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.
enforcement.
I know that your crowd like to talk about victory, and how we Democrat cowards are some how ruining the chance for your heroic crowd to win in Iraq…. If only the Dems could be quiet we would have won by now!! Tell me is that how you win???
So can you please be kind enough to inform all of us ignorant Dems how are you going to finally win after 4 years of telling us exactly the same thing… You people sound like a broken record.
But, here’s your big chance… Give us specifics as to how you guys intend to finally DELIVER other than saliva…. So how do you win??
More lies from the Bush White House. Copy this photo , before Big Brother deletes it- Bush and Abramoff!
http://blog.citizensforethics.org/node/478
Now we need to know just how many times Jack the schmuck met withKarl, his assistant used to work for Jack for heavens sake (they got the FBI to deep-six that question, unfortunately).
What did I say about corrupt institutions?
Both Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid indicate they are willing to withhold funding for military action in Iraq. That can’t be interpreted any other way then showing that they are willing to roll things up regardless of the consequences, and regardless ofwhat Iraq and the region look like in the future. Redeployment to Guam is not helpful.
enforcement:
First, where did I say I was a conservative?
you didn’t. but you did express viewpoints that would generally be called conservative. so i labeled you as conservative on the basis of what you wrote above about stem-cell research, being pro-life, what you have said about the iraq war, etc. so reading them i concluded that you are a conservative. that’s not jumping to conclusions, that’s reaching a conclusion based on evidence. that doesn’t mean i may not still be wrong. was i wrong to call you “conservative”?
You made a long spiel there about telling people what they believe, what you believe and all that crap
no i didn’t. if i’m wrong, please quote where exactly i told someone else what they believe. everything i wrote here is just above in this same thread. if you are right on this it shouldn’t be hard to find proof.
oh, and before you get all excited, labeling someone “conservative” is not telling them what they believe. i haven’t made any assumptions on what you believe other than what you wrote above. for example, i have no opinion of what you think about the immigration issue, or fidel castro, or health care. see the difference?
And I guess I miss the distinction of not hating America in your mind while everything you SAY and DO screams that you hate America
please show me a quote of anything that i wrote that could be reasonably interpreted as indicating a hatred of america.
That you WANT America to lose. Please explain why every one of your actions are against America, but you DON’T hate America.
please give me an example of where i said that i want america to lose (or, if you prefer, “WANT america to lose”). give me any example of some action that i have taken that is against america.
accusing me in generalities is foolish. as i said, i know that i don’t hate america and that i have never taken any action against my country. the bottom line is that i simply know more about what i think and do than you do. why you would follow such a losing argument is beyond me.
I didn’t say all Dems, I said most.
that’s true, you did. but it still wasn’t accurate. and it makes me wonder if you actually know very many democrats.
as for macker:
your Party is home to all of the elements you object to being associated with. The Dems may be a “big tent†but that tent houses some pretty strange “creatures.â€
huh? what elements exactly are you talking about?
I think they’ll withhold funding for new troops but not for those already there. I think that’s a realistic and sensible position – and it should get the attention of the faux-populists in the White House (“elites” are outrageous, especially when they spend extravagantly sending other people off to a fraudulent war and stay there to preserve their image for history).
Enforcement:
I think Malkin is a demagogue. And I think she has actually driven people away on issues like immigration.
And 70% of the American people do not want to cut and run from Iraq. In fact as many want to stay and fight as want to just leave and when ask if they want to win they overwhelmingly say yes.
But of course they want to see the war come to an end, who does not.
But if the Democrats want to jerk everyone out of there and say to hell with the consequences so that we can make a return trip to Iraq in another decade or so…they need to win the White House, not a narrow victory in the House.
And there is something unseemly about hoping for defeat for the sake of political gain. It just looks bad. I know the Democrat Ellsworth who won here in Indiana has said he won’t vote for cut and run. It will be interesting to see what he does now that he has actually got the job.
And how do they withhold funding for the some of the troops but not for all? Bush does not have to get their permission to send them over there.
I just did a post and the whole damn thing vanished.
Dennis:
What about Murtha and Pelosi? They are thieves and no one cares.
The Dems now own Iraq and must find a way to win because it
is trivial to expose the fallacies behind surrendering to Al
Qaeda.
Gee, thanks George. You left us a fine mess indeed.
However, I do not think the Democrats or Repubs will have the
final say in the matter. It will be the Israelis. When they
attack Iran’s nuke sites we will have to refocus our attention
to an even more dangerous situation.
And George will be off the hook.
enforcement.
Be a kind Righty and inform me how we are we “winning” please. By the way, inform Bush also, because the dumbo in the Whitehouse is about to send 20,000 more troops ito this war that we are “winning” as you say. .. By the way I should not say “more’ troops, they are the same old ones sent back again, and again, and again.
I am all ears.
With all due respect enforcer, just to saywe are winning does not make it so. After FOUR YEARS of you people repeating the same thing maibe is time to actually do it don’t you think?
Like I have been saying since my first blog. You people are for victory (Only you never produce it), and to hell with details as to how to achieve victory…. Is all about demagogery. As for the rest of us if we happen to call you on your ideas, we are for defeat…. And you are for victory only you never produce it, and more people die so that your side can continue to demagoge a point that even my dog already understood.
With the kind of “victory” you people are giving America Osama most be laughing his ass off and begging you for more of these “victories”. The only victory I see you getting is the one your side handed to Osama, and to Iran in a silver platter . Thank you very much, and next time don’t do us any favors with your make believe victories will you.
Gil,
Come back when you grow up and can debate like an adult. I am sick of reading your childish insults.
You folks are nailing my spam filter. Try and keep the emotion down and your posts may not hit the moderation queues
For all the liberals who cannot figure out how to win in Iraq (which we are doing, just not fast enough for some) I only need to point out winning doesn’t include surrendering to Al Qaeda. Duh.
And Gil, this site is not about you bud. Get a clue.
AJStrata, Kudos to you.
And it appears that Iran is weakening due to Bush’s efforts. Kudos to Bush. Looks like we’re winning all over. Now to fight what we have inside USA – Minnesota airport, VA, Katy (TX), and other places. The Muslims must learn to assimilate into the society of freedom and respect freedom of religion without persecution. The Muslims must learn to abrogate the violent verses with peaceful verses (in reverse) in order to survive in a modern world.
Bush is not leaving us a fine mess. In fact, it looks like we continue to make great progress.
Terrye, I see that Bush is already sending troops over there. Pelosi made a comment that she will not defund those already there. Think Bush is savvy enough to send the troops (or in transit) before the democrats take over the house?
Wow, I see I’ve been missing out on a lively debate.
Crosspatch said “Al Qaida already did come here … twice. Once with the first WTC bombing and then with the 9/11 events. I can not understand this nonsensical thinking that somehow if we just walk way, they won’t hurt us. Clinton tried that in Somalia and got the embassy bombings for it.”
Actually they were here more than that, if you include our embassies and a few notable attempts that we thwarted, notably the attack on LAX and the multiple plane attack planned by Youssef.
I spent some time going back and forth with a sea of libs on an infamous puppeteer leftist’s site yesterday. There are two things they just can’t get: One, that we invaded Iraq, rather than waiting passively to be nuked, and two, that Iraq was not Al Qaeda. No matter what anyone does or says, they just can’t make the jump to grasp that this was necessary.
I also find two great ironies whenever I stupidly enter into prolonged (and rather pointless) debates with them: First, that we on the right are cowards with our irrational, unfounded fears of AQ (even though they fear their own democratically elected government), and second, that our own modest (in my own life, nonexistent) curbs on certain personal freedoms are somehow more to be feared than sharia.
And they won in November.
test test
I see I’ve been missing out on a lively debate.
Crosspatch said “Al Qaida already did come here … twice. Once with the first WTC bombing and then with the 9/11 events. I can not understand this nonsensical thinking that somehow if we just walk way, they won’t hurt us. Clinton tried that in Somalia and got the embassy bombings for it.”
Actually they were here more than that, if you include our embassies and a few notable attempts that we thwarted, notably the attack on LAX and the multiple plane attack planned by Youssef.
I spent some time going back and forth with a sea of libs on an infamous puppeteer leftist’s site yesterday. There are two things they just can’t get: One, that we invaded Iraq, rather than waiting passively to be nuked, and two, that Iraq was not Al Qaeda. No matter what anyone does or says, they just can’t make the jump to grasp that this was necessary.
I also find two great ironies whenever I stupidly enter into prolonged (and rather pointless) debates with them: First, that we on the right are cowards with our irrational, unfounded fears of AQ (even though they fear their own democratically elected government), and second, that our own modest (in my own life, nonexistent) curbs on certain personal freedoms are somehow more to be feared than sharia.
And they won in November.
I have the solution! Everyone who voted for George Bush will go to fight in Iraq–we’ll start with those who voted for him twice. That way, we’ll actually have enough troops for a real surge, the rest of us won’t have to listen to armchair warriors spew on about “winning” and they’ll get a chance to see for themselves, first hand, whether the media is telling the truth about the level of violence there. That should make everone happy!
Mikeyfil,
Better an armchair warrior than an armchair quitter. The libs would do themselves a huge favor if they stopped pretending everyone was as spineless as they are. Since no one is forced into the military, those who are afraid to go don’t have to.
And those like me who are too old to go would go, if we could. But I once listened to the mad ravings of liberals in my youth – the whole baby killer crap from Kennedy and Kerry during Vietnam. By the time I learned that they were all lies Reagan was President and I was basically going through leftwing detox.
Whinge all you want. But people who force someone else to surrender is much lower than someone who thinks we need to protect this nation, even if we do not go to the front lines.
Liberals want a world of liberal quitters! And that is why they lose elections (unless conservatives totally blow it). Keep up the surrender calls – and the 110 Congress will be historic on how brief the Dems held control.