Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Thursday, August 02, 2007
Cliff May :: Townhall.com Columnist
The Good News is Bad News
by Cliff May
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


It’s tough being a member of Congress. Even if you’re in the majority, as is Rep. Nancy Boyda of Kansas, you never know when your ears may be assaulted by outrageous and offensive ideas.

Like what? At a recent hearing of the Armed Services Committee, retired Gen. Jack Keane said “progress is being made” by U.S. military forces in Iraq; “We are on the offensive and we have the momentum,” he added. The freshman congresswoman was so distressed by these remarks that she got up and she walked out.

There was “only so much” she could take, she explained, so she “had to leave the room … after so much of the frustration of having to listen to what we listened to.” She said she was worried, too, that General Keane’s remarks “will in fact show up in the media and further divide this country.” Hey, that could happen!

Lucky for Rep. Boyda, Congress in August goes on vacation. One hopes she can rest and recover, while blocking out any unwelcome and divisive news about American military successes in Iraq resulting from the new strategy being pursued by Gen. David Petraeus and his troops.

For example, let’s hope she never hears what General Petraeus’ top deputy, Lieutenant Gen. Ray Odierno, recently reported: A “growing list of cities” that until recently were under al-Qaeda control have now been “liberated.” General Odierno added that “greater than 50 percent of Baghdad is currently in control of coalition or Iraqi security forces. … I can think of no major population center in Iraq that is an al Qaeda safe haven today.”

If Rep. Boyda is careful about which television stations she watches, she need never learn who is primarily responsible for the carnage in Iraq. Fox News’ Chris Wallace recently asked General Petraeus if most of the violence is the result of a Sunni-Shia civil war. The general replied that, in fact, it is al-Qaeda that is “carrying out the bulk of the sensational attacks, the suicide car bomb attacks, suicide vest attacks, and so forth….all of the individuals in the intelligence community, General [Stanley] McChrystal, the head of our Joint Special Operations Command, all of us feel that the central front of al Qaeda's terror war is focused on Iraq.”

Nor does she need to know that, according to Brigadier General Mick Bednarek, in Iraq today “al Qaeda is on the run… We are going into places that the coalition has not had the sufficient troop strength and force size to go before, and we’re going after them, and they will not find safe haven in this country.”

With a little effort, the congresswoman can remain ignorant of the likely consequences should Congress force the administration to withdraw American troops before their mission is completed. Major General Rick Lynch, commander of the 3rd Infantry Division, told CNN’s Jamie McIntyre: “Those surge forces are giving us the capability we have now to take the fight to the enemy, and the enemy only responds to force and we now have that force. ... If those surge forces go away, that capability goes away … if you did that …you'd find the enemy regaining ground, re-establishing a sanctuary … Over time we can turn the area over to Iraqi security forces, and then we'll be ready to do something that looks like a withdrawal. … People keep wanting to put a timeframe on this. It’s just not possible.”

Surely you can see how possession of such information would make it more difficult for Congresswoman Boyda to do her job -- second-guessing military commanders? And she’s right that such information can divide Americans. It might even stimulate serious debate -- a frightening thought.

As House Majority Whip James Clyburn suggested this week, success in Iraq also would be awkward for those who have bet their political chips on American failure.

To be precise, Clyburn said that it would be “a real big problem for us” should General Petraeus return to Washington next month and present a positive report on progress in Iraq. Moderate Democrats might listen and decide that for America to be defeated in Iraq by al-Qaeda and Iranian-backed militias is neither inevitable nor in the national interest. These same moderate Democrats also might decide that, for them, the national interest trumps the partisan interest.

If Congressman Boyda were to hear that, she wouldn’t leave the room – they’d have to carry her out.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Clifford D. May is the President of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.

Be the first to read Cliff May's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

This congresswoman
is just one example of what happened in November 06 when Republicans decided to either stay home or vote for the challenger regardless of qualifications.

Jim Ryun was one of the best representatives the country has been fortunate to have. I hope he succeeds in regaining his seat in 08.


Opa writes:
Thursday, August, 02, 2007 7:25 PM
"WHO admits it can't be won?
Just who admits it can't be won on the battlefield? I'm hearing the same thing now I heard from returning soldiers in the 60s. "We were winning when I got on the plane to come home. When I landed in the states, we'd already lost." Now is the time to tell Congress to shut up, and spend the money to not just continue the surbe but pound Al Qaeda flat, and let Iran and Syria know their survival depends on their cooperation. Ask the guys on the ground, and they believe they are winning. And they're closer to it and know more about it than you do. If you don't support their mission, you don't support them. Opa."
===========
Your post is much more detailed than my last sentence! But the fact remains, war should be run by those trained to do so, not by a bunch of Monday Morning (very unqualified) Quarterbacks!

I was present at
a Memorial Day service where the freshman congresswoman made mention of the service of several of her family members, including her father and uncles, I believe. Wonder how they would like to hear about this inappropriate, very unprofessional behavior.

Somehow I can't see Jim Ryun doing the same thing!

The Democrats had better get well rested this month so that when General Petraeus gives his report in September they won't faint from dismay!

How any representative of our government could possibly live with themselves after uttering the statement attributed to Representative Colburn is beyond my understanding. Are they "for us" or "agin us"????????????????? If they are "agin us" then resign their public office where they are supposed to honor and serve our country, not denigrate it!

Keep politics out of the war and let the military do what has to be done to ensure victory!!!!

Jeffislouie
Trying to talk sense to those who can't understand plain English is, I have discovered after 76 years, impossible. I couldn't help laughing at the twisted logic used by "LIB" even over a very serious matter.
It was refreshing to hear someone else who feels that President Bush is a man of honor working on problems of immense importance. I too am sick of all the bashing; as you probably know, I think it is a case of some people who think they can think!

They would be happier working an a farm in the hot fields where there is no time to "stew and fret and try to destroy that which they do not understand."

You have probably seen LIB posts elsewhere. I have just begun doing this after a rise in my blood pressure based on comments like "LIBS"

Have a great weekend.

religiouslib...
"I never accused bush of anything except refusing to turn over documents related to tillman.

i never hinted at a coverup or claimed bush murdered him."

"can someone explain to me why bush is claiming executive privilege in the tillman death/murder"

"what could the white house possibly have that would stop them from releasing all materials related to tillmans death or murder.

i mean he had 3 bullet holes in his forehead not more than 2 inched in diamenter."

You implied it.
You used the word Murder.
Murder is defined as the unlawful and malicious or premeditated killing of a person. This wasn't murder, lest you think you can prove it.
By repeatedly using this language and inquiring as to what the Bush administration is holding back, you are insinuating that in some way, Bush is guilty of mureder or accomplice to murder. All without a shred of proof.
You imply a coverup. And you imply guilt before due process. Hence, it is offensive.
Tillman wasn't "murdered". His death was a tragic example of a friendly fire death.


religiouslib...
One last thing:
What does this have to do with a story about a congresswoman exposing herself as a fraud by walking out of a hearing where positive news is being delivered by a General?
The point was that the libs just exposed themselves for the idiots they are. They have hinged their politics on the idea of a losing war that is unwinnable and pointless. They repress good news and promote bad news. Now that good news is coming out, they are afraid the good news will divide this nation?
Excuse me, but what do you call telling our country that we are losing and cannot win every day? What do you call making speeches where you imply our troops are stupid murderers who torture and instill fear in innocents?
That's the point. This representative didn't want to hear good news, so she stormed out like a petulant child.
When she returned, all she could say was that she was frustrated by hearing the news.
Guess what, duncecap - it is GOOD news being delivered. Just like the report in the liberal NYT, written by anti-war lefties, is GOOD news coming home. So sorry to ruin the political hackery going on here, but we are starting to really turn things around in Iraq. Pooping on that for political gain is transparantly anti-american. In what other time period did Americans allow their representatives to be so openly and vehemently praying for the defeat of our nation?
Tar and feather the lot of them.

now jeffislouie
i never accused bush of anything except refusing to turn over documents related to tillman.

i never hinted at a coverup or claimed bush murdered him.

that is you hate the liberal bias showing.
show me where i made one charge about bush other than dishonoring him.

i do not believe bush had anything to do with it which is why i can't understand he is refusing to cooperate.

religiouslib...
"executive privilege has to do with politics, how is the death of an american hero politics."

How is documents from the White House part of the death of an 'american hero'.
He was one soldier who happened to have been famous. Had he not been famous, there wouldn't have been any news stories about it and you'd be totally ignorant about the situation.
How many others died from friendly fire in iraq, afghanistan, Vietnam, Germany, Poland, etc?
I guess Tillman was the first.
Executive priveledge has to do with the office of the President. He has rights as well. In this case, he likely doesn't want to expose any national secrets, sensitive information, or classified data out to the public.
"it is dishonoring him not to get to the bottom of it."
They got to the bottom of it. Friendly fire accident. He died. That's the bottom of it.

"i saw bush called traitor, socialist and anti-american on townhall every day of the immigration debate by right wingers."
Are you really so shocked that you saw that when Bush ignored, nay - betrayed, his base? The Amnesty bill's defeat proved that Americans still have a say, no matter what the politicians think or say. The bill was traitorous, socialistic, and anti-american. It was also pro-illegal immigration, pro-criminal, and a slap in the face to ALL americans.
I didn't see anyone call him a traitor to the country, just the party.
It was a mistake. But you'll notice that no conservatives called him Hitler or accused him of anything but was clearly provable.
That bill showed a deficiency in Bush's politics and he was rightfully blasted over it.
Calling him a murderer because of Pat Tillmans friendly fire accidental death is not even in the same ballpark.

religiouslib...
I will say this one more time, using language you should understand.....

This was a friendly fire accident that was, regrattably and shamefully, covered up by commanders in the field and army brass.
The President had nothing - read - NOTHING to do with Pat Tillmans death. Neither did Rumsfeld. Or Cheney.
Yes, he was found with bullet holes in his head. Yes, it was from friendly fire. So tell me, just what do you think the President would or could say that would provide closure?
Seriously, I'm left wondering what it is you think the President has to say - what, that he pulled the trigger? No, wait - it was that he order Tillman murdered for volunteering as a great american to fight in a war he believed in? Perhaps it was that he ordered a hit on Tillman, an amazingly stupid theory?
TELL ME WHAT YOU THINK THE PRESIDENT MIGHT BE HIDING!
You could read this:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,291046,00.html
And just accept the facts. Trying to force the Bush administration to turn over documents that are confidential in nature so they can find out if the President was somehow complicit in the death and coverup is a waste of time - and money.
He died because fresh and green rangers panicked and started shooting at what they thought was the enemy.

jeffislouie
executive privilege has to do with politics, how is the death of an american hero politics.

it is dishonoring him not to get to the bottom of it.


i saw bush called traitor, socialist and anti-american on townhall every day of the immigration debate by right wingers.

jeff islouie
here is the article

AP) SAN FRANCISCO U.S. Army medical examiners were suspicious about the close proximity of the three bullet holes in Pat Tillman's forehead and tried without success to get authorities to investigate whether the former professional football player's death amounted to a crime, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press.

"The medical evidence did not match up with the scenario as described," a doctor who examined Tillman's body after he was killed on the battlefield in Afghanistan in 2004 told investigators.

The doctors — whose names were blacked out — said the bullet holes were so close together that it appeared the Army Ranger was cut down by an M-16 fired from a mere 10 yards or so away.


.

The medical examiners' suspicions were outlined in 2,300 pages of testimony released to the AP this week by the Defense Department in response to a Freedom of Information Act request.

Among other information contained in the documents:

• In his last words moments before he was killed, Tillman snapped at a panicky comrade under fire to shut up and stop "sniveling."

• Army attorneys sent each other congratulatory e-mails for keeping criminal investigators at bay as the Army conducted an internal friendly-fire investigation that resulted in administrative, or non-criminal, punishments.

• The three-star general who kept the truth about Tillman's death from his family and the public told investigators some 70 times that he had a bad memory and could not recall details of his actions.

• No evidence at all of enemy fire was found at the scene — no one was hit by enemy fire, nor was any government equipment struck.


religiouslib pt 3
"if your loved one had been shot wouldn't you want all the information the autho;rities had on the incident.
do you hate the troops so much that you would sacrifice common decency to suppport a president who refuses to provide closure to an american hero's family."

Perhaps, but did you lose a loved one? No. You lost Pat Tillman and he became your latest justification for hating Bush.
I actually did lose a loved one, but not in Iraq. He wasn't an American. He was an Israeli. My cousin Edo was found one morning on his military base after just having reported for duty. He had a bullet hole in his head. The official statement from the government was that they didn't know what happened. They couldn't be sure if someone broke into the facility and shot him, if he committed suicide, if it was a fellow soldier who shot him, or any other detail. There is no closure there, just an open wound our family has had to deal with.
I trust that his death was not part of a grand conspiracy by his government to cover anything up. Perhaps he was killed, perhaps he killed himself.
But I trust he is in heaven and that is all the closure I need.
I LOVE the troops. I support them. I understand that in a time of war, people die from enemy fire AND friendly fire.
But our President is not the person who can provide closure. It is likely that he has very little, if any, information unavailable to the public.
Frankly speaking, Tillmans death is none of your damn business. It is the Tillmans issue and their pain. You are a 'fan' or Tillman. Yet you fail to understand the he never would have wanted his death to serve as anything but a shining example of the greatness of our nation -our willingness to stand up for our country at great personal risk.
You think our President owes you an explanation as to what happened to a soldier who was killed by friendly fire. I think you owe our President an apology for having and showing zero respect for his office.

religiouslib pt 2
"finally, bush works for us. if he had no infromation fine but why on earth would he refuse to give up any information he did have.
if he is claiming executive privilege than he had some information."

There are lots of reasons to claim executive priveledge. And yes, he does work for us. But that doesn't mean that he is required to respond to witch hunts and stupid questions about a soldier who passed away. Yes, Tillman was high profile, but he didn't do what he did so some loon can use his name to attack our President. He signed up because he actually gave a damn about this country - not so you could find another way to attack our administration.
"man you have anger issues."

I do. Here are my anger issues. I am angry that people think it is okay to attack our President's integrity, personality, and ability in a time of war. I am angry that people like you use the death of a soldier as a weapon. I am angry that people like you are so willing to allow the terrorists to win by dividing our country. I am angry that people like you feel that it is okay to use words like 'murder' over the tragic, accidental, friendly fire death of an American hero. His death isn't a tragedy in your eyes as much as it is a way to attack our nation from within. Sadly, you can't understand that.


"is a simple question, can you answer it.
why would bush claim executive privilege?"

Of course I can't. I am neither Bush, nor his advisors. But, unlike you, I trust there is a good reason for it.

religiouslib
:first i have never been to daily kos ever:
That's too bad. You'd likely find it to be chock full of folks who think just like you - without engaging their brains.

"second, bush hating has become the domain of the right wing radicals. it was they who had bush derangement syndrome over the immigration issue so please don't even go there again."

More typically liberal clap-trap nonsense. Bush was going along with a liberal plan that included amnesty. It wasn't 'right wing radicals' that was offended, knucklehead. Less than 20% of the country thought the plan was reasonable. It was AMERICANS who were against the amnesty plan, not right-wing radicals. And 'don't even go there again' - what the heck does that mean? Let me understand your level of intelligence here - because YOU and YOU ONLY perceive the amnesty issue that arose when Americans expressed their opposition to granting millions of criminals amnesty, no one can ever criticize anyone else for being a bush hating liberal, like you? Oh, I'm sorry - I didn't get that memo.
"i don't know what happened but in testimony before congress it came out that tillman was shot 3 times in the forehead and the bullets were in a grouping no larger than 3 inches in diameter."

citation please. And you DON'T know what happened, so perhaps tossing around words like 'murder' may be jumping the gun a bit, at least. Or, in reality, it is simply a glimps into the mindset of a liberal uninterested in truth unless it demonizes our sitting President.


jeffislouie
first i have never been to daily kos ever.
second, bush hating has become the domain of the right wing radicals. it was they who had bush derangement syndrome over the immigration issue so please don't even go there again.


i don't know what happened but in testimony before congress it came out that tillman was shot 3 times in the forehead and the bullets were in a grouping no larger than 3 inches in diameter.

finally, bush works for us. if he had no infromation fine but why on earth would he refuse to give up any information he did have.
if he is claiming executive privilege than he had some information.

man you have anger issues.


is a simple question, can you answer it.
why would bush claim executive privilege?

if your loved one had been shot wouldn't you want all the information the autho;rities had on the incident.

do you hate the troops so much that you would sacrifice common decency to suppport a president who refuses to provide closure to an american hero's family.

shameful and disgusting

religious lib...
"why executive privilege in tillman case
can someone explain to me why bush is claiming executive privilege in the tillman death/murder "

First of all, it wasn't a 'murder' and you know it. It was an accidental death from friendly fire. It has happened in every military conflict in recorded history, especially in the modern era.
To call it 'murder' or, more accurately, 'death;/murder', is not only disingenous, but incredibly disrespectful. You know damn well that murder is the intentional taking of someone's life. That was clearly not the case here.
I know, it's just a word to you because you show contempt for everyone who is in the military or associated with anything remotely conservative, but frankly I find it particularly offensive.
Now, why does Bush get executive privelege over the accidental, friendly fire death of Pat Tillman? Likely because as President, he is not involved. His job is to send a letter of condolence, perhaps attend a funeral, sign off on some documents, etc. If you honestly think that the President of the United States of America has the time to dictate the way a friendly fire death is reported on an individual basis, then I think you are mentally imbalanced.
Clearly, you have no respect for or idea of how the office of the President truly is.
Just another Bush hating, Bush bashing, military hating, America blaming loser looking for a place to spew your hate.
Here's an idea - go hang out the daily kos, where your opinions and hate are not only welcome, but applauded.

Another question for you tenore2
Exactly how are the Iraqis going to stand on their own two feet when they have a gov't and armed forces whose dedication to their respective sects far surpases their dedication to a unified Iraq?

By the way,did you see Gates latest statements about the political situation? They were far from optimistic.

tenore2
you are incorrect i have heard general after general say the war in iraq cannot be won militarily.

you cannot stop two tribes from killing each other if they are bound and determined no matter how many troops there are.

in fact the new joint chief of staff said justs the other day,
"no amount of troops over any amount of time will make a difference without political reconcilation."

quit listening to only biased conservative media and you may get the whole truth rath than half the truth.


tenore2
as an american don't you want to know what happened to tillman. i am not being partisan about this.
he was a hero of mine.
what could the white house possibly have that would stop them from releasing all materials related to tillmans death or murder.

i mean he had 3 bullet holes in his forehead not more than 2 inched in diamenter.

make that
as its' supporters discovered when they were given the finger over the immigration issue.

tenore2 the point is
simply because he has the right...which is debatable...does not mean that he is right. If the administration had any interest in getting to the bottom of this matter it would allow, in fact insist that the involved parties give their testimony in public and under oath.

But then that would require a committment to the belief that they are doing our business, a concept totally alien to this admin as its' discovered when they were given the finger over the immigration issue.

LIB
No, all the generals have not said the insurgency (WOT) cannot be won. What they have said (at least many of them) is that we must hang tight until the Iraqi's can stand on their own feet.

Have you paid attention to the most recent developments? The Iraqi's and other Islams are getting tired of the constant murdering of innocents by fanatics.

It's great to raise questions, but not if you have a closed mind; which it is apparent that you do.

religiouslib
What does your monicker imply?

Bush has the power, just as Clinton did, to keep council. In other words, strange as it may seem, he is the President. He is co-equal with congress and the supreme court. He has just as much right to subpeona(sp) congressmen as congress has to subpoena his staff.

Surprise; he is the Chief Executive!

The hearings going on now are nothing but witch hunts; and, they are wasting my tax dollars with this constant Bush hatred.

opa
the generals on the ground have all said it cannot be won militarily.

sheesh

where have you been the last 2 years.

it is a civil war and all we can do is try to keep the violence down so there is a possible reconcilation between sunni and shia.

when all you listen to is biased conservative media all you get is half of the truth.

LITTLE PUPPY(color?)
I've seen your posts in other threads.

It is tiresome; no one with half a brain should bother to take the time to read your rantings.

Incidentally, I did read one of them just to determine if you are consistently out of your mind! YUP, you did not disappoint me.

why executive privilege in tillman case
can someone explain to me why bush is claiming executive privilege in the tillman death/murder

To Hustler
Quoting:

"Now if you send Colin Powell over there and he comes back and says “…we can affect this region permanently by staying,” I will listen."

Do you recall Colin Powell's presentation to the UN? If Powell was lying, or misled, or stupid he should not have given the presentation.

I seem to recall that he was one of those who did not want to displace Hussein during the first Iraq war.

Another example of leaving the mess for President Bush 2 to cleanup. Just as Billy Boy did.

To anyone who will listen

STEViL

The cuts following indicate a confused mind:
"But unless the violence being CURRENTLY caused by terrorists and militias are suppressed on the battlefield, there can be no hope for political progress either.

There are 1.3 billion Muslims in the world, millions of whom have already been radicalized with extremist ideas. Thus al-Qaeda will never lack for new recruits. We therefore cannot ever hope to defeat Islamist terrorism by enemy body counts alone. We're going to have to be smarter."

Let me see if I understand.

1. We must win on the battlefield.
2. We can never win on the battlefield.

Pray tell me?

What are you talking about?

Your logic is too complex for me to understand. "YOU MUST BE SMARTER" then than anyone I've ever known. Congratulations; you graduated from high school last year????

You studied math, did you? Hmmm...

The same ol' song and dance
There are problems but we're making progress. How many times have we heard this? More importatntly, by what standard? In the last couple of days we have heard about the rise in revenge killings, the further erosion of the Al Maliki coalition, the gov't taking the month off without any progress on key legislation, and oh, the gov't and coalition forces cannot provide a steady flow of clean drinking water to the biggest city in the country. No wonder the congresswomen left in disgust.

WHO admits it can't be won?
Just who admits it can't be won on the battlefield? I'm hearing the same thing now I heard from returning soldiers in the 60s. "We were winning when I got on the plane to come home. When I landed in the states, we'd already lost." Now is the time to tell Congress to shut up, and spend the money to not just continue the surbe but pound Al Qaeda flat, and let Iran and Syria know their survival depends on their cooperation. Ask the guys on the ground, and they believe they are winning. And they're closer to it and know more about it than you do. If you don't support their mission, you don't support them. Opa.

I love it, Bman
Yeah, Graham is a major embarassment; I'd almost rather have Fritz Hollings back. Maybe John McCain will sit down w/o warning one fine day & hospitalize Graham.

Go Jim. He's what SC has needed for many yrs in Congress, in place of Strom Thurmond who shot his entire wad back in 1964.

From Jim Clyburn, tho, you get what you ought to expect. He's a libDem's "liberal" race-racketeering populist porkbarrelling Democrat. That's how he got to be House Democratic Party Whip.

His district (the 6th) was custom-gerrymandered to be safe for a Democrat of African heritage (I've lived several different places in the 2nd District, & it always seemed like some corner of the 6th was just down the street!). He even has his own "bridge to nowhere" pet project he's been pushing. He reflects his district, & most especially his party.

He is a shrewd man, & while I fully expect him to understand the ramifications of Iraq war success for Demmies & lefties, I'm surprised he would blurt it out like this. But he's absolutely right nonetheless (assuming he was quoted in context); a good report card would be a problem for the Demmie party apparachiks who've based most of their political strategy on public angst & disgruntlement w/ the war (with a little help from constant pop media negativity).

But just who are all these "moderate Democrats" who might actually abandon partisanship & support the war if the present strategy yields results?

Big Dogg,& SteveL
Don't you people ever understand even the simplest things? VN was a totally different kind of conflict, and was fought throughout the country. It involved not only an insurgent group, but a completely armed outside force we were not allowed to go after. The jungles of VN created extremely difficult terrains in which to follow after the enemy.

The Iraq situation is mostly concentrated in the Baghdad area, and the only place for AQI to hide is among supporters. As the supporters begin to turn against them as they are doing, the hiding places begin to dry up, which is exactly what is now happening.

So where is the lie in any of that? In truth, we should have had more troops to begin with. Remember when you liberals told us we weren't listening to the the generals? Your foolish defeatist attitudes change daily no matter how hard our guys fight just to find another way to cut and run. More military force is what was needed, it is what is being applied, and it is working. So what is your beef this time?

In conjunction with that growing momentum, the Iraqi people will and actually are starting to have some hope in a up to this point weak government. As they find the terrorists running, they will respond to their own government. So, the original strategy of establishing a stable government by providing
security in the streets still has very good potential. As the President stated a few thousand times, as the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down, and you will soon see the results even though an American victory will break your poor liberal hearts.

For those interested, check out my website, JOEOLIVAFORPRESIDENT.ORG for some further info on this and other topics involving the 2008 election. Thanks, Joe

"Yes Commander in Chief
I am giving up my generalship since this job you gave me is just too much." Right!

Did you ever hear of a General saying, while in battle, “...we are spinning our wheels”? Only after someone decides we are not making progress will another general who will need time to ‘prove’ his /her strategy replace him or her.

In the case of Iraq, another general who will need time to prove his /her strategy too will replace them. It does not matter how many cities or how many times they run the gangs out. The moment they leave, the gangs move back. Time is on their sides.

Now if you send Colin Powell over there and he comes back and says “…we can affect this region permanently by staying,” I will listen. He has been there, he has respect, is black and a republican. However, if he came back and said “…we cannot make a lasting difference without staying in country with 200,000 troops for the next fifty years,” would you believe him? In addition, would you agree to do it?

Big Doggie Style: Living in the past?
Big Doggie Style: I am not worried about the nonsense the libs/lefties put us through regarding Viet Nam 40 or so years ago. I AM WORRIED ABOUT NOW! ABOUT ISLAMISTS! ABOUT TERRORISTS! NOW!

GET IT? NOW!

Congresswoman Boyda
There is no possibility of Ms. Boyda being competent to know whether she is hearing the truth or not. That's a fact!

If in fact she left the room merely because she didn't like what she was hearing, she has exposed her party's adgenda to not allow The President of the United States any success. She will obviously continue to do so, no matter what the cost to our country.

Assuming that she will continue to refuse to listen to all sides and all options, the people of her congressional district should recall her immediately. We are saddled with enough garbage in The U.S. Congress and Senate. When a fool displays such a blatant disinterest in listening to the testimony that we are paying them to hear, they've got to be thrown out of office!

She does not want our kids to win this war. It would not be in her best interest...she thinks. That's how screwed up she and her friends are.






Traitorous Demonrats
Kansas should be ashamed to place this person in Congress, who will say or do anything that will cause the deaths of innocent military personnel who are giving up their blood to improve things in Iraq, and to cause the deaths of our soldiers who have already given their lifes to be meaningless. Democrats wants the Presidency and will do anything including selling out Our Country and Iraq to get it. They have no plan, other than to Cut & Run, and their actions will embolden the enemy and it will follow us home causing the potential deaths of American in the tens or hundreds of thousands, beside destroy ing our economy and way of life. All because the Demonrats wanted the Presidency so they can force their Socialistic agenda down our throats and make their power base permament. If you don't believe this is what is happening, open your eyes and research out the truth. It is available to those who seek the truth. Thousands have switched after learning what these Demonrats in Washington really stand for. Of course they will not tell you the truth. They claim they are not Liberals, but Progressives. After reviewing their direction that they have demonstrated - it sounds just like the Marxist handbook, which states that it is okay to lie, cheat, steal, or anything is acceptable as long as it further their long term goals...

To Paraphrase Mr. May
Liberal News is Big Lies!

Check out My Latest Blog Post!

Fascinating
As the Congresswoman and one poster have proven, it remains truly fascinating how the left clings to the belief that any good new in Iraq is either a lie, an insult or generally disturbing.

It must be difficult to live life with that level of muddled thinking.

RE: Big Dog
Perhaps you ought to do your research before you flap your jaw. The "lies" that were uncovered were NOT, as you imply, that we were LOSING, but instead that we were WINNING. The "lies" were that we initiated bombings in Laos prior to when the public was told of them.

If you're saying this is the same as then, GOOD. I'd LOVE to know that we're bombing the heck out of Iran and other Islamic nutjob strongholds.

talking past each other
There's a reason for this disconnect. I think that BOTH sides each have a valid point; unfortunately neither side acknowledges the other's, entirely for domestic political reasons.

The Republicans and the military are proud of the military successes of the surge.

But even they admit that this war cannot ultimately be won on the battlefield anyway.

What the Democrats keep asking about is political progress toward a stable Iraqi government and society.
And they don't see enough of it.

And both military and political progress are necessary, and so both Dems and Repubs have a point.

Without a successful, stable, pluralistic, government, and an effective native Iraqi military and police force, the U.S. military can never leave Iraq no matter how many battlefield victories it scores. Because once it leaves, terrorists and other violent elements will come right back across the open borders of Iraq, to exploit the weaknesses of a failed state. Jihadists will stream into Iraq from her neighbors all over again, because Iraq's neighbors have never agreed to stop doing that.

But unless the violence being CURRENTLY caused by terrorists and militias are suppressed on the battlefield, there can be no hope for political progress either.

It's only because everybody is posturing for the 2008 election campaign that the Dems and Repubs don't acknowledge the other's concerns and each side keeps talking about a different subject.

But we conservatives should acknowledge the reality, not the Bush fantasy:

There are 1.3 billion Muslims in the world, millions of whom have already been radicalized with extremist ideas. Thus al-Qaeda will never lack for new recruits. We therefore cannot ever hope to defeat Islamist terrorism by enemy body counts alone. We're going to have to be smarter.

bigg dogg
or maybe she cant handle the truth
especially whaen it goes against all her prejudices

You Are Not in Kansas Anymore
Please do not confuse this Congresswoman with facts! Her campaign talking points against "the war in Iraq" brought her votes and so she believes that talking points equate with truth.
When confronted with facts and alternative scenarios, she does what most activists do, flee the room and cover her ears!
She's not in Kansas anymore...maybe during the next election cycle her constituency may return her to a place where she is more comfortable!

liberal hysteria
if you ever wanted to show how the libs and dems were in fact hoping we lose so that they could gain political advantage, this one congressidiot
is the poster child
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.