Jan 08 2007
What To Do About Iraq?
Update: The fiasco has begun, and it is Dems against Dems as some Democrats see the danger of quitting Iraq without good cause and without trying to win first:
Some of the other leading Democrats in Congress aren’t ready to echo House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s suggestion that lawmakers might hold up funding for additional troops in Iraq.
…
But Pelosi’s second-in-command in the House Democratic leadership, Steny Hoyer, told Fox News he doesn’t ”want to anticipate” that possibility. And the Democrat who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Joe Biden, says Congress doesn’t have the power to second-guess Bush’s military strategy — because lawmakers had voted to authorize him to wage war. Biden appeared on NBC’s ”Meet the Press.”
…
When asked about Pelosi’s remarks, a White House spokesman said Bush welcomes any ideas on Iraq that ”lead to success.”
Like shooting dead fish in the bottom of an empty barrel. Dems need to explain why they cannot find a winning solution. That should be fun to watch. And Biden, for once, is showing what it means to think things out. The Dems authorized Iraq in greater numbers than they did the first Gulf War. They cannot go back on that now. And Pelosi is pulling a Clinton – by not supporting our troops. People may recall that the entire reason the Black Hawk incident happened in Mogadishu was because Clinton’s Sec Def refused to authorize sufficient support for the mission. They tried to do the mission without heavy armor on the ground – and people died brutally because of that decision. And the decision cost the new Sec Def his job. Pelosi is making a bush league mistake. Clearly she did not mastermind the win of Congress as much as the Reps gave it away from their bad decisions. Right now there is not a huge resevoir of good will towards DC pols. So if the mistakes keep coming at this pace 2008 will not even be close.
– end update
In a word: “win”. The Democrats and the left are truly misguided. Dangerously misguided. Today Michael Barone (ever the gentleman) applauds the Democrats’ sincerity in calling for America’s defeat. Sincerity doesn’t equate to “correct” or “wise”. Most people are absolutely sure of themselves when they make mistakes. Why else would they make them?
Iraq is very winnable, and is actually being won. We have established the Democratic government through high turn out elections. And the ugly process of consensus (vs armed progroms) is working its way as the Islamo Fascists do what they can to tear the country apart. Personally I think, if Iraq is still together after all of the bloodshed and the election of a defeatist party in the US, the democratic country of Iraq will no doubt succeed. Many do not share this view – but that is also typical.
Too many people live in the “now” and become obsessed with their views having to be 100% right. I tend to the long view and I know nothing will transpire as I think it will – never has and never will. I can navigate and prepare and plan for a lot. But in the end fate rules and rarely exposes what is to come. Few understood the power of the world wide web (www) when it first appeared around 1990-91. Few ever thought the iron curtain would fall. Few ever thought 9-11 would happen. The fact people do not see something coming is not a good indicator it is not there.
The Democrats do not grasp the danger of giving Iraq to Al Qaeda. In their insane world of upside down obsession, it is now OK to give Iraq’s weapons technology, natural resources and highly educated population over to Al Qaeda – because Al Qaeda was never in Iraq when Saddam was in power. Try and wrap that kind of thought process in logic and you will hurt yourself. Al Qaeda was not aligned with Iraq, so we should never have gone into Iraq, and so we should now give the country to Al Qaeda – which is the reason we went into Iraq: to keep Al Qaeda out of Iraq. That is painful just to type.
But that is Democrat ‘logic’! I really did not expect them to push for something in the majority that they were afraid to push openly all those years in the minority. The Democrats were afraid to tell the public they wanted to surrender Iraq to Al Qaeda during the election because they would, rightfully, be seen as pulling the rug out form all our heroic men and women in the military. They would be seen as throwing all the lives lost in the conflict into the trash can of political expediency. If the Dems cannot stand up for the Iraqis who are striving to be free and democratic, they will not stand up for anyone.
So why is it the Dems are emboldened now? Do they think the title ‘majority’ (as razor thin as it is) is some kind of special cloaking device that will fool the masses? Does Speaker Pelosi somehow think her historic position has bequeathed her with omnipotence and protection from ridicule? That seems to be the case. That which they dared not speak publically for years they now say openly because they think their new roles will protect them. Sort of pathetic really.
So let’s recap the Democrat surrender plan. Since Saddam was not in league with Al Qaeda (who are clearly trying to find a way to repeat 9-11) we should not have freed the Iraqi people and developed the first Muslim Arab democratic state. The logic here is also astounding. The only reason we would help establish democracy in Iraq is if Saddam had allied with Al Qaeda – otherwise no need. That is strange logic right there. And because Saddam was not aligned with Al Qaeda, we should surrender Iraq to Al Qaeda now and betray all those Iraqis fighting to be our ally. It truly is a wonder, that kind of thinking. A wonder this country will survive the next two years of Democrat ‘thinking’. Of course this all begs the question: if we surrender Iraq to Al Qaeda, will the Dems finally feel justified in having the US in Iraq and supporting the fledgling democracy? Will we then go back in to protect Iraq from Al Qaeda as was the original concern?
And we know more is coming from the Democrats (heaven help us). To protect us from terrorists Dems plan to stop listening in on terrorists as they make their plans, because we may accidentally listen in on an innocent American talking innocently to Bin Laden. And they will protect us by supplying enemy combatants with lawyers and trials, so we can never interrogate them on what bloody plots are in the works. And the Patriot Act will be repealed, so that terrorism is once again less of a threat than drug and crime lords.
Sadly, this upside down logic is all consuming for the Dems, since its genesis is anything Bush is for the Dems are against. Bush is for protecting this country from attack – he has said so many times. Therefore, the Dems are against his efforts. Which brings us back to what America will think of all this. If the Dem’s nifty logic pretzels don’t worry them, the fact the Dems are fighting our President and his efforts to protect us will surely be noticed. It seems the Dems are pushing to do more for Al Qaeda than for America these days. And they have sincerely come to the conclusion this is best for America. Winning in Iraq is best for America and anything else is a disaster.
The United States has already won the “military victory” in Iraq. What is needed now is a political victory – and the Bush administration has had neither the wit nor the will to effectively bring that about. The sum and substance of Bush’s “surge” is to place more troops at risk – so he can avoid dealing with the Iraq quagmire until he is either impeached or leaves office following the election of a Democrat – any Democrat – in ’08.
Bush’s biggest fear now is that the Republicans – sensing disaster looming at the polls in ’08 – will abandon ship at an even faster rate than they already are. It’s over for George. As another Texan used to croon:
upyornoz,
The democrats ARE totally misguided! Just call them as they show them. What does it bother you I am critical of the left? Why come here then? I am critical of the left and the right. Not like either side is instilling inspiration. They seem hell bent on seeing which one can screw up more.
If you want delicate hand applied to the liberals you are at the wrong blog.
Robert/Ken/Cone:
“and they’ve already had “last call.— Yeah and it was for brains and you missed out.
Now FE,
Please be nice!
If you’re gonna quote Willie, at least get the lyrics correct.
But your reputation precedes you, you never get anything right.
“things were sure screwed up with Clinton – record surpluses, booming economy…”
I thought we were talking about the WAR and national security. Besides which Clinton did NOT invent “record surpluses” OR “a booming economy”. If anything those things existed in SPITE of his meddling!
“al qaeda is in iraq because of the u.s. invasion.”
Bull crud! But we’ll never convince you of that I’m sure. Al Qaeda is in New York too. Did we invade there when I wasn’t looking? Al Qaeda is a STATELESS terrorist organization that attacked us many times under Clinton’s watch and declared WAR on us…not the other way around. If you thought that this isn’t WWIII, or that we would defeat Al Qaeda in Afganistan and peace would break out across the world, you’re more deluded that I thought.
ALL of this is a moot point however, when you consider that whether or not we are in favor of war, WE GOT IT! Losing Iraq will also guarantee that we lose Afganistan, and then finally lose ANY ability to defend ourselves. When that happens, the last battles will be for New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles.
Carol
I’m no closet liberal AJ, you should know that from JustOneMinute – I’m more of a cranky uncle type (I’ll be back once the Libby trial starts up).
CP, I’d say what’s lame is the offical right wing story explaining this war (noble blah blah, saving blah blah, changing the world blah blah, WMDs blah blah, coalition blah blah, mid-east allies blah blah, turning the corner blah blah, stay the course blah blah, victory blah blah, etc… (need I go on?).
This insane war is actually either a Shakespearian tragedy of oedipal madness and hubris (W of course) or a Shakespearian tragedy of corporate greed and institutional corruption (deadeye Dick of course). .. the whole country got mislead into a war with horrendous human and financial costs, with no end in sight, and the Republican Congress rolled over and let it happen (you can tell me the Dems did too but the Republicans protected the Administration from the sort of serious oversight that could have changed our course).
The WH and right wing has always asked what the Dems “plan” is, because they know it’s a disaster without a solution – THEY don’t have a plan. I don’t think they ever really did have an honest plan, the whole affair has been a huge exercise in dishonesty and it will take histiorians to finally learn the truth .
Thank you so very much George and Dick.
PS, run after al Quaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan – that’s where they are (most of the casualties in Iraq are Iraqis).
Carol J
“the last battles will be for New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles.”
At least we won’t have to fight for Roberts town, he has stated that it will be ok for Iran to test their nuke there.
Jerry
“I’m no closet liberal AJ,”
More of a closet nut?
Come to find out that voting for a complete F’n moron for President MIGHT not have been the best idea for America.
Who knew?
Ajstrata.
Now how did we not think of that… All we need in Iraq is win!!
Democrats… Take it from the Right that is always wrong… We are in Iraq to win!!
Now , that “advice” comes from the same people that supported the mess from day one. Real geniuses indeed, these Neo-Con Right Wingers… Graduates from the Military School of sweeping generalities , all talk and no show.
Do you actually believe Right Wingers that you have any credibility left to be giving any advice about Iraq any more?
Let me give YOU some advice….. Grow some decency and be ashamed of yourselves…. Thousands of people have died because of your idiotic advice, but we only need to “win”…… You are not Napoleon reincarnate by any chance are you?
“Come to find out that voting for a complete F’n moron for President MIGHT not have been the best idea for America.”
Yeah, I think a lot of people realised that once Clinton got in office.
Gil,
Chill dude. Your egotistical arrogance is showing!
LOL!
You lefties keep dreaming of defeat.
AJ,
At this point, I think Bush will try to coordinate with the Iraqi government a transitional plan, shifting more responsibility to them.
stevevvs ,
“Secure the Iraqi border”- doable and a necessary step to halt the “proxie”war.
crosspatch,
Agree that media is being “played.” And the constant spewing of false, shaded and selective information by the “compromised” media is the reason we have the trolls, on this site,firing away like scatter guns.
Robert Lewis and Gil are a travelling show that have shown up at other websites, trying to convince people that they don’t know anything.
ajstrata.
A few comments on your incredibly deluded blog.
“Iraq is very winnable, and is actually beeing won”.
Really? Why then is Bush sending at least about 20,000 more troops…. Look Mr. Strata it would be nice if you HONESTLY present your arguments, but your blog is the picture of demagogery at it’s worst.
I dare you to debate with me .
Please answer me the following questions, because I am curious to know how exactly do you think we are “winning”
How is it that we can “win” by supporting a Government that has NEVER desarmed a SINGLE Al-Sadr Militia, and that in fact a Government and a man (Al Malaki) that owes it’s very exsistance and power to Al-Sadr’s support ??? I want REALITY HERE MR. STRATA, not your tired old trick of “let’s make pretend” and you create your own answers …. Let’s hear something coherent from you for a change.
Another question. Since Al-Malaki is supported by Al-Sadr 100%, and Al-Sadr is supported by Iran, and we support Al Malaki’s Government how do we “win” if they win??? Or should I say Iran wins??? Or who supports Al Sadr Mr Strata ??
Is easy for you to hide in sweeping statements and attacks but do you have what it takes to debate the real points here strata or are you just a DEMAGOGE with nothing behind you but hate for Democrats.
As for your idiotic Clinton comment about Somalia; I don’t have the time to debate it but all I can tell you is that if you give me your adress I’ll send you a History for Dummies free of charge…. Educate yourselve before you comment … Is that too much to ask ???
Democrats by the way have been giving you people in the Right a solution, you just don’t like it because you think you can “win” in the abstract…. Unfortunatelly for your kind… The abstract is not real, you should know that by now… I think you are an adult are you not or you still believe in Santa??
Wow, Joe Biden said something smart!
Don’t feed the trolls. They seem to have too much time on their hands.
I am an Independent and I have really pissed some folks off with my stance on Immigration. I think Malkin is a ninny.
But to Clinton, I think the things the Democrats forget about Clinton was that he was the one who said Saddam was hiding his weapons. He was the one who said that Saddam would make more weapons and would use those weapons. He was the one who said Saddam had ties to terrorism and he was the one who first made the actual liberation of Iraq national policy.
The surplus was sort of the surplus you get in your checking account when you deposit a cash advance on a credit card. It was no more real than the ill fated dot com boom.
But this is just politics. Like Clinton saying he could not cut taxes because we had a crisis coming in social security and needed revenue and then the rest of his party refusing to even offer an alternative to Bush’s plan.
This has been the M.O. for the Democrats, help create the situation, then deny the situation is real and blame the other guy when it comes time to fix things. Deny Deny Deny.
But they are supposed to be doing something other than complaining now and it seems that quitting is the only other thing they know how to do anymore. Too bad, once upon a time they were not such wusses.
As for Iraq and terrorists, we all know Saddam had ties to terrorists, if not why did terrorists from Abu Nidal to Carlos the Jackal to Yasin to Zarqawi just to name a few end up in Baghdad? Was it the night life? I doubt it. And we all know that Saddam refused to comply with the UN and would be out there making weapons and killing people with impunity today if the US had not gone in there…in which case there would be no stopping him.
So since the Democrats ran the White House for eight years before Bush came along and want to take sole credit for surpluses and God knows what else, how about they take some credit for the rest of it too?