Jan 12 2008

Newsweek Declares Iraq A Lost Cause For Surrendercrats

Published by at 2:52 pm under All General Discussions,Iraq

It seems that not only has al-Qaeda’s efforts to takeover Iraq failed (see post below), but now even the liberal rag Newsweek is declaring Iraq a lost cause to the Democrats (a.k.a. Surrendercrats):

But as Bush rallied U.S. troops at the base here on Saturday with a “Hoo-ah” and conferred with his Iraq dream team, Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, he indicated that he was setting in motion policies that could dramatically affect the presidential race–and any decisions the next president makes in 2009.

In remarks to the traveling press, delivered from the Third Army operation command center here, Bush said that negotiations were about to begin on a long-term strategic partnership with the Iraqi government modeled on the accords the United States has with Kuwait and many other countries. Crocker, who flew in from Baghdad with Petraeus to meet with the president, elaborated: “We’re putting our team together now, making preparations in Washington,” he told reporters. “The Iraqis are doing the same. And in the few weeks ahead, we would expect to get together to start this negotiating process.” The target date for concluding the agreement is July, says Gen. Doug Lute, Bush’s Iraq coordinator in the White House–in other words, just in time for the Democratic and Republican national conventions.

Most significant of all, the new partnership deal with Iraq, including a status of forces agreement that would then replace the existing Security Council mandate authorizing the presence of the U.S.-led multinational forces in Iraq, will become a sworn obligation for the next president.

The fact is Bush is going to pull a hat out of a rabbit (a favorite quote of LJStrata’s that means a surprise trick ending to a plot line from TV or a Movie) on Iraq before he leaves office. We will have victory and a path to a great future before November. This is also going to nail the Surrendericans like Huckabee and Ron Paul. Only fools would still propose surrendering to those you just defeated – and there are a lot of fools running around politics these days. We need a Giuliani in the WH to leverage this great position Bush will leave the country in (McCain is too liberal on all issues outside the war).

Seriously folks – why is anyone in the GOP considering an ObaCain or a Hillabee in 2008 when you can vote for the real thing on the Dem tickets? If Bush takes the Iraq war off the table McCain’s strengths are gone, but Rudy’s generally more conservative stands (and electability over any Dem in FL, and ability to fight for NY and CA) makes him (or Thompson) the only viable GOP candidates right now.

59 responses so far

59 Responses to “Newsweek Declares Iraq A Lost Cause For Surrendercrats”

  1. VinceP1974 says:

    Terrye keeps moving the goal posts…. first she tells me my opinion is ill-informed and that any profesional would of course not agree with me.

    When I supply the words of who is perhaps the brightest minds of Bush’s foreign policy team, i’m then told that Bolton himself is to blame or other falsely-premised accusations.

    You’re hysterical and need to relax.

  2. kathie says:

    A MUST READ FROM GATEWAY PUNDIT

    BUSH ROCKS ABU DHABI–

  3. colin says:

    Abu Dhabi? Bahrain? Kuwait? Why would you be visiting these countries if the primary item on the agenda is the Israel-Palestine issue? The answer is you wouldn’t. There was no state visit to Egypt or Jordan, the most critical states if the issue is the Palestinians. Bush didn’t visit them. He visited the Gulf nations. The Palestinian issue was a ruse to bring regional players together in order to take on Iran. The a-holes in the IC kneecapped our Iran policy. It would have been an untenable position to travel over to the region to rally the Gulf states in order to confront Iran. This is reality after the NIE.

    However, if the agenda item is the “peace process”, then we have a pretext to travel and discuss the Iranian issue with Gulf partners. Everyone is so quick to dismiss Bush that they refuse to look at the wider situation. They refuse to look at what Bush is saying to the Gulf states, and where he’s traveling in pursuit of “mid-east peace”.

    If Palestine is your reason for traveling to the region, you don’t visit Bahrain!

  4. kathie says:

    OK AJ, I was just listening to Rudy on Fox, and I think he has the conservative credentials of Fred and can talk to the middle class as well. He has run a tough city, cut taxes and cared for those who couldn’t care for themselves. He is looking very good and carries the mantle of Bush to keep this country on the defense. He also as a lawyer knows the justice department which could be good for the next president. He is a bit abrasive in tone…..I don’t know if that could be helpful or hurt. In my eyes he is looking pretty good.

  5. kathie says:

    amend, keep the country on offense, NOT DEFENSE.

  6. crosspatch says:

    OMG! That article at Gateway Pundit is wonderful. Bush has done more to bring democracy to the ME than any president. And to think that Carter had a golden opportunity and threw it away by abandoning Iran leading to the Afghanistan invasion, creation of al Qaida and the Taliban, rise of Hezbollah in Lebanon and probably the Lebanese civil war.

    To answer an earlier comment:

    1 – Appeasing Iran (Iraq will never be stable as long as Iran is run by the mullahs)

    It is actually Europe who as appeased Iran. We can not at the current moment unilaterally enforce our will on Iran. Our military is less than 1/2 the size it was in the first Gulf War. We are currently engaged in two wars. Iran has no interest currently in working with us and right now they have two powerful allies in Russia and China. There just isn’t a lot we can do with regard to Iran by ourselves and nobody else wants to take a path different than the current one.

    We aren’t “appeasing” anyone. We simply aren’t able to do anything else with any reasonable chance of success. We could make some one-time strikes but those would probably cause us as much harm as they cause Iran.

    Not so long ago (at the end of the Reagan administration) the US had a 600 ship Navy. Today we have less than 200 ships. People who make the kind of “appeasement” statements as above have their head firmly planted someplace dark. We just do not have the power we had in the 1980’s and 1990’s. Clinton dismantled our military.

    2 – Appeasing North Korea

    See number 1 above. We just do not have the resources to engage in Afghanistan, Iran, and North Korea considering it would likely involved China. I would suspect that China would be in Taiwan the INSTANT we touched North Korea.

    3 – Appeasing the Jihad by rewarding the Jihad by moving forward with the Piece Process in Israel

    What the heck are you talking about. Short of killing every single Palestinian, at some point you must allow them to have their own government. That is the only possible solution. There is no other way. Anyone who believes otherwise is living in a fantasy world.

    Nuclear War with Iran is pretty much guaranted. And it could have been avoided.

    Really? How? That sounds pretty moronic if you don’t expand on it a little.

  7. kathie says:

    One of the ways to put pressure on Iran is to stop the money flow from the countries that make it possible, the rich Gulf States.

  8. crosspatch says:

    Iran’s cash comes from the sale of oil. But it doesn’t really make a lot of money on oil because it needs to import refined products for use in its economy. Iran has a lot of oil production but lacks refinery capacity though that is being addressed and soon it will have enough domestic refining capacity.

    But therein lies the real reason for the nuclear program. If Iran can, like France, generate 80% of their electric needs from nuclear power, they can export more oil and make even more cash.

    Iran also has large reserves of Uranium. So Iran could become a major world producer of nuclear fuel. It stays in the energy business long after the oil runs out.

    The ironic part of all this is that we don’t care about any of that. If Iran wants to go nuclear power and put more oil on the market, GREAT! We would even HELP them with that. The problem is that the idiot they have in charge of the country believes he can precipitate the second coming by starting a war with Israel and the US. Iran could have all the nuclear power they want. What they can’t have are nuclear weapons and their current president is doing all he can to make it look like they have them.

    The man is an idiot and the Bible even tells us that people who think they know when and how the second coming will come are idiots. The President of Iran doesn’t know any more about when the second coming will be than the drunk in the gutter up the street does. His belief is going to end up hurting a lot of people for no reason.

  9. Terrye says:

    Vince:

    I am not hysterical. I am not the one who said something about how we would not care about Iraq if we were all dead or whatever.

  10. crosspatch says:

    And in the long run the key to handling Iran lies in Iraq. Iraq has historically been the cradle of Shiite thought. The areas of Najaf and Karbala have special significance. As democracy and economic prosperity rise in Iraq and as Iraq regains more of its historical influence in Shiism, the influence of Iran wanes. At some point one of two things happens, either the religion splits (like the Catholic religion did into an Eastern rite and a Roman rite) into a Najaf centered school of thought and a Qom centered school of thought, or the center of gravity for Shiism moves from Qom, Iran to Najaf, Iraq. It is going to take years to play out, maybe decades, and Americans are generally not patient enough to wait longer than one or two election cycles.

  11. Terrye says:

    owl:

    Don’t worry about it. I think you are a real champ. always have.

  12. VinceP1974 says:

    >1 – Appeasing Iran (Iraq will never be stable as long as Iran is run by the mullahs)

    >It is actually Europe who as appeased Iran.

    We outsourced to Europe.

    What I find so frustrating is that an average person like me can clearly see what kind of culture we’re dealing with with Iran.

    They want the bomb. They haven’t compromised a thing FOR YEARS in all this discussion. They kill indiscrimanately all over the world. They have utter hatred and contempt for all non-muslims.

    These people are a mortal threat.. they only thing they lacked is the means to really act on that hate.

    And what do we do.. time and again…Send up the flag of weakness… send the gutless Europeans to NEGOTIOATE with them.. Negotiate for what? “Please dont nuke us?”

    When is the West going to learn… grovelling to an Islamic power does not earn you any favors.. in fact , it makes them hate you even more.

    Last summer , almost every week there was one Red Line that Iran was not to cross or else.. and they crossed it and nothign happened.

    Hell they swarm our naval ships.. nothign happens.

    >We can not at the current moment unilaterally enforce our will on Iran. Our military is less than 1/2 the size it was in the first Gulf War. We are currently engaged in two wars.

    It’s too f’cking bad.. THEY ARE AT WAR WITH US. God how stupid are we? “Please Iran.. stop your empowering.. we’re busy right now.. thanks”

    > Iran has no interest currently in working with us and right now they have two powerful allies in Russia and China.

    No kidding.. IRAN IS AT WAR AGAINST US. The longer we wait to take action the more time Iran has to make its alliances.. if we took them out by now the issue would be moot.

    >There just isn’t a lot we can do with regard to Iran by ourselves and nobody else wants to take a path different than the current one.

    Oh yes there is. Get some balls and a spine. Or else they’ll be vaporized.

    >We aren’t “appeasing” anyone. We simply aren’t able to do anything else with any reasonable chance of success. We could make some one-time strikes but those would probably cause us as much harm as they cause Iran.

    We’re going to be harmed no matter what happens.

    What is so hard to see about this. Where does this delusion come from that we are going to be able to avoid a confrontation with Iran?

    We don’t have a choice.. every day we wait.. and we’ve waited many thousands of days now.. the more deadly it’s going to be for us.. every day we wait God knows what is coming over that border to the north and south of us.

    If we had REAL leadership, the leader would have acted.

    >Not so long ago (at the end of the Reagan administration) the US had a 600 ship Navy. Today we have less than 200 ships. People who make the kind of “appeasement” statements as above have their head firmly planted someplace dark. We just do not have the power we had in the 1980’s and 1990’s. Clinton dismantled our military.

    Yeah… and? Iran cares?

    Here is the balls that Iran has…

    http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/805.htm

    On their broadcast tv. the chief Iranian Nuclear negiotator says , explictly, they deliberately entered into talks with Europe because they knew jsut by talking they could hold off any threat to them FOR YEARS and this ploy of thiers gave them the time they needed to master the uranian fuel cycle.

    Thank you State Department.. you’re bright idea to pander to the multilaterists by out-sourcing our national security enabled Iran to weaponize Uranium.

    This is the beginning portion of the transcript of the video link I gave:

    The following are excerpts from an interview withIranian chief negotiator on nuclear affairs, and member of the Iranian Supreme Council for National Security Hosein Musavian, which aired on Iranian Channel 2 on August 4, 2005

    Musavian: Those (in Iran) who criticize us and claim that we should have only worked with the IAEA do not know that at that stage – that is, in August 2003 – we needed another year to complete the Esfahan (UCF) project, so it could be operational. They say that because of that 50-day (ultimatum), we should have kept (the UCF) in Esfahan incomplete, and that we needed to comply with the IAEA’s demands and shut down the facilities.

    The regime adopted a twofold policy here: It worked intensively with the IAEA, and it also conducted negotiations on international and political levels. The IAEA gave us a 50-day extension to suspend the enrichment and all related activities. But thanks to the negotiations with Europe we gained another year, in which we completed (the UCF) in Esfahan.

    […]

    There was a time when we said we would not work with Europe, the world, or the IAEA, and that we would not comply with any of their demands. There were very clear consequences: After 50 days, the IAEA Board of Governors would have undoubtedly handed the Iranian dossier over to the (U.N.) Security Council. There is no doubt about it. As for those who say we should have worked only with the IAEA – this would have meant depriving Iran of the opportunity to complete the Esfahan project in the one-year extension.

    Esfahan’s (UCF) was completed during that year. Even in Natanz, we needed six to twelve months to complete the work on the centrifuges. Within that year, the Natanz project reached a stage where the small number of centrifuges required for the preliminary stage, could operate. In Esfahan, we have reached UF4 and UF6 production stages.

    […]

    We suspended the UCF in Esfahan in October 2004, although we were required to do so in October 2003. If we had suspended it then, (the UCF) in Esfahan would have never been completed. Today we are in a position of power: (The UCF) in Esfahan is complete and UF4 and UF6 gasses are being produced. We have a stockpile of products, and during this period, we have managed to convert 36 tons of Yellow Cake into gas and store it. In Natanz, much of the work has been completed.

    […]

    Thanks to our dealings with Europe, even when we got a 50-day ultimatum, we managed to continue the work for two years. This way we completed (the UCF) in Esfahan. This way we carried out the work to complete Natanz, and on top of that, we even gained benefits. For 10 years, America prevented Iran from joining the WTO. This obstacle was removed, and Iran began talks in order to join the WTO. In the past, the world did not accept Iran as a member of the group of countries with a nuclear fuel cycle. In these two years, and thanks to the Paris Agreement, we entered the international game of the nuclear fuel cycle, and Iran was recognized as one of the countries with a nuclear fuel cycle. An Iranian delegate even participated in the relevant talks. We gained other benefits during these two years as well.

  13. Terrye says:

    crosspatch:

    We also have Iran surrounded. Literally. It is something of a stand off when you think about it.

  14. crosspatch says:

    The problem really isn’t Iran so much as it is the Mahdists such as Ahmadinejad and the mullahs that support the line of thinking surrounding the 12th imam and the second coming of Jesus. They quite literally believe … sincerely believe … that they can precipitate the coming of the 12th imam and Jesus by starting a war with Israel. This is pure religious fanaticism extreme to the point of insanity. You have individuals with the means at their fingertips to “martyr” millions of people over a religious doctrine. We really do need to get rid of that fool. We don’t need a war, really. There is no need for millions to die … only one.

  15. VinceP1974 says:

    >

    2 – Appeasing North Korea

    >See number 1 above. We just do not have the resources to engage in Afghanistan, Iran, and North Korea considering it would likely involved China. I would suspect that China would be in Taiwan the INSTANT we touched North Korea.

    Who said military option is the only other choice than appeasment?

    They’re making fools of us .. making agreements and then breaking them…. AND THEN SOMEHOW CONSTRUCTING NUCLEAR FACILITIES IN SYRIA.

    And no one says a word.. Israel desroyed something there.. but no country will talk about it.

    There’s something very dark going on… and instead of calling NORK on it. we play along with their charade.

    So we’ve guarnteed ourselves a more deadly confrontation in the future.

    We can’t deal with it now? Well we sure aint going to be able to deal with it in teh future either. The longer we wait.. the more of us are going to die.

    >3 – Appeasing the Jihad by rewarding the Jihad by moving forward with the Piece Process in Israel

    >What the heck are you talking about. Short of killing every single Palestinian, at some point you must allow them to have their own government. That is the only possible solution. There is no other way. Anyone who believes otherwise is living in a fantasy world.

    You’re in a fantasy world. You obviously have no understanding of the objectives of the Palestinians and what it would mean stragetically if Israel were to be made into Lebanon.You think the Jihad is hot now.. just wait till think their End Time promises from Allah are unfolding right before their eyes.

    The Palestinians are at war with Israel… YES KILL THEM… KILL THEM.

    Gaza Strip is less than one half the size of the city of chicago.. get some freakin bulldozers and push teh trash into Egypt.

    You are aware they are indoctrinating their youth from birth to want nothing other than to die for Allah’s sake while killing Jews? Every day that goes on, the more hatred you will find in the Arabs Eventually every adult will have grown up with this hitler education.

    Peace process? Piece Process.

    Wars need to be fought through victory.. not ceasefire. Islam is not a culture you make a cease-fire with… you either relentlessly beat it back or it will destroy you.

    Islam spent over 400 YEARS trying to get Constantople.

    And you’re worried about if we’re overextended.

    Our government is a complete failure. All the great news out of Iraq is a fleeting moment because we have not taken care of business comprehensively. We have leg cancer and our success in Iraq is like getting a pedicure.

    >Nuclear War with Iran is pretty much guaranted. And it could have been avoided.
    Really? How? That sounds pretty moronic if you don’t expand on it a little.

    I sound like a moron because you’re ignorant about the intentions of Iran?

    Commandant of Iran’s elite Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, Major General Yahya Rahim Safavi, said on state television. “God willing, the 21st century will see the defeat of the U.S. and the Zionists, and the victory of freedom-seeking nations of the world. The final goal of the [1979] revolution is to create global Islamic rule and a regime of law to be led by the Imam Mahdi”.

    “The [Iranians] President’s chief strategist, Hassan Abbassi, has come up with a war plan based on the premise that “Britain is the mother of all evils” – the evils being America, Australia, New Zealand, Israel, the Gulf states and even Canada, all of whom are the malign progeny of the British Empire. “We have a strategy drawn up for the destruction of Anglo-Saxon civilization,” says Mr Abbassi. “There are 29 sensitive sites in the U.S. and in the West. We have already spied on these sites and we know how we are going to attack them… Once we have defeated the Anglo-Saxons the rest will run for cover.”

    The IRGC chief warned that Iran was seeing through “critical days” and “fate-determining years”. He described the purpose of Iran’s 1979 Islamic revolution as the “Salvation of Muslims” from the hands of the “oppressive U.S. and Israel”.

  16. VinceP1974 says:

    >The problem really isn’t Iran so much as it is the Mahdists such as Ahmadinejad and the mullahs that support the line of thinking surrounding the 12th imam and the second coming of Jesus. They quite literally believe … sincerely believe … that they can precipitate the coming of the 12th imam and Jesus by starting a war with Israel. This is pure religious fanaticism extreme to the point of insanity. You have individuals with the means at their fingertips to “martyr” millions of people over a religious doctrine. We really do need to get rid of that fool. We don’t need a war, really. There is no need for millions to die … only one.

    Left by crosspatch on January 13th, 2008

    yes yes !! that is precisely the reason for my pessimism.

    We’re dealing with complete maniacs who have no notion of humanity and who literally welcome the oppurtunity to kill as many people (ours and theirs) as they can.

  17. kathie says:

    Iran has oil to sell, but all other moneys come through the Gulf States, from Europe and else where, many of their mullahs have money, piles of it in the Gulf States, as well as their military, their special forces. It is one way to cripple their economy if we can stop the transfers. Iranians are increasingly unhappy with their economic circumstances. There is no way we can bomb Iran. Bush has a spine he is also not stupid.

  18. crosspatch says:

    Kathie, I think what you are saying was true a decade ago but not so much anymore. Iran’s greatest export lately is it’s women who are going to work as prostitutes in other countries in the region and sending the money home. Most business capital has fled the country. Any business that can has now moved offshore with most going to Turkey or the Emirates.

    The mullahs do have piles of money as various enterprises are turned over to them and some of them have been putting the money in offshore banks but the government has been increasingly calling that money home. Iranians have lately even taken to selling off their individually owned gold for cash.

    The mullahs also appear to be looting the Iranian government’s gold reserves in foreign countries (such as Switzerland).

    What I think would be an effective way to turn things is to broadcast into Iran daily exactlty how much the government is spending on causing trouble in Iraq and Lebanon. Each day remind the Iranian people how many millions of their money went to doing nothing productive. Once a landmine or a rocket is built, what does it add to the economy? Nothing. Actually, it is worse than nothing because once it is built, someone must be trained to use it and maintain it and that person eats and the maintenance costs money.

  19. kathie says:

    OK, I don’t really know why Bush went to the Gulf States, it was just a guess…….knowing this President, I’m quite sure he is not on a sight seeing tour.

  20. dhunter says:

    Is that really you AJ?
    I had about given up on you as a McCainiac. Yes, Ruddy, Fred or Mitt are the only ones able to take on Herself and win. She would bat McCain around as a cat plays a mouse and his temper would explode blowing him to bits, she would scare the daylights out of 2/3 of the country over the Huckster preacher and religion.

    I think we don’t need that much debate on religion in the political rhelm. My higher power is mine and I’m not sure I want Hucks version if it , if it allows him to turn the dreggs of society loose on the citizenry or tax the hell out of them and lie like a bedwetter about it.