- these are the things liberals advocated throughout the cold war -- these are the things we did for decades prior to 9/11. Since these things obviously did not work to prevent 9/11, how will they work in the future?
I share the frustration with the way things are going in Iraq. One frustration is that it is hard to tell how things are really going; there are plenty of contradictory reports, though I think it is significant that the boys (and girls) we have over there remain mostly optimistic.
But before we withdraw, I’d like an answer to the questions above. Because if we can’t answer them, the arguments for giving up and coming home don’t hold water. Democrats and liberals have every right to oppose the war -- but with that right comes an obligation to propose a reasonable alternative strategy for fighting the jihadists.
|
|
|
the liberals posting here tend to think more critically than the conservatives. Liberals are citing facts while conservatives are resorting to name calling. Townhall is much more interesting when liberals post here. |
|
usually chirpy members of SEIU or the local Teacher's Union (like JoBloMoFo), there are Seminar Bloggers.
When the bogosphere shot Dan Blather/Mary Mapes out of the saddle in 2004, the chimps at moveon, etc. ad nauseum decided that they had to get a bunch of dung-dipped liberals together to post on Conservative WebLogs, hence the legion of liberal losers we have pecking away at keybaords in this blog.
A more proper place for them would be over at Juliasweeney.com, but they are fond of the idea that they might be able to convince someone reading here of the merit(s) of their lost cause(s). |
|
|
As a PA resident, the main reason I voted for Spector last time was because he was going to head the Judiciary Committee and he promised to put through the President's nominees. He didn't follow through on the judges and he was wrong on imigration. He's talking about running again and next time I will not vore for him in the primary or the general election, even if it means getting a dem like we have with Casey. |
|
A NEOCON is many things, but the reason they hate new conservatives so much is for defecting from the pathetic, feeble ranks of moribund liberalism to conservatism. Of course they hate them and use the term NEOCON the same way Hosie O'Dunce uses the term 'heterosexual.'
|
|
CIA Said Instability Seemed ‘Irreversible’
Does anyone think a strong federal government will take hold in Iraq? Why do we keep pushing the strategy knowing it is not working?
WP-Early on the morning of Nov. 13, 2006, members of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group gathered around a dark wooden conference table in the windowless Roosevelt Room of the White House.
For more than an hour, they listened to President Bush give what one panel member called a “Churchillian” vision of “victory” in Iraq and defend the country’s prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki. “A constitutional order is emerging,” he said.
Later that morning, around the same conference table, CIA Director Michael V. Hayden painted a starkly different picture for members of the study group. Hayden said “the inability of the government to govern seems irreversible,” adding that he could not “point to any milestone or checkpoint where we can turn this thing around,” according to written records of his briefing and the recollections of six participants
“The government is unable to govern,” Hayden concluded. “We have spent a lot of energy and treasure creating a government that is balanced, and it cannot function.”
READ MORE
http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/cia-said-instability-seemed-irreversible |
|
Whenever a post is made about Iraq, somehow Media Matters basement trolls getting paid $5 an hour plus a batch of speed show up to opine the same tired mental pygmie crap repeated ad nauseum since March 2003.
And after all this time they still do not know that a "NeoCon" is a former liberal mugged by reality (ed koch form mayor on NYC Democrat)
|
|
Only in Massachusetts & San Quentin can a man in a skirt be called a wife. You live in Long Beach and don't forget it.
Perhaps you recall the 'b&tch-slapped' look Chrissy Matthews had in the MSNBC War Room in the wee small hours of the 2004 election. That, chimp-boy, is how you and your coterie of ersatz American pals will look after another Republican Presidential Victory.
In case you had not yet dipped your rectal thermometer into your infantile congressional majority, they are at room temperature, their power DOA.
Now go wash down your sun dried tofu with some holistic kambucha, strap on your tutu and join the French Navy so you can claim some military experience in time for your commentary on the next Seymour Hirsch article. |
|
|
is that he's bitter that we ever pulled out of Vietnam and blames Cronkite for this surprisingly intelligent move. You see, pulling out of Vietnam set the precident for admission of horrible foreign policy blunders, something our modern day neocons are dead-set against. They'd prefer our media see no evil, hear no evil, and report no evil, just as neocons do. If the media don't report what's really going on, we can continue indefinitely on a path of spending $12 billion/month and thousands of military personnel lives while inflaming Arabs and strengthening al-Qaeda. But that's no problem - after all, chicken hawk neocons aren't the ones actually fighting the war. They're sitting in their air-conditioned homes and offices cheerleading it. |
|
|
why do you hate freedom? TIA |
|
The reason why Tet had the effect it did was not for the Viet Cong's tactical success so much as its psychological power -- Americans had up to that point been told how their military was dominating the countryside, and on the evening news they were watching this supposedly pathetic force taking potshots at the U.S. embassy in Saigon.
The same demoralizing experience is holding forth for Iraq - the war there has lasted longer than World War II, and yet the U.S. military, by all measure the best-trained, best-equipped, and best-led force in modern history, is unable to completely secure a city it captured four years ago.
I realize that pointing out these shortcomings shows that I'm in fact a dirty, dirty hippie/frenchman/pinko/LIEbrul/whatever, but if GOP senators are beginning to defect from Bush, its not a simple matter of them losing their Churchillian stiff upper lips. There's a serious lack of leadership and skill in the top levels of government, and the party in that leadership position invariably pays the price for it.
Back to your regularly scheduled liberal-bashing...
DU
|
|
"Report from Vietnam," Walter Cronkite Broadcast, February 27, 1968.
Tonight, back in more familiar surroundings in New York, we'd like to sum up our findings in Vietnam, an analysis that must be speculative, personal, subjective. Who won and who lost in the great Tet offensive against the cities? I'm not sure. The Vietcong did not win by a knockout, but neither did we. The referees of history may make it a draw. Another standoff may be coming in the big battles expected south of the Demilitarized Zone.......
On the off chance that military and political analysts are right, in the next few months we must test the enemy's intentions, in case this is indeed his last big gasp before negotiations. But it is increasingly clear to this reporter that the only rational way out then will be to negotiate, not as victors, but as an honorable people who lived up to their pledge to defend democracy, and did the best they could.
This is Walter Cronkite. Good night.
http://www.alvernia.edu/cgi-bin/mt/text/archives/000194.html
Some one didn't turst Victor D. Hanson? Well
What about the Smithsonian's By Don Oberdorfer
"As part of a nationwide wave of surprise attacks by the Communists during the Lunar New Year—the Tet holiday—the resulting six-hour battle was militarily inconsequential. In fact, in strictly military terms, the two-month struggle known as the Tet Offensive was a disaster for the attackers. It ended with the expulsion of the North Vietnamese Army and the southern-based insurgent troops, known in the West as Vietcong, from each place they invaded."
http://www.smithsonianmagazine.com/issues/2004/november/presence.php
We Won but the Liberals Manipulated the US Public and let South Vietnam twist in the win and now they want to do it to Iraqis! Sharia Law will be berry berry bad for Liberals too.
|
|
couldn't follow Hugh's statement about only two senators facing defeat in the general election...
because a lot of RINOs are going to be out of work about a year and a half from now. McCain, Lott, Graham, Warner, and any of the other white-flag, open-borders guys are all finished. as a VA resident, I know I won't be voting for Warner. we are looking at an unmitigated disaster, the inauguration of the USSA under Comrade Hillary, and the Second Civil War (if we have the nerve) |
|
It is so obvious the Democrats and the Cronkite Clones of the Media want a Vietnam type Failure as this will effectively Neuter the US Military for no future American President will ever fight an offensive War again. They want to Kill the the Morale of the US Military and that of Americans who will fight if pushed into it. They want leaders like Neville Chamberlin!
The Democrats and Liberals believe that we Americans and our Military are the reason the World has this Caliphate Jihadistic Problem.
They are misguided, clueless and naive but the GOP Senators jumping ship are even worse because all they do is care about their Easy Jobs as Barons and Baronesses of America. Like cows they follow the Bells rung by the Cronkites in the Media.
We could win this War just like we could have won in Vietnam if the Democratic Congress had not bailed out on South Vietnam and withheld the econmoic and military support we promised. Look at the News Releases from CentCom that the Cronkite Media will not talk about!
From http://www.CentCom.mil
Release DateTitle
7/10/2007
TIPSTERS LEAD TO CAPTURE SOUTH BAGHDAD'S MOST WANTED TERRORIST, CACHENew
7/10/2007
AIRPOWER SUMMARY FOR JULY 9New
7/10/2007
SIX IRAQIS WOUNDED IN SEPERATE ATTACKSNew
7/10/2007
INSURGENT TARGETS POLICE CHECKPOINTNew
7/10/2007
OPERATION FOUR BROTHERS NETS DETAINEES, WEAPONSNew
7/10/2007
DETAINEE DIES AT CAMP CROPPERNew
7/10/2007
17 SUSPECTED TERRORIST OPERATIVES, BOMBERS DETAINED I COALITION RAIDSNew
7/10/2007
IRAQI SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES CAPTURE TWELVE SUSPECTED INSURGENTSNew
7/8/2007
13TH MEU FINDS MORE THAN 17 METRIC TONS OF EXPLOSIVESNew
7/7/2007
IRAQI FORCES BREAKUP EXTREMIST CELL IN TIKRITNew
7/7/2007
QARGHULI VILLAGE RESIDENTS LEAD TROOPS TO CACHESNew
7/7/2007
IRAQI ARMY FORCES DETAIN ONE EXTREMIST LEADER, FOUR OTHERS IN OPERATION NEAR KIRKUKNew
7/7/2007
IRAQI FORCES BREAKUP EXTREMIST CELL IN TIKRITNew
7/7/2007
HELICOPTERS DESTROY ANTI-AIRCRAFT WEAPON, MORTAR TUBENew
7/7/2007
SOLDIERS UNCOVER CACHE IN HOR AL BOSH MOSQUE FOLLOWING ATTACKNew
7/6/2007
THE REAL KITE RUNNERS FLYING THE AFGHAN SKIES
7/6/2007
1-30TH INF. BRINGS IN WANTED INSURGENT SUSPECT
7/6/2007
THREE KILLED, EIGHT DETAINED IN MORNING OPERATIONNew
7/6/2007
ANSF, COALITION FORCES ELIMINATE INSURGENTS IN URUZGANNew
7/6/2007
AIRPOWER SUMMARY FOR JULY 5New
|
|
The same invasion that has driven all of Bush's polls into the 20s and made Dubya-inspired humor all but pointless -- do you realize comedians are no longer joking the President? It's no longer daring to mercilessly mock someone so universally disliked and loathed.
The GOP, whom I was once a part of, has no idea how much trouble it's in.
DU |
|
|
While the U.S. government and media keep focusing on defense policies and the war in Iraq, 1.2 billion people in the world continue surviving on less than $1 dollar a day. I would like see congressmen and political leaders support more international dilemmas that affect our place in this world, such as global poverty. We should not forget the commitment made towards the U.N. Millennium Goals (a pact of ending extreme world hunger by the year 2025) in 2000. While the U.S. government and media keep focusing on defense policies and the war in Iraq, 1.2 billion people in the world continue surviving on less than $1 dollar a day. According to The Borgen Project, an annual $19 billion dollars is needed to eliminate half of the extreme poverty affecting the world by the year 2015. To my sense, it is almost unacceptable to have spent so far more than $340 billion in Iraq only, when we have more than war immunities to change the world and eliminate poverty. |
|
The Liberal Invasion at Townhall is in full swing. Just one question for all you liberals: Did you all listen to one word that our military heroes were saying during the show today? It was a couple hours of profound wisdom and insight from folks who have been there, many of them multiple times, working and fighting among the Iraqis and Afghanis themselves, both friends and foes. They made Harry Reid sound like a babbling fool, and history will show that these military men have made a profound contribution for good in the world and have fought and died against an evil enemy.
Why don't you liberals go try living in Cuba and Venezuela with your dictator loving Hollywood friends and get the hell off these blogs with your utter nonsense about everything. |
|
""Why doesn't Hewitt leave his air conditioned office for a few days and go to Baghdad to find out the "real" situation and report back to his listeners/readers instead of piggybacking on the work of real journalists like like John Burns who risk their lives to bring stories that I guess are only to be believed when they support your p.o.v"""
So when is MoFoJoe getting off his bloated fanny and enlisting? He is an EXPERT at counterinsurgency! Knows every little thing about it and is not afraid to say so. But, because he is an effete, yellow backed coward he couldn't survive a single day in country.
Don't look for MoFoJoe to even make it through the first week of Boot Camp, let alone deployment. He'd rather sit in his air conditioned salon, pecking away at the keyboard and pretending that his banal, ineffectual life has meaning to someone other than his domestic partner. |
|
Wow, Hugh's really drunk the kool-aid.
The war is a failure and a tragedy, the commander in chief is revealed to be a buffoon... yet any suggestion to change course is 'defeatist'. This true-true believerism will serve him well when he becomes director of the Bush Library where he can shoo away honest scholars like he did when heading the Nixon library. |
|
I should have chimed in faster!
Saying that you're "pro-victory" means nothing if we lack the manpower and the materials necessary to win. George W. Bush has failed the military in this regard, leaving them with a too-little-too-late plan that only a dead-ender can believe in.
It's over, Hugh. Your Victory Caucus is for naught. Blame the Democrats all you want -- this baby belongs squarely on the neo-conservatives who continue to cheer this colossal waste of a war on.
Own up to it.
DU |
|
In this country we had a group of people who tried to get their way through murder, arson and intimidation. They controlled whole counties and states at one time. They were called the Ku Klux Klan. Now we are faced with the Ku Klux Klan of Iraq. All that changed is the style of sheet. We whipped the Klan through Federal intervention, exposure of their dastardly deeds and and erosion of their poplular support.
We only need to use the same tactics aganst the
criminal Ku Klux Klan of Iraq to be successful.
Are we going to let a few criminals run us out
of a country we start out ot help? And, if we do,
are we to hear in a coffee house in Cairo. " Bah
the Americans: you can't count on them. All you
have to do to get them to run home is kill a few of them." |
|
According to respected Historian Victor Davis Hason nearly 40,000 Vietcong and NVA regular troops(the Enemy) had been killed in a few weeks of 1968 and during the single year 1968 than all the Americans lost during the entire decade of U.S. involvement.
"The communist strategy of bringing local cadres into the streets proved an unmitigated disaster for that side. Far from igniting a general insurrection, it only ended in a bloodbath, destroying the Vietcong infrastructure in the South. After Tet, there was no effective military arm of the National Liberation Front left. It had to be rebuilt from scratch. Such were the costs of the North Vietnamese's misunderstanding of the lethality of American airpower, the discipline of its troops, and the overwhelming superiority of its supply train, factors that on a battlefield could trump for a while longer the disadvantages of surprise, poor generalship, and social unrest back home. But if the North Vietnamese knew they had lost the Tet Offensive, why did most Western observers believe that the enemy had in fact triumphed?
Much of the perception grew out of raised expectations prior to the offensive. The U.S. military, stung by the antiwar movement, had recently assured the public that the war was winding down in an American victory, while at the same time acknowledging that it was no longer enough to defeat the enemy outright on the battlefield. By 1968 pressure at home had made it crucial for the military to achieve at least three other objectives: prove that after four years of intense ground fighting the North Vietnamese were close to capitulation; present hard evidence that the South Vietnamese were at last ready to shoulder the majority of their defense obligations; and give persuasive assurance that America could achieve rapid withdrawal with a minimum of casualties.
Tet, a clear American victory, paradoxically dashed those pretensions. As long as the North Vietnamese were willing to suffer thousands of dead for a chance to kill Americans, time was on the communists' side.......
The American political establishment may have believed that Vietnam was a proxy war in an ongoing global struggle already 25 years old against communist tyranny, but the American people grew to doubt the need to give up their treasure and their sons so far away when Chinese and Russian troops were unlikely to reach U.S. shores through Vietnam.
Despite the sensational media coverage of the offensive, public opinion polls continued to suggest that a majority of U.S. citizens--perhaps 70 percent--supported involvement throughout Tet. Walter Cronkite may have returned from Vietnam to announce to an audience of millions that our military was mired in stalemate and that "the only rational way out ... will be to negotiate, not as victors, but as honorable people," but most Americans in 1968 were willing to support a war they thought could be won. The military's problem in Vietnam, at least in the short term, was not an absence of an approving majority back home but the growth of a vocal, influential, and highly sophisticated minority of critics, activists who cared much more deeply about abruptly ending American involvement than did the majority of supporters about maintaining it."
It is the Vietnam Democrate and MSM Playbook!
Get Your Facts Straight PeaceNiks...
see victor Davis Hanson
http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson050001.html
|
|
Truman's quagmire was Korea. You know, the conflict in the 1950s that produced no victory, and drove Truman's approval rating even lower than Bush 41 levels? The conflict that caused Congress to threaten impeachment? (If only Congress today had the political courage for that.)
I think I can see why you're a Bush fan. Truman had one of the more remarkably corrupt administrations in history (166 appointees resigned or were fired after IRS shenanigans), unscrupulously commenced an elective war at incredible cost, and had a 23% approval rating toward the end of his time in office. Sounds like a "near great" president to me, just like Bush. |
|
The party elite has become poster boys for term limits. I have been a Republican since Nixon. I've never missed an election, yet I will not give a dime to the RNC anymore and if I have to vote for a Democrat instead of Specter I will.
here is a nice post on Byrd and Hillary
http://thecitytroll.blogspot.com/2007/07/two-traitors.html |
|
Thanks. Don't think I mentioned 'Greatness',al.
Though President Truman is widely considered a Near Great. And his 'quagmire' was...? Germany,where we held the line at West Berlin?
All of Western Europe which the Progressive Father of the Peoples,Comrade Stalin,would have made a vast buriel ground--like the 30-40 million of his own countrymen. Or South Korea,where Kim & Mao(with Stalin's direction & encouragement)wished to bring their PRO-gressive message...and were stopped by Truman's very large cajones & American arms. JFK,which the nutters I mentioned previously claim still today,
died before greatness(or,if)...But,I'd suggested a read of his address. Use your finger to guide your reading,Boy-yo.It'll hep ya. |
|
Thank you for making it so easy with the links straight to the email contact pages.
We need an all out, no holds barred, no BS response to the House and Senate that we do not want a victory handed to al Qaeda in Iraq.
If, in the worse case, Congress forces a pullout from Iraq, it must be clear that it was the Democrats that are responsible and accountable for that action.
Consider that Neville Chamberlain was once a hero, and Winston Churchill a goat. Shortly thereafter, their positions were reversed by the reality on the ground. What will ultimately defeat the defeatists in Iraq is that same reality. Let us hope and pray that we do not have to learn the same lesson yet again. But if such is to be, then let's make damn sure we are on the right side of the issue and not wobbling around in the center trying to please all the people all the time. |
|
These were great foreign policy presidents? The ones who got us involved in the 2 biggest quagmires we've ever experienced and were responsible for wars costing 100k+ American lives with no victory?
Looks like the Repubs are trying to emulate this sort of "success." W has a long way to go to match them. Maybe he can get there by reinstituting conscription and invading Iran and Syria. That would be brilliant.
I think the Dems are better off with the current crop of weasels than the chicken hawks they had in the 50s-60s. Interesting that the country elected Republicans to get us *out* of the Democrats' elective foreign wars back then.
|
|
re: VOR's comments ...
So, VOR … you find comfort in the quote of U.S. intelligence analysts have concluded … al Qaida is as big as ever? That US intel have got it right this time? Shameless.
I pose an analogy of our predicament. …
You have a fellow who you’ve seen in the community. You have a brief encounter where he says: “I’m going to kill you.” He says this to you out of the blue for absolutely no comprehensible reason. How might you behave from now on concerning this person? Your primordial thought is to ‘make him go away’ in any sense possible. In a national sense it is kind of like OBL, Hamas, or al-Qaida and others of that ilk.
Brings to mind the chilling words from the protector of John Connor sent back in time to save his mother from the Terminator. … ‘They are programmed to kill. They cannot be negotiated with they cannot be bargained with or bought off. … Come with me if you want to stay alive.’
Now do you get it?
|
|
Years ago I surrendered my "if the airhead Left just took time to examine the facts,the realities,use critical thought--Then,JEEPERS, they'd change their lithium deprived Feely-Thinking and be adult--rather than high chair pounding infants" innocence. Nope.Very few of you are redeemable.Sad,really.Us cranky old neoconservatives(None of y'all who use the term as a spit throwing pajorative have a glimmer as to what one really is.)Read JFK's innaugural of Jan.20,1961.Then read HST's outlining of the American response to Stalin,Mao & Kim Il Sung.THAT was our party...Then read any missive of Harry Reid,Babs Boxer,Pat Leahy,Carl Levin,Hillary,Bazama,Slow Joe B,Teddy. Kerry, Feingold,ad nauseam...That's YOUR party. The one that long ago LEFT us.
Morality? That you have to ask, says IT ALL.
Yes,leaving Iraq to the tender mercies of Dark Age Butchers/Child Cookers is IMMORAL. Duhhh!
Ask the victorious Senator Lieberman. |
|
|
gentlemen. It will take decades to get Iraq to turn to Turkey. Americans sure are impatient these days. |
|
|
Ever since your Dem/lib sens demanded to go on record by having a second round of voting for the war to do the right thing, you know before they came to their true selves, you've been trying to lose as fast as possible while still seeming like you have a pair. This is why I call you guys Losers with a capital L. It is out of respect for your team. |
|
When Bush requested that Congress authorize him to use force against Iraq, his justification was that Saddam had WMDs, violated UN resolutions, and posed a grave threat to America. He couldn't say "Please vote to authorize use of force to depose Saddam Hussein. He's simply unpalatable, and we need a foundation for broader change in the Middle East." That would run contrary to Candidate Bush's assertions that we needed to get back to non-inventionist foreign policy.
Of course, when no WMDs were found, the justification for the invasion morphed into "Saddam's a bad bad dictator. He gassed Kurds." Now, we "need to stay the course to achieve victory against al-Qaeda."
Two questions:
1) what constitutes "victory" in Iraq?
2) how will we be better off by staying the course to achieve this "victory"?
Al-Qaeda couldn't be happier that we're in Iraq. We brew more and more hatred the longer we stay, driving more and more people to support the murderous terror network.
|
|
VoiceOfReason,
Iraq was about removing Saddam and by necessity replacing his dictatorship with something more palatable, thereby establishing a stronger foundation for broader change in the Middle East.
Or so went the theory.
Iraq was never about about 'eliminating' al Qaeda completely because al Qaeda is a many-headed hydra. That al Qaeda has made Iraq the centerpiece of its offensive operations tells us that al Qaeda understands how dangerous the precedent of a representative democracy in the heart of the Middle East to their dreams of a glorious, infidel-beheading caliphate. That, and they just simply like murdering people. These arguments were made over four years ago. Why do people like you continually need to be reminded of them?
The article you posted, citing unnamed sources, as usual, basically says al Qaeda is regrouping mainly in Pakistan. This isn't news. And the article itself says that there are "significant gaps in intelligence". I wonder, then, how we can be so certain of al Qaeda's relative strength given these signifcant gaps. No matter to slogannering anti-war types, I suppose.
One man's significant gaps are another man's unassailable facts. At least to various and sundry sloganeers. |
|
My question is which Generals?
President Bush did not listen to the military and CIA when they warned him that invading Iraq would lead to out of control sectarian violence. Also if Sedum had WMD they did not think he would use them or sell them to terrorist.
Then President Bush wanted to invade anyways. General Zinni, military experts and the CIA warned Bush that we needed 300,000 to 500,000 troops to have any chance. Also we must separate the Country and give local control. So what did Bush do? Bush gets rid of General Zinni and did the complete opposite.
Next after Rumsfeld failed plan of doing Iraq on the cheap and blowing off military and CIA advice. Bush than waits to fire Rumsfeld to after the mid term election for what Bush admitted was for political purposes.
Putting aside we have not met one time line for anything in Iraq the leaders of the Country plan on going on vacation for August rather than deal with the sectarian violence in their Country.
And now President wants us to believe he will listen to the military. Does that mean Bush will listen until they do not do what he says?
Read More
http://www.controlcongress.com
|
|
How moral was it to invade a country that posed no threat to us and had no WMDs? How moral was it to allow PNAC neocon thinktank liars hijack our foreign policy? How moral is it that we've killed tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians? Al-Qaeda's support is growing, and will continue to grow the longer we stay over there.
Would we be better served had we remained in Vietnam longer than we did? Would we be better off had we recognized what a disaster that war was and pulled out earlier?
About how Colonists felt during the Revolution: yes, revolt was unpopular in 1776, and it took a courageous, resilient minority to win. Keep in mind, however, that the leaders of that courageous, resilient minority unequivocally preached non-interventionist foreign policy. Our earliest presidents would condemn this war worse than anyone.
|
|
|
Al Qaeda has rebuilt, notwithstanding our presence in Iraq. Our folly in Iraq diverted our attention from the real enemy. Worse yet, it spawned an entire generation of Muslims who will join the ever-increasing ranks of Al Qaeda because of our continued meddling in the Middle East. But hey, why bother with facts when we have loyalty to party first. Right? |
|
I assure you - that is why you haven't seen OBL in a long time.
They will be comfortable if we leave Iraq.
We still have troops in Germany, we still have troops in Kosovo, why would we think it would take less time in Iraq? It will take at least a generation to turn the tide - do we do it our way or let Al Qaeda keep serving baked children to turn things their way? |
|
News story off the AP:
"WASHINGTON - U.S. intelligence analysts have concluded al-Qaida has rebuilt its operating capability to a level not seen since just before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, The Associated Press has learned. The conclusion suggests that the group that launched the most devastating terror attack on the United States has been able to rebuild despite nearly six years of bombings, war and other tactics aimed at crippling it."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070711/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_terror_threat_8
So why exactly are we in Iraq? |
|
...in force today!
Let them spew. We're staying, and they know we're staying so they can cry all they want.
It's so amusing to hear them regurgitate everything they learned in college.....! |
|
Retired U.S. army general Jack Keane said the following yesterday:
"We have obligations to the Iraqi people to not let the thugs and the killers have their way with them," Keane said in an interview Tuesday
"We changed the Iraqi regime and we bear responsibility. It seems to me if we let our adversaries push these people off the cliff -- and tens of thousands would be killed -- it would show a lack of character.
Keane, who retired in 2003 as the army's vice-chief of staff, believes the Iraq war is no longer just about winning or losing. What Iraq has now become, he says, is a gauge of America's moral fortitude.
What kind of country, Keane asks, invades a sovereign nation, topples its dictator, helps install a weak new government, and then walks away leaving chaos in its wake?
"If we are going to let suicide bombers drive us out of Iraq, we have got real problems as a country in this world," Keane said at a separate public forum on Iraq this week.
"The fear in Washington, D.C., is palpable in terms of what this (war) means to specific political careers," says Keane.
see the entire article here
http://tinyurl.com/2nu5xu |
|
The conservative base is not shrinking - it just doesn't get energized unless it is really important - Immigration is important - the Senate found that out.
Victory in Iraq is important - that is why Joe Lieberman won in a blue state.
You can cite all the polls you want but they are often tainted by the way the question is asked:
"would you like to see US troops out of Iraq by next year?" When simply put, we would all like that - I would too. But if you ask " Would you be willing to concede defeat to Al Qaeda and allow terrorists to be free to roam and train in a country the size of California with access to oil revenues?" only the code pink crowd would say yes |
|
Funny,seeing the Lefties fly outta the woods in chorus above. They musta been at a group-tree-hugging together--WOW!--Ronnie,VOReason, Dread, MoJoe--ALL at Once! I've tried that at the KOSmeister & Arianna & was purged immediately.
But,Hugh,being one of those old school guys,is fond of free exchange & open debate. Imagine. |
|
I like how anyone who could possibly disagree with the idea of staying for decades in Iraq or who opposes the idea of playing World Policeman is automatically dismissed as a liberal Democrat who obviously only feels that way because they hate George Bush.
But whatever, guys. You keep chasing esoteric notions of victory in Iraq while we let OBL and the guys who were actually behind 9/11 sit comfortably and plan for the next attack.
|
|
but not in a short space that is allowed here.
Only 30% of the Colonists favored independence. Good thing our Founding Fathers based their decisions on what is the right thing to do, rather than listing to the 2/3 of the Colonists that did not wish to fight for Independence. 70% of the American people want us out of Iraq - well, so do I, but not before we neutralize Al Qaeda and establish enough security and police forces in Iraq to maintain control of the country. (This is one metric for victory Bob)
We cannot walk away without Victory - defeat would be a far greater recruiting tool for Al Qaeda than our invasion of Iraq. It was our running and hiding after a setback in Somalia that convinced Bin Laden that he could attack with impunity - if we leave and allow Iran to develop nukes while terrorists train at will in Iraq, we will be signing a death warrant for hundreds of thousands of Israelis, Europeans and Americans. We turned our back on the killing fields of Cambodia(we seem not to care about Asians and Africans to our shame), we will not be able to turn our backs when a major city in the US suffers a major attack. |
|
1) The overwhelming majority of American voters believe the Iraq War is an unmitigated disaster.
2) Republicans in Congress are jumping off this sinking ship at a rapid pace.
3) Bush partisans continue to beat the war drum with no tangible criteria for success.
No wonder the Republican base is shrinking down to a nub of die-hard neocons. If Republicans continue on their current path, they'll get absolutely trounced by the Dems in 2008 and beyond. Conversely, if they take the sage advice of Presidents Washington, Adams, and Jefferson with respect to foreign affairs, they might be able to muster a comeback.
|
|
|
One other reason: we've been standing for 5 years now. Time for us to take a seat. |
|
Hugh, even though Smith didn't vote against S. 470 surge legislation, he did vote against striking "time table" out of the Iraq rhetoric.
You are more generous than I regarding these senators. IMO, several need to go for their egregious disregard of the will of conservatives & the American people on many issues.
I have detailed this on my blog.
|
|
WhatTheCrap, you appear to take the position (though it's not terribly clear) that the U.S. can leave Iraq once "their [i.e., the Iraqi] forces are ready to take over." If that's your position, and if we assume that the U.S. can leave when it has achieved victory, then it would appear that under your analysis the criterion for victory is the Iraqi security forces' readiness to take over the fight and -- in your words -- "win their own peace." Do I understand you correctly? Is that your position? And if it is, shouldn't the U.S. be bending its entire effort in that direction, i.e., toward recruiting and training Iraqis? Or, since "We must win this conflict - whatever the cost," is there some other cost I'm not understanding?
Thanks.
|
|
Lib spammers. What a lineup! Almost all the usual suspects. hahahahahaha!
Here's a question I'll bet you Losers won't answer. Why should the Iraqui government stand up when the Dems won't? |
|
|
Wow. Those are some real brilliant insights from the Dims who chimed in above. John Burns is one of the few NYT reporters I respect. At least he's honest. I wrote everybody listed today and demanded they grow a spine. We are winning in Iraq and the Dims are scared to death it will happen too fast now! lmao at thes spineless tools. |
|
Hugh says, "I can't support someone who doesn't support victory," "[t]he vast majority of Republicans ... believe very much that there is no alternative to winning in Iraq," and "General Petraeus and the troops deserve the opportunity to not only succeed, but for the American public to understand they have succeeded."
I have to ask again, as I have before -- without, I should add, ever getting a cogent answer -- how will we know when we have achieved "victory"? How will we know when we have won in Iraq? How will Gen. Petraeus and the troops know that they have succeeded? What are the criteria whose achievement will let the American public understand that the troops have succeeded? Can someone who stands behinds Hugh's position answer any of those questions objectively, without reliance on generalizations or platitudes? Hugh, can you?
As before, this is not meant in a snarky way. I am genuinely interested in knowing the answers to these questions -- assuming any answers exist.
Thank you. |
|
I'm sorry Mr. Smith, but I simply cannot support someone who refuses to listen to the advice of our military generals. Your opinion of the state of the affairs in Iraq should be derived from the information that you gather from their perspectives.
You state, “Iraq’s peace is one they must win on their own; we cannot win it for them. Our might should be focused on stopping terrorists who are plotting to bring harm to the United States.”
In part, I agree with you. Iraq must win their own peace. However, it would be foolish of us to abandon them when they have requested our aid. Furthermore - Iraq is central in a region of nations hostile towards its success. Do you think that if America withdraws its support, Iran and Syria will just abandon their meddling in Iraq? Do you not realize that this whole struggle is a regional conflict?
(Perhaps you have not had a chance to read The Looming Tower. If so, please read this book.)
What do you think prematurely leaving Iraq will accomplish? I can tell you for certain that any shred of America credibility will go straight into the trash. If the fledgling Iraqi government requires our help to promote the cause of liberty, then it is our duty, as the true bastion of freedom and strength in this world to provide that aid. Or do you think this a sacrifice too great? Or perhaps, simply unworthy of America? Have you really become that callous towards the Iraqi's plight?
Consider this quote from Abu Ali, a resistance movement leader, fighting against al-Qaida in Iraq:
“I ask one thing, AFTER the Iraqi Army and Police take hold and the security forces ARE READY, we want a schedule for the leaving of the American forces.”
-Quote courtesy of Michael Yon (http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/al-qaeda-on-the-run-feasting-on-the-moveable-beast.htm)
Clearly, Ali understands the situation as he has to battle al-Qaida daily from his homeland. People who are serious about this war, talk about exiting AFTER the Iraqi's are ready.
If you support the situation in Darfur - then go ahead and support the premature withdrawal of our forces in Iraq--because that is exactly what you are going to get in Iraq if we leave before their forces are ready to take over.
I know this war is unpopular, and some days the results are disheartening. This does not mean that we are loosing. In fact - it seems clear to me that the only way for us to loose this conflict, is to choose to - as you have suggested. This is not acceptable. We must win this conflict - whatever the cost. Giving up will most certainly be counted as a victory by al-Qaida, and the governments of Iran and Syria. America will be seen by the world to be a Paper Tiger as Bin Laden suggested. Do you think Iran will take us seriously after that? It is obvious that Iran already believes this as they continue to pursue nuclear weapons despite our threats. Again, If we bail in Iraq, Why would Iran take our threats seriously?
As the saying goes, "When the going gets tough, the tough get going". The tough don't start spouting platitudes about "exit strategies," and "Hail Mary passes." Mr. Smith, It's time to "put on the pants" on this issue. Yes, it may hurt your poll numbers - but the cause of freedom in the world, especially for the war ravaged middle east, is so much bigger than some silly election in Oregon. History will revere those who sacrificed the most for the sake of liberty (think WWII)- and it will despise those who were more concerned with self interest.
Unfortunately, I simply cannot support you until you show evidence of real serious thinking on this matter.
|
|
Several weeks ago, a surge was approved. The reason why a surge was approved is because congress was too gutless to vote for a full scale escalation. Some people have said either go balls out or go home. Going home is not an option. We did not go balls out. Yet what we did, was hire the very best and brightest, to lead our troops.
Given that all we are dealing with is the fate of the free world and civilization versus death, destruction and barbarism, I think I will trust General Petraeus and the soldiers with boots on the ground to handle this matter.
We can either support General Petraeus, and contribute to saving the world, or we can undermine him. When the history books are written, those who chose to undermine him will be seen as uglier than the souls of those currently at antiwar rallies.
eric
http://blacktygrrrr.wordpress.com/2007/07/10/unless-your-name-is-general-david-petraeus-your-opinion-on-the-war-is-irrelevant/ |
|
"Even if a GOP senator gets everything else correct, if their vote allows the war to be lost, I don't know how a Republican activist can contribute to or work for their re-election."
Possibly because:
a.) The war was lost before the Congress ever came around to the idea of withdrawl or redeployment. Blame Rumsfeld if you like for not using enough troops, or Bush/Cheney for taking the focus off of OBL and Al Qaeda to institute Wilsonian democracy building in Iraq.
b.) War is the health of the state, and some conservatives who view the state with mistrust have rightly been concerned about the climate of blind acceptance of everything this administration says or does as long as they attach the "war on terror" brand to it.
c.) We have soldiers and citizen soldiers who are facing their fifth (or more) war zone deployment and we are concerned about their well being and what these extended deployments are doing to them and their families.
d.) We are daily getting deeper into debt due to runaway spending both domestic and military, and the longer we stay, the more obligations we add to future budgets in the form of medical care for troops and replacing of equipment. The longer we stay without making budget cuts somewhere, the greater the chances are that we will be facing inflation or bankruptcy later.
e.) Some of us folks would like to free up some troops and resources to get OBL and the original Al Qaeda crew.
f.) Re-assessing your current strategy in a war and considering alternatives to throwing more money, man-power, and time at the problem does not equal defeatism.
|
|
You have been consistently wrong about this war for 5 years now. Almost 3/4 of the country now favors withdrawing our troops by next year. For the sake of our country, I hope and pray that Republicans and Democrats realize that the Bush vision for Iraq is unattainable and we put an end to the worst foreign policy decision in our nation's history. However, if Hugh and his neocon friends can forestall our withdrawal, then the only good to come out of it will be the end of the Republican party as we know it for a generation. As for Iraq, what is inevitable will remain inevitable whether our troops are there or not. At the end of the day, whatever bloodshed follows the departure of our troops will be on the hands of Bush, Cheney, Hugh and the other neocons that ignored reality, silenced dissent and through fear and demonization, managed to convince a country for 5 years, that a democratic Iraq was doable.
History will not be kind to Bush and those that put partisanship ahead of principle. |
|
|
Hugh, like all wingnuts, continues to focus on Al Qaeda as the main threat to stability in Iraq. What does it take for people like him to wake up and realize that they comprise a small minority of the insurgency? What do you think the Sunni insurgents will do once they are finished with Al Qaeda? Oh, yeah, continue to kill more Americans. And what about the Sadrists and the Shia majority? Think they're just going to make political settlements with the Sunnis without a fight? Give me a break. This obsession with AQI is simply a way to get Americans to conflate the conflict in Iraq with 9/11. It's all smoke and mirrors while we do the Shias dirty work for them. By all means, let the Sunnis wipe out AQI, and we should help them. But that is all we should be doing. Doing combat patrols in Baghdad and getting blown up for no reason doesn't make sense anymore. |
|
|
|