Wednesday, January 24, 2007
|
|
"So Let Us Find Our Resolve, And Turn Events Toward Victory"
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
10:22 AM
|
|
My Townhall.com column on the president's speech is here.
Do your part to encourage a GOP filibuster of the no-confidence resolutions circulating in the Senate. A suggested "pledge" of non-support for senators supporting such a resolution as well as the NRSC if it supports them in their re-election bids is here. Along with votes on Supreme Court nominees, support of the war seems to me to be a "party" vote, and despite high regard for and friendship with some of the senators in question, if they don't get the war right, they won't get my money or my time.
Senator McConnell, Lott and Kyl are the three senior GOP senators. Try each of their offices at 202-225-3121.
Senator Ensign is chair of the National Republican senatorial Committee. His number is 202-675-6000.
The senators most likely to rethink their support for such a resolution after the testimony by General Petraeus that such a resolution would be an encouragement to our enemy are Minnesota's Norm Coleman, Maine's Susan Collins and Oregon's Gordon Smith. All three are serious senators and good people, but they need to rethink possible support for the resolution in light of the Petraeus testimony and the president's speech last night (and the reaction among Democrats --there is no middle ground between retreat and victory.) Senator Coleman's office number is (202) 224-5641. Senator Smith's office number is (202) 224-3753. Senator Collins' office number is (202) 224-2523.
And thank Senator Lieberman for trying to restore the bipartisan tradition on foreign policy, especially in times of war. His number is (202) 224-404. Some are hoping that the issue matters so much that, like Churchill, Senator Lieberman will cross the aisle. Though a "non-binding" resolution is not the occasion for such drama, who knows what the senator is thinking as his party slips further and further into the grasp of defeatism. (Senator Rockefeller's evident intent to damage the intelligence collection capabilities of the country might, however, be one such occasion.)
As I watched the Democrats last night I knew --again-- that the country will not "come together" over the necessity of victory. My friend the officer wrote below of the enormous tragedies and dislocations that would follow in the wake of our withdrawal from the region (including a Turkey-Kurdistan war that destabilizes NATO) but the ears of the Democrats are closed. All they can think of is wounding Bush, and attempting to discredit his legacy that they must realize is secure far beyond their maneuvers, which seems only to madden them more.
This deep derangement of a major political party is unique in American history --not even the southern Democrats of 1860 acted out of Lincoln-hatred when they split the Union, but out of a deeply misguided political theory and the desperation that economic and cultural attachment to slavery had bred.
This modern Democratic Party is almost all fury, a fury fueled by a collective though suppressed understanding that the holocaust of southeast Asia in the late '70s and the vulnerability of America on 9/11 are both burdens at their party's door. Watching their replay of the Vietnam-era tape means that there will be no "debate" on the war, simply the choosing of sides. Republicans who side with the Democrats on this the most important issue of the day should lose the support of their party.
For an extended discussion of the strategic situation the world finds itself in --delivered by Dr. Thomas P.M. Barnett, no fan of President Bush but also a realist on the state of the world and of the crucial nature of our efforts in Iraq-- read the transcript of the third of my series of interviews with Dr. Barnett on his book, The Pentagon's New Map.
|
|
"My point: let's be aware that Bush has presided over a lot of success in addition to substantial failure. My second point: no one elected the media to anything. If we let them lynch the man we elected as President we are throwing out the Constitution with the war in Iraq. In the studios and newsrooms, there is a lynch mob at work. Let's see it for what it is. We have a good man who has made mistakes in the Oval Office. He's the only President we have, and I trust him a lot more than I trust unelected princes of the newsroom."
And written by a man who disagrees with the war.
|
|
|
The primary responsibility of the U.S. government is to protect the territorial integrity and people of this country. They have completely abdicated this responsibility. Both parties have been complicit in this. We are being told it is not possible to control our borders, enforce our laws, and thereby control our destiny as a nation. Hogwash. We are being sold out by corporations intent on importing workers for jobs that can't be exported with the taxpayers paying the true costs, financial and human. If we act like sheep and don't stop the inundation across our borders, we will lose our country without a bleat. |
|
|
We will not win! We can't win. You cannot ride humvees through Bagdad until you secure the area...duh. In order to win you must fight and kill the enemy mercilessly. Bush will not do this, and our weak country has no stomach for real war. Thus, we will lose. All the troops should be pulled out now and let the Iraqis kill one another. Who cares about the Iraqis anyway. If we pull out more Islamics will die.....this is what we want. You can't win a war until you define the enemy and the enemy is not 'a war on terror'.....it is Islam. So, we can't win! The 'horror' of war is too much for the squemish Bush so we will lose. |
|
Is it reasonable to expect Sunni's and Shiite's to reconcile when it is so difficult for Americans to unite behind a strategy?
Given Mid Term election's results, was this difference of opinion unforseeable (Answer: Not at all.) Wouldn't it have made more sense for Bush to have asked the Dem's to appoint a few representatives from the House and Senate to go behind the closed doors with him and his team so there would be some discussion and degree of agreement before he committed to the surge plan?
Once again, it didn't have to be this way, but the President's arrogance and disrespect for alternative opinions have made a bad situation worse - especially his disregard for the fact control of Congress has shifted, why it shifted, and the consequences of the shift.
ET |
|
|
I did 72 hour outreach phone calls this past November for the RNC and they had me make calls into MD on behalf of US Senate candidate Michael Steele, who though he lost, certainly did much better in MD than Rick Santorum (whom I was a volunteer for) here in PA. It just does not seem to me that many Republicans and/or conservatives have woken yet from prior to the last election! I think that it is high time that we start to change our thinking from wanting to save Iraq to concentrating on saving this country from the Democratic Left!! Iraq will be gone in any case, if more Democrats come to power in 08-needless to say, especially the White House. Let us unite, start to work together on the other issues of Conservative interest, and save this country from Bill, Hillary, and their ilk while we still have time! |
|
|
Any suggestion that we should call any Repub about his or her negative vote on the Presidents action is in my mind a waste of time. If they are that stupid just cut off all money from the party and go after them in the Republican primaries. I will treat them as libs and be done with it. As you may note I currently live in Md the number one Marxist state in the union. |
|
|
did ya see where the Senate armed Services committe voted on the NON-Binding resolution to declare the surge not in the national interest.It passed 12-9 down party lines. Did you also see where Sen. Dodd tried to introduce the term that troop levels would hold to pre surge levels. It failed 15-6. At the present time it seems for all the bluster from Sen. Webb the Democrats only have the courage to tawnt the President. Oh I know give em a while and eventually they'll cut funding and then you'll see U.S. forces pulled out of Iraq. But here's the catch, no matter what anyone thinks the world not just the U.S. turns on oil not only for energy but also for multiply modern products.So lets say we leave Iraq without a stable pro U.S. gov my prediction to you is that within 10 years max well be back. And by that time it wont be with a force of less then 400,000 and conventional weapons. I tell you that will be the time when we'll be dreaming of only 3100 causualties in 4 years time. |
|
"He wants this, the President is granting his request -----> ...so let the man do his job and stop being a peanut."
You've got it backwards. The President sets policies and the generals carry out the President's requests. That D.P. is a good general is true but irrelevant: it's our elected President who makes the policy, and this is an awful policy. |
|
|
I think General Petraeus is a lot more qualified than you are to opine about military strategy. He wants this, the President is granting his request -----> ...so let the man do his job and stop being a peanut. |
|
It's not "only a few Dems" who are arguing that. Most Democrats are arguing for something similar to Murtha's plan. At least most of our representatives and nearly all rank-and-file Democrats agree that we need to implement a gradual withdrawal but keep a force on the outskirts.
And yes, that means our soldiers will stand by while the Iraqis kill each other, but that's what's happening now, and that's what will continue to happen after the Glorious Surge. It's a civil war we unleashed by the stupid decision to invade, but it's not within our power to stop it -- we have, at most, the power to make it worse, which is what Bush is doing. |
|
I was not only happy to, but actually HONORED to give Senator Lieberman my warmest and deepest thanks for the dignified, responsible, and principled leadership he provides...not just last night, but on a daily basis.
I live in the most south western city in the country, but hopefully he won't be surprised to learn that he is still appreciated from that far away.
My neighbors are 2 Navy Seals and a Master Chief, and I know they appreciated him last night. |
|
There is no way to win? Come on now. Winning may be hard but there are ways to win.
If Dems say that there is no winning, that we have to treat this like the seige of Dunkirk, Singapore, or Corrigador. We have to either leave in retreat (or surrender). It would be completely wrong, but it is a plan. If you think the Iraqi civil war cannot be resolved or pacified militarily, then we should immediately leave (unless of course you think we should surrender). Pelosi and Reid need to make a joint House and Senate statement on that ASAP!
Only a few Dems are arguing that--John Murtha who wants a force "over the horizon" in Okinawa (which is quite a way over the horizon). I suppose we could pull back to Kurdistan and let the Shias slaughter the Iraqi Arab Sunnis. Is that your plan? |
|
"You mean to tell me -- tell us -- that he said he is pretending we can win??? I thought he said we must win. I get no "pretending" anywhere."
Since we cannot "win" another country's civil war, when Bush says "we must win," he is basing it on a false premise. We cannot win, therefore "we must win" means as much as "we must find magic ponies."
"So, do you want us to lose, or do you want us to win?"
We have already lost. Too bad, but every country has lost a war sometimes and only wussy crybabies let themselves get their panties in a knot because of such a thing. Bush is a wuss, which is why he can't admit he lost the war; a real man would take responsibility for his failure. |
|
Snappy says: (Actually, the Vietnam debacle *was* the Democrats' fault, because the Democrats got America into the stupid war in the first place. But it has nothing to do with the Congressional Democrats of 1975, who simply cut off funding for a war that we had already lost and that only ahistorical psychopaths thought we could "win.")
General Giap of the North Viatnamese Army says that the Tet was a disaster and they were set to negotiate a surrender. Then came the media spin... |
|
»If it makes you sleep better at night to continue to be willfully ignorant and demonize Democrats, by all means, get your sleep.«
You forget who started the modern viciousness: Gephardt, Bonior and Bagala, not to mention Carville.
Every day, in the early nineties, they were on teevee, radio and in the papers trashmouthing and demonizing Republicans. |
|
...Against Libs?
»Bush's preferred solution -- pretending we can "win" -- has no upside to it whatsoever.«
Really?
You mean to tell me -- tell us -- that he said he is pretending we can win??? I thought he said we must win. I get no "pretending" anywhere.
So, do you want us to lose, or do you want us to win?
If you're saying that you think we are too weak and wussy to win, say so. Then that would be your no confidence vote in our troops, and that's what we're talkin' about.
|
|
»we can't just leave«
I like what Dubya said: This is not the war we anticipated; but it's the war we're in [not an exact quote].
In other words, it does no one any good to go back and say that we shouldn't have gone there in the first place. That issue is moot now. |
|
I just got off the phone to Kyl and McCain's office -- my guys -- and, as I told them yesterday also that they must speak even louder in support of the Commander in Chief, they must now support a filibuster of the no-conf resolutions making their way to the floor.
I said that, if for no other reason than simply to show major, major support for this Commander in Chief, this leader, they must filibuster.
The numbers, by the way, that I have seen are that 75% of those who watched the State of the Union agree with the president.
That number reveals something. This needs to be examined. There is something in that that is not in the polls. I believe that that "something" is that the People want to win, and that they are looking for something to hang their hat on. They got it last evening, PRAISE THE LORD! |
|
"We have this situation in front of us, and we must make the best of it."
I agree. Which is why we should convince the Iraqis that we're not going to stay in their country forever. That at least has some positive outcomes, like helping to drive a wedge between the insurgents and the terrorists. Whereas Bush's preferred solution -- pretending we can "win" -- has no upside to it whatsoever.
Or as S.A. puts it at http://tinyurl.com/3akqg5
"Maybe it would be better to take the offer of the guy who fights the U.S. only because the U.S. is in his country and join forces against those who really do want to kill us. A good way of doing that would be to convince Abu Omar we're going to get out of his country, thereby denying al-Qaeda its pretext for being in Iraq. Just a suggestion." |
|
Senator Lieberman's phone number needs a "1" at the end.
Thanks for all this handy information.
jb |
|
Look. Victory or no victory, we can't just leave. It would be immoral, and PLEASE don't give me this "the war was immoral in the first place" junk. We are way past that. We have this situation in front of us, and we must make the best of it. If it requires us to stay for a long time until the Iraqis are safe and can take care of themselves, then we must do so. We started the mess, and we must stay until we clean it up. It would be the right thing to do.
I agree with "The Yell." We need non-partisanship and we need to work for the greater good. To me, these Republican senators just look like they're trying to cover their back-sides. Who knows? Maybe they are trying to force the president to consider another solution. BUT, what they are doing is promoting desertion of the Iraqis and I strongly believe that we cannot do that. |
|
"They repeatedly ran and promoted a lie, that Iraq has nothing to do with the GWOT, even though a vast majority of their Party voted for this mission of liberation."
A small majority of Democratic Senators voted for the Iraq War Resolution. A majority of Democratic Congresspeople, including the current Speaker, had the good sense to vote against the resolution.
How is that "a vast majority," even by GOP math? |
|
Hugh I'd only disagree on waiting for the primaries of 2008 to bounce these bums.
"bipartisanship" is almost always WRONG. It involves a confluence of calculated partisan interest. What the country needs is NONPARTISANSHIP, the ABSENCE of calculated partisan interest.
Sen. Hagel and Sen. Biden wrote a joint op-ed in USAToday this morning. If Hagel is willing to sell out the country in order to have a good working relationship with the Dems, and the other "Republicans" with him, let them go all the way, NOW. "Jeffords. Jeffords. Jeffords."
snappy
FDR, to use a Democrat example, did not expect or demand any Republican do his dirty work for him. He did not wail about the lack of "unity" behind Lend-Lease. He did what the national interest required and (literally) damned the torpedoes, and let follow who would.
Your party's continued demand that Bush convert to the KosKids nutroot agenda is further proof of your immaturity. |
|
|
If it makes you sleep better at night to continue to be willfully ignorant and demonize Democrats, by all means, get your sleep. But approximately 20% (and rising) of all REPUBLICAN Senators oppose this surge. So while your talking points sound good to the Kool-Aid drinking base, you are being intellectually dishonest. But do not let me interrupt your brainwashing. I whole-heartedly support the notion that Republicans ought to withdraw support from any GOP Congressman who opposes the surge as it will ensure that the GOP remain in the minority for decades. |
|
They repeatedly ran and promoted a lie, that Iraq has nothing to do with the GWOT, even though a vast majority of their Party voted for this mission of liberation.
The Democrat Party has taken the use of slander, deceit, to new levels regretfully.
They seem to care little about sound policy for the Future of the Free World.
Even in Economic matters, with endless examples of socialist failure, they are eager to embrace this folly for the American Public.
Very mindless indeed.
It is no wonder, why Terrorists around the World, openly advocate for the election of the Liberal Democrat. |
|
"I would have more respect for Dems ff they presented an alternative plausible plan (other than running away). Why is that so hard for them?"
Because *there is no plausible plan for victory.* We cannot "win" another country's civil war. Bush lost this war and it is not in our power to "win" it.
For heaven's sake, can't you at least get it through your head that many if not most Americans don't think we can "win" and that asking us to come up with a plan for victory is like asking us to come up with a plan to find magic ponies?
Democrats are proposing plenty of plausible plans to save face, minimize the damage, manage the inevitable withdrawal, etc. Where's the Republican plan for that? They don't have one, and that means that they're guaranteeing that when we finally withdraw, it will be in the most precipitous and bloodiest way possible. That's why Democrats are serious about this war and Republicans aren't: if you refuse to consider a plausible withdrawal plan and insist on "victory," you're not serious, just a baby who thinks war is a video game. |
|
"This modern Democratic Party is almost all fury, a fury fueled by a collective though suppressed understanding that the holocaust of southeast Asia in the late '70s and the vulnerability of America on 9/11 are both burdens at their party's door."
Cognitive dissonance alert: accusing the *other* guys of fury and irrational rage while accusing them of being responsible for 9/11 and the Cambodian genocide.
On a similar note, I might say conservative rage and anger comes from their knowledge of how vulnerable they made the country, first by trying to impeach and destroy Clinton (and accusing him of "wagging the dog" when he fought the Islamists) and then by electing Bush, who ignored the issue of Islamism throughout 2001 and concentrated instead on the Islamists' enemy Saddam.
But that would be wrong.
(Actually, the Vietnam debacle *was* the Democrats' fault, because the Democrats got America into the stupid war in the first place. But it has nothing to do with the Congressional Democrats of 1975, who simply cut off funding for a war that we had already lost and that only ahistorical psychopaths thought we could "win.")
"I knew --again-- that the country will not "come together" over the necessity of victory."
Nor will we come together over the necessity of finding the Smurf Village. Amazing that you've declared that something that is not possible (victory in Iraq) is "necessary," but I guess that's part of the incoherent rage-filled movement to which you belong: you are too filled with BDS (deranged worship of Bush) to admit that our defeat is the Commander-in-Chief's fault, so you're looking to blame it on those who pointed out that Bush lost this war -- in other words, shifting the blame to those who were right, just like the hawks did in Vietnam. |
|
If they presented an alternative plausible plan (other than running away). Why is that so hard for them? Because if the President followed it it would make them potentially responsible.
Avoiding responsibility. Just what we need in our leaders. |
|
|
|