Jan 11 2007
Bush Did Well – And We Are Communicating With Iran
Glancing across the news articles today Bush did quite well. The Pessimist Party has stood up and declared it impossible to succeed in Iraq. With any luck, their appointment with the dustbin of history is now scheduled and committed. The amazing thing is I had no idea that 80% of the violence was concentrated in Baghdad. If Baghdad is controlled 80% of the violence will die down. Yes, some of these blood thirsty insurgents will flee, but the news media doesn’t get out much, so the violence will drop as far as the average US citizen sees it. And the fact we will track down and shut down the Syrian and Iranian support centers is the best news. A three pronged effort targetting Baghdad, Anbar and the terrorist supplies will have an impact. In fact, our ‘discussions’ with Iran have commenced:
U.S. forces stormed an Iranian consular office in the northern Iraqi Kurdish city of Arbil early on Thursday and arrested five people, including diplomats and staff, Iranian officials said.
The U.S. military made no direct mention of Iranians but in answer to a query issued a statement saying six “individuals” were arrested during “routine” operations in the area.
As the overnight raid was in progress, President George W. Bush was vowing in a keynote address on American television to disrupt what he called the “flow of support” from Iran and Syria for insurgent attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq.
Being one of those who knows success is achievable I of course enjoyed seeing those articles and editorials that faced reality instead of prayed for an accelerated defeat. I noted Australia’s John Howard came out last night in support of Bush’s speech. So that is good news. But I liked the tone of this article in the UK Times:
In reality, there is no credible alternative. The Iraq Study Group proved rather better at setting out the many problems that exist in Iraq than in offering precise solutions. Its recommendation that the White House co-opt Iran and Syria as its allies in Iraq does not look remotely plausible. The idea that suddenly withdrawing American soldiers from the country would convince Shia and Sunni hardliners to be more charitable to one another is equally improbable. Mr Bush’s domestic foes, notably Nancy Pelosi, the new Democratic Speaker of the House of Representatives (who has a minimal record in foreign policy) and the increasingly surreal Edward Kennedy, would simply abandon Iraq and be done with it.
And never forget Bush’s ace card in Congress: Senator Joe Leiberman.
Sen. Joe Lieberman, who was assailed for his pro-war views during his fall re-election race, praised President Bush’s plan to increase the number of troops in Iraq and urged his colleagues in Congress to proceed with respectful debate.
“Excessive partisan division and rancor at home only weakens our will to prevail in this war,” Lieberman, I-Conn., said in a statement Wednesday.
…
“The president did not take the easy path, but he took the correct and courageous course,” Lieberman said. “It is a dangerous illusion to believe that we can depart Iraq and the inevitable killing fields and terrorist violence will not follow us in retreat — even to our own shores.”
That was a hint for the Democrats to listen to the voters. It seems the “essimist Party” is also the “Party Of Dangerous Illusions” (or delusions). This political struggle was over before it started because the Dems are blinded by hate and Bush is obsessed with protecting America. Gee, wonder which side the average working American will take?
Yea, on Hannity’s show, he started the clock counting down how long it is til we hear the Dems plan. As you said, it hasn”t started snowing in hell has it?
In our gut, we all feel sick because we are being psychologically abused by the collusion of the Global Left and the media.
Ivehadit
You said it so well. That is exactly how I feel.
It’s dark and powerful…and actually evokes rage in those being abused…and then numbness as they become submissive and doubt their reality…or aggressiveness as they side with the perpetrators.
We must all be on alert and have a “psychological bath” everyday…sometimes hourly with these you know whats…
I surely don’t want to have their karma…
Actually, I believe what happened in Baghdad. The Iraqis told our people that they were ready to assume the security of Baghdad and we let them. They wanted to step up and take more control of the situation so we let them. They wanted us to disband checkpoints to send a message to the population that their government was in charge and again, we let them. Then the wheels fell off the cart.
This is all part of gaining experiance. Not too many people learned how to ride a bike without falling at least once. The Iraqis are going to fail at things, and we need to be there to right them and let them learn from the experiance and have another go at it.
This time the Iraqis will be more aggressive. The important thing is that they are showing the guts to keep trying.
Totally agree, crosspatch.
Just look at our own history. In fact if they could have taken back the Revolution and paid the damn tax there was a time when most of the Colonists would have done just that. Corruption, incompetence, lack of money and they were getting their asses kicked.
George Washington kept it together. There is a reason they call him the father of our country. For awhile there he was all that was holding it together.
The thing is the current government of Iraq has only been running things for 8 months. People are acting as if they have somehow had the entire nearly 4 years our troops have been there to get this sorted out. They haven’t. 8 months isn’t enough time. What we risk doing here is forcing much more on them than they can possibly do in a short period of time.
That’s why I listen to Rush. He says what I want to yell at these defeatists. The ramifications of loosing are to big, why can’t we have a intelligent debate? An intelligence with the Dems went out the window with Bill Clinton, so did civility, honesty, and seriousness about national security. It’s all about power, polls and elections. I hope the electorate gets smarter.
Kathie…
Same Rush that helped the Democrats take control of Congress by opening his yap against Michael Fox during the run up to the last election? That one?
How did you know he was not back on the Oxy when he was commenting? Hard to tell with drug addicts you know.
Steve
Michael Fox was a fraud. I saw him on Boston Legal regularly and he wasn’t doing those tidal rolls. When telling the truth is a “bad thing” we’ll all go straight to hell. So what if he was on the Oxy, the truth is the truth. How about dealing with the truth with Rush if you like the truth so much. If you have proof he was on Oxy, give it to us. Otherwise we might have to assume you are on Oxy to make such a “far out” reaching for an excuse lie.
So Barbara Boxer asks Condi today during hearings, “you don’t have any children, do you, so with this new policy of President Bush, you have nothing to loose”. Tell me, where has civility gone. This is the kind of stuff that the Dems call dialogue, probing questions, fact finding. And Steve you fit nicely into this category of intellectual depravity.
I am really tired of the discounting of truth and facts.
The questions should not be about WHO is reporting or opining. The questions should be IS IT THE TRUTH?
…Another casualty and dumbing down of our public discourse by the democrats that started in 1992.
Had Condi been a Dem, she would have asked the question in the affirmative.
instead of:
“you don’t have any children, do you,”
more like …”.Condi, you being an unmarried Dem, you do have children don’t you?”
True? You’ll always come closer to the truth if you believe the worst about Dems.
Enforcement,
Rush due to his stupid comments cost the Senate seat in Mo. due to his treatment of Fox, namely mocking. The “swing” in Mo was about 3000 votes, I think Rush’s comments swung people who were fence setting away from the R side due to his comments being so mean spirited.
As to the truth of what Rush said, I find him amusing at times, wrong at others but always entertaining. What service did he have active duty in that he is such and expert on military matters, or foreign policy matters?
By the way, do you hold the President accountable at all for anything going on in Iraq, or is your view “Drink the Flavor Aid” all the time, he’s the CIC, so he must be right?
Sorry that you don’t think Republicans are allowed to question the President in any fashion, it’s how we got in the mess we have today.
Rush due to his stupid comments cost the Senate seat in Mo. due to his treatment of Fox, namely mocking.
That’s what McGaskill said in a news conference after the election, but, curiously, the stem cell ballot initiative was polling around 70% when Rush first commented on the Michael J. Fox ads, and it ended up passing, I think, 51/49. You’re right, though, Rush’s initial comments were stupid and uninformed, something he corrected very quickly. I’m not sure, in the end, that his comments had any effect on the Senate race.
Steve, I don’t know if Rush was in the Military, but don’t think so. Don’t have any idea if he avoided draft, or was even eligible for it. In short, don’t know. Being in the military is not a requirement for questioning things in the US. If so Bubba could never have been the Pres.
Well let’s dissect this:”By the way, do you hold the President accountable at all for anything going on in Iraq, or is your view “Drink the Flavor Aid†all the time, he’s the CIC, so he must be right?”
do you hold the President accountable at all for anything going on in Iraq, Yes, I give him credit for about 95% of the country being free “and no violence. I hold him accountable to get the other 5% in hand, and with the steps he took last night, I’d say about 3 months will do that.
or is your view “Drink the Flavor Aid†The correct expression is KoolAid, what’s your favorite flavor, sounds like you’ve been indulging. regularly.
he’s the CIC, so he must be right? What’s the alternative? We can either support him or the terrorists, I personally am putting my bet on him. Which one you betting on?
And let’s go thru this one:
“Sorry that you don’t think Republicans are allowed to question the President in any fashion, it’s how we got in the mess we have today.”
I have no problem with anyone questioning him. But I do have a problem with people bashing him for no reason, in war time, in front of the enemy. It’s not the questioning, it’s the bashing.
You rather have the mess we have today, or the mess in the US in the near future as an alternative?
9/11 was real, it wasn’t a movie.
Checked it out, Rush basically wouldn’t have been eligible for the draft. He was 22 when draft ended, and that was in 73 when they had already stopped drafting. So we can safely say he didn’t ‘dodge the draft’
Enforcement,
Look up the word Sycophant. That’s what the Republicans in the 109th Congress were to all of the President’s actions in Iraq.
While you’re in the dictionary, look up the domino theory, which is what President Bush seems to be using as the big scare to keep forces in Iraq. Iraq had nothing, according to the 9/11 report to do with 9/11. The hijackers were Saudis. Why have we not invaded Saudi Arabia as a rhetorical question.
Where are the WMD’s in Iraq that the President used as the cause for going into Iraq? I actually think it was a good thing to go into Iraq, but quite frankly, the Bush Administration was incompetent to the Nth degree in how they acted after the war was run.
There are more alternatives than “Surging” or Cutting and Running in Iraq by the way, and I sure wish Republicans would start to push back on the President soon and start talking about some of those alternatives. But President Bush appears to be the “Decider in Chief” and is ether pig headed or getting bad advice. By March, we the American people will know if the Iraqis are serious or not, and I think they will not be serious. Then what?
As it stands right now, the Bush team in my view is an incompetent bunch, supporting a regime that is not worth the lives of our citizens and the number of new troops will not get the job done without Iraqi participation.
But President Bush appears to be the “Decider in Chiefâ€
Go back and check and I think you’ll find he did get the majority of electoral votes in ’04. That’s what gave him that title. Who would you have as Decider in Chief? Bubba?
Sycophant, I see no evidence of that, you must be thinking of Bubba and the Dems.
All that other stuff, same song 100th verse, Dems theme song. Keep singing it.
WMD’S if you don’t know by now they were there, you just don’t read the news(old ones? yes. but WMD’S)
Saudi’s didn’t commit act’s in Saudi Arabia and are not there now, have to kill them where they are. Happen to be in Iraq right now.
What are the alternatives to surging or cutting and running? The Pres has enough push back from the anti-Americans, don’t need the Repubs pushing back also. He was elected and I see the options as, support him or the terrorists, you choose. Sounds like you already have. Just haven’t admitted it to yourself yet.
Then what? then what? so your answer is give up now, don’t wait til March? Now there you are, a real winner.
Those white flags out there in never-never land must be going cheap.
So when they get to your neighborhood, you gonna keep the white flag flying, or is freedom worth fighting for at any time?
I personally think the war is going great, could be pressed even harder, maybe 100,000 more troops, kill the enemy even sooner and I don’t give a damn personnally if no Iraqi raises a hand. I don”t want Iraq in the hands of al qaeda, whether the iraqi’s care or not.