September 21, 2007

Losing Momentum On Retreat

The Senate rejected a bill from Carl Levin and Jack Reed that would have mandated a withdrawal from Iraq in nine months. In a sign that the Democrats have lost the momentum on its retreat policy, the bill garnered five less votes than a similar proposal earlier this summer.

At Heading Right, I take a look at the ramifications of this defeat for the anti-war Democrats. The Democrats thought they had the momentum on the Iraq war. They had ridden a wave of public discontent with the conduct of the war to the brink of shutting it down. Instead of victory on retreat, they have now had to retreat as we win important gains in Iraq. Their short sell on the surge has turned out to be a bad gamble.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/tabhacht.cgi/13522

Comments (52)

Posted by leftnomore | September 21, 2007 12:22 PM

Unfortunately, the only thing Libs are good at fighting for IS defeat-- they'll be back.

Isn't it bizarre that they have become defined as political flatulence... they are only reacting to events, and confuse their verbal gases as substance.

Posted by GarandFan | September 21, 2007 12:37 PM

"they have become defined as political flatulence"

I like that! Has a certain "nuance" to it! :o)

Posted by brooklyn - hnav | September 21, 2007 1:02 PM

So thankful for those who remained strong for this essential, admirable, difficult endeavor to bring Freedom and needed change to the Iraqi People and the Middle East.

We knew long before 9-11, the Arab Region was in need of a sincere intervention.

The mission to liberate the formerly oppressed Iraqi People is worthy, building a new Ally in the GWOT which separates Iran and Syria.

South Korea, Japan, formerly West Germany, etc., etc., are prime examples of the value in empowering Democracies for stability, prosperity, peace, potential, in the USA's interest and the future of the World.

It is never easy, nothing worthwhile is...

But we have begun to crack some light in the troubled Arab World, proving our humanitarian, dedicated, just intent.

Thankful for a very impressive, resolved, ethical President, who experienced endless undermining and slander, against overt amounts of pressure, has fought for a noble cause.

Few would have the guts these days to have even used force to remove the Taliban from Power, even less to remove a monstrous Dictator named Saddam.

Our US ARMED FORCES deserve a wealth of praise for their professional bravery, and brilliant strength.

Osama, like minded Muslim Militants, and a number of ambitious Despots will no longer underestimate the wonderful USA.

This mighty Democracy, has done well after 9-11, to live up to it's hard earned, commendable reputation, and continues to bring essential light to this Planet.

Thanks to all, who opposed the self serving few, the dishonest manipulators, the bigoted liberal partisans, trying to sink the hopes of Millions seeking Freedom.

Posted by Scott Malensek | September 21, 2007 1:03 PM

They will not be back.

As Iowa and New Hampshire approach, and ESPECIALLY as Uber Tuesday approaches in Feb, Democrats running for President will no longer support or advocate cutting funds or restricting the deployment ability of a President....lest they inherit tied hands.

The debate over going to war and invading Iraq is over; Iraq's been invaded

The debate over cutting and running is over; Democrats don't dare risk cutting and running lest they inherit the consequences in 2009.

MoveOn, Code Pink, ANSWER, MSNBC, etc., all need to realize that the war's momentum is beyond their influence now; there's no more space on the calender for a timeline that involves a three step process:

cutting funds
withdrawing troops
letting Iraq collapse before Nov 08.

That just doesn't fit in 12-13 months. What do protesters expect can happen? Cut funds in Oct, withdraw troops (takes 6-9 months), and then when American troops come home during those primaries....do Dems declare America was defeated while US forces come home, or do they declare success and suggest parades? They'd have to come into the open and demonstrate that victory for the DNC is defeat for the US.

And even IF the Dems managed to paint lipstick on that pig, they'd have to hope and pray that all the estimates and claims from everyone that Iraq would collapse or a regional war or genocide would follow a premature evacuation would somehow not happen for if they did...then the press at election time in Nov would be, "[insert Dem nominee namehere] given the genocide in Iraq and the regional shia sunni Mid East war, were you wrong to advocate a premature evacuation from Iraq and will you as President send troops in for a 3rd invasion?" MSM won't ask it, but sooner or later someone would as the body count grew on TV. Nah, can't paint lipstick on that pig either.

The people who could have made that happen [cut funds, get troops home, make consequences of withdrawal look like W's fault], didn't have the political courage to do it, and now...they are looking into the abyss, and asking someone else to step forward first while seeking ways to claim glory, honor, respect, power, and position all without an iota of accountability or responsibility.

Posted by NoDonkey | September 21, 2007 1:23 PM

You never win betting against America.

It's sad that they absolutely worthless Democrat Party consistently bets against our country and hopes that it loses, but there it is.

Posted by richard mcenroe | September 21, 2007 1:55 PM

Copperheads: the party of slavery, secession, segregation and surrender never changes.

Posted by Justrand | September 21, 2007 1:58 PM

Momentum is a powerful thing.

When the momentum was going WITH CodePink, the Demoncrats and alQueda the average Iraqi was (sadly but rightfully) afraid to work WITH us. So actively or passively they worked AGAINST us.

The momentum now makes it advatageous for the average Iraqi to work WITH us...and they are. This is breeding success that makes it harder for the Democrats to "Cut & Run" (TM), which further encourages the Iraqis.

If (and it remains "if") the trend continues as it is (or even accelerates), then the success in Iraq will be un-mistakable and un-maskable!

as NoDonkey says above: "You never win betting against America"

Posted by rbj | September 21, 2007 1:59 PM

So they're retreating from retreat, or defeated on defeat? Lost on losing?

Posted by KauaiBoy | September 21, 2007 2:08 PM

Now its time to clean up the mess that is called Congress. Despots like Durbin, Reid, Kerry, Biden, Clinton, Pelosi etc etc and their friends in the MSM need to be held accountable for their war crimes in aiding and abetting the insurgency. Send the troops there next, round them up and then give them the most expedient military trials and hangings they deserve. We have not forgotten 9-11 nor will we forget the post 9-11 chaos these cretins have created. Had they not listened to their foreign handlers and the victims of BDS, we would have achieved progress faster and probably could have reduced the number of casualties sustained. Those SOBs don't deserve to breathe the air of freedom.

Posted by Tom W. | September 21, 2007 2:42 PM

Reflect a moment on the fact that our troops are not only fighting what amount to demons walking the earth, but they're doing it in 130-degree temperatures, while being attacked mercilessly by their country's media and half of their country's politicians, and with only tepid support from their fickle countrymen. And they keep re-enlisting.

These people are the best of us. If you have a high-speed internet connection, go to YouTube and look up "Dancing Marines," "Move It," and "I Got the Power."

You'll see three stunning troop-produced videos of our service members dancing in Iraq, evidence that their enemies foreign and domestic haven't broken their spirit.

Hoo-ah. Oo-rah. (I don't know the battle cries of the navy, air force, and coast guard.)

Posted by AnonymousDrivel | September 21, 2007 2:54 PM

CE at HeadingRight:

Reid now wants to recast these defeats as victories, in the same way that he wants to treat surrender as a win for his party. He says that the Republicans now "own the war," as if the Democrats ever took responsibility for it before now. They still have yet to try defunding the war, the one Constitutional method open to them. If anything, the failure to address the war through the one legal path open to them gives them more responsibility for its continuance than at any time before their majority control of Congress.

Grade "A" insight, Ed. As succinctly and eloquently summarized as can be found.

Posted by chsw | September 21, 2007 3:03 PM

The discontent in the country might be because this administration has fought this war on the cheap. If the USA were truly war-mobilized, there would be millions of troops deployed to fight the terror-sponsoring Islamofascist states and organizations.

chsw

Posted by docjim505 | September 21, 2007 3:18 PM

Cap'n Ed: The Democrats thought they had the momentum on the Iraq war. They had ridden a wave of public discontent with the conduct of the war to the brink of shutting it down. Instead of victory on retreat, they have now had to retreat as we win important gains in Iraq. Their short sell on the surge has turned out to be a bad gamble.

But who will hold them responsible? Answer: nobody. The anti-war left is not so much "anti-war" as they are "anti-Bush"; opposing the war is simply a childish, destructive and treasonous way to oppose a man that they hate. Oh, the real anti-war loonies aren't going to go away; they like being on the news as much as any senator or congressman. I'm sure that there will continue to be protests and so forth. But the money will still flow into the coffers of the filthy democrat party and, when it comes time for elections, the loonies will trip the (D) lever despite the fact that their leadership has constantly lost to Bush and NOT stopped the war.

They simply have nowhere else to go.

Posted by exhelodrvr | September 21, 2007 3:19 PM

rbj,
Maybe they have given up on giving up.

Posted by Angry Dumbo | September 21, 2007 3:22 PM

The Dems and the MSM protest too much when they condemn Akmadinejad for being "radical" and condemn Chavez for calling President Bush the "devil." From Moore to Churchill to O'Donnell to Chavez to Akmadinejad to Kennedy to Boxer to Durbin to Obama to Clinton. The circle closes too fast. Hard to call the enemy crazy when the enemy is stealing your talking points. : ))

Posted by Del Dolemonte | September 21, 2007 3:38 PM

KauaiBoy said:

"Now its time to clean up the mess that is called Congress. Despots like Durbin, Reid, Kerry, Biden, Clinton, Pelosi etc etc and their friends in the MSM need to be held accountable for their war crimes in aiding and abetting the insurgency."

Don't leave out the saddest case of all, namely your own Daniel Inouye. The fact that a true war hero (Dan lost an arm in WW2 fighting with the famous 442nd Division) has now descended into utter madness due to his BDS is painful to watch.

Of course, Dan had already jumped the shark a few years ago, when he teamed with Maxine Waters and the gals to protest the Electoral College's certification of Bush in 2000.

Posted by Teresa | September 21, 2007 3:39 PM

How about this treasonous speech on the floor of the Senate? Shouldn't this senator be tried for war crimes and hung?:

There is no reason for the United States of America to remain in Iraq. The American people want them home, I believe the majority of Congress wants them home, and to set an artificial date of March 31 or even February 1, in my view, is not acceptable. The criteria should be to bring them home as rapidly and safely as possible, an evolution which I think could be completed in a matter of weeks.

Our continued military presence in Iraq allows another situation to arise which could then lead to the wounding, killing or capture of American fighting men and women. We should do all in our power to avoid that.

I listened carefully to the President's remarks at a news conference that he held earlier today. I heard nothing in his discussion of the issue that would persuade me that further U.S. military involvement in the area is necessary. In fact, his remarks have persuaded me more profoundly that we should leave and leave soon.

Dates certain, Mr. President, are not the criteria here. What is the criteria and what should be the criteria is our immediate, orderly withdrawal from Iraq. And if we do not do that and other Americans die, other Americans are wounded, other Americans are captured because we stay too long--longer than necessary--then I would say that the responsibilities for that lie with the Congress of the United States who did not exercise their authority under the Constitution of the United States and mandate that they be brought home quickly and safely as possible. . . .

I know that this debate is going to go on this afternoon and I have a lot more to say, but the argument that somehow the United States would suffer a loss to our prestige and our viability, as far as the No. 1 superpower in the world, I think is baloney. The fact is, we won the cold war. The fact is, we won the Persian Gulf conflict. And the fact is that the United States is still the only major world superpower.

I can tell you what will erode our prestige. I can tell you what will hurt our viability as the world's superpower, and that is if we enmesh ourselves in a drawn-out situation which entails the loss of American lives, more debacles like the one we saw with the failed mission to capture Aideed's lieutenants, using American forces, and that then will be what hurts our prestige.

I, along with many others, will have an amendment that says exactly that. It does not give any date certain. It does not say anything about any other missions that the United States may need or feels it needs to carry out. It will say that we should get out as rapidly and orderly as possible.


-------------
Oh wait, you need to substitute the word Somalia for Iraq because John McCain gave this speech in 1993 when Clinton was president. As usual with conservatives, treason is always relative.

Posted by Teresa | September 21, 2007 3:44 PM

BTW, I like how everyone rightfully talked about how horrible Stalin was in a previous thread, but KauiBoy is applauded here for saying:

Despots like Durbin, Reid, Kerry, Biden, Clinton, Pelosi etc etc and their friends in the MSM need to be held accountable for their war crimes in aiding and abetting the insurgency. Send the troops there next, round them up and then give them the most expedient military trials and hangings they deserve.

-------------------

Ironic isn't it? You want to say that America is albout preserving liberty, but elected officials who have the temerity to actually question the way this was has been run (and very badly run for years) are accused of being war criminals. Some of you would have felt very much at home in Stalinist Russia.

Posted by sherlock | September 21, 2007 3:51 PM

"As usual with conservatives, treason is always relative."

Okay, Teresa, you win! I vote we shoot that opportunistic media-whore "Maverick" McCain too!

There.

Posted by Teresa | September 21, 2007 3:58 PM

Well, Sherlock, you'll have to shoot Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Jesse Helms (too late), Bob Dole and a whole bunch of other winger media whores who gave similar speeches on Somalia.

But, you go right on and do that.

Posted by ordi | September 21, 2007 4:09 PM

We thought the Dems have acccted razed sine GW won the 2000 election

Anyone care to guess how they will act if what appears to be happening in Iraq is completed?

And while Teresa is quoting Mccain, I think I will too.

"We beat you yesterday, we beat you today, and we'll beat you tomorrow. We don't choose to lose."

Posted by KauaiBoy | September 21, 2007 4:25 PM

Del Dolemonte---Hawaii is quite an interesting case; a welfare state that depends on military spending to survive yet elects a Republican governor and democratic congressmen and state reps. The voters are just being nice to the two Dans in continually reelecting them (respect for the elderly I guess).

Teresa----I have no political favorites and see no real differences at the end of the day with the current elected elite. However, there is a line between responsible dissent/constructive criticism and speech that harms our national interests. Your friends have been way over that line for quite some time and clearly only for their own political ambitions. And what exactly were Clinton's goals in Somalia? Other than to deflect criticism from his philandering.

Posted by AnonymousDrivel | September 21, 2007 4:35 PM

RE: Teresa (September 21, 2007 3:39 PM)

I listened carefully to the President's remarks at a news conference that he held earlier today. I heard nothing in his discussion of the issue that would persuade me that further U.S. military involvement in the area is necessary. In fact, his remarks have persuaded me more profoundly that we should leave and leave soon.

This is a key, if not the key, distinction between action in Iraq and Somalia. Somalia was basically a humanitarian intervention that was "unwelcomed" by a resident regime that was able to thwart our undersupported soldiers. Humanitarian action alone is insufficient reason to many, including me, to exert the full breadth of our influence on foreign shores. What differentiated Somalia and Iraq was Iraq's strategic importance in the ME, Saddam's numerous violations of U.N. sanctions and treaty that ended the Gulf War, the potential for WMD reconstitution in an age of terrorism and crumbling sanctions regime, and the humanitarian crisis and genocide consequential to Saddam's and Baathist barbarity. Equating Somalia to Iraq both in importance and scope, particularly considering the timeline of 9/11 and its impact on the geopolitical decision tree, is erroneous. To suggest that our response should have been uniform either way demands that we ignore context.

If Clinton had supported deposing Saddam before 9/11 and in response to Saddam's assault on the Kurds, I'd have supported him, and that decision would have been based on more than just humanitarian reflex.

McCain et al's position at the time was entirely justified and rational. Had we understood the implications of bugging out early and the signal it sent to Al Qaeda, I'd be more understanding and receptive to the critique of McCain's point of view. History shows that none of us had the crystal ball to predict the fallout. History should now show and prove to be the crystal ball that insists we not repeat premature withdrawal, that we provide troops with any and all support, and that we not undermine those who best appreciate the situation on the ground. It seems to me that way too much of the Democrat aisle would once again ignore the crystal ball and almost welcome a Somalian retreat writ large if it would enhance their political standing. Is that treason? Technically, no, but it's pretty damn close. Let's just settle on detestable.

Posted by Teresa | September 21, 2007 4:37 PM

KauaiBoy -- Without the Democrats criticizing this war Rumsfeld would still be in charge. Do you think that would be a good idea?

I don't have any friends in Move On, but I think you don't have to look very far through these comments to find "dissent that harms our national interests" if you think that accusing anyone who disagrees with Bush a "war criminal" who should be "hung."

I think you should ask Republicans what we were doing in Somalia since they all now BLAME Clinton for pulling out and insist that this was the beginning of the rise of Osama bin Laden. Clinton was damned either way -- criticized then for staying, criticized now for pulling out.

Posted by docjim505 | September 21, 2007 4:38 PM

Teresa,

1. I'm not a big fan of John McCain. McCain-Feingold in a stench in the nostrils of anybody who values the Constitution, and I despise him for his role in the Gang of Fourteen.

2. Therefore, it's not especially surprising to me that he would say such a lamebrained thing as the speech that you cited.

3. We know from bin Laden's own statements that our ignominious retreat from Somalia convinced him that we are a paper tiger that can be cowed by inflicting a few casualties on us. The left is bound and determined to prove him right in Iraq.

4. Unlike libs, we conservatives don't go into a zombie-like swoon when one of our own speaks. McCain has no special hold on me just because he happens to have an (R) after his name on a ballot.

I'd like to note that we Republicans are often accused - even by each other - of "eating our own". I have been HIGHLY critical of certain Republicans on various issues, including President Bush on amnesty and keeping that moron Gonzales at DoJ. Democrats, on the other hand, NEVER criticize each other. The only exception is Joe Lieberman, who committed the unforgivable sin of agreeing with George Bush. Yet, we're the party of rigid ideologues who never allow dissent???

5. There is a difference between free speech and preaching sedition. I have yet to hear a single helpful suggestion from any of the Benedict Arnolds on the left about how to WIN the war in Iraq; they've wanted to cut 'n' run practically since Day One. Hence, in my view, their statements aren't helpful criticism / free speech: they are little more than the defeatist propaganda of modern day, American quislings. The left has made of themselves the unpaid propaganda arm of al Qaeda. Please note the strong resemblence between recent speeches by (for example) Harry Reid and John al-Murtha, and the videotaped "addresses" by bin Laden and Zawahiri.

By the way: I note that, on other threads, you've written that you think we should try to win in Iraq. Your reason seems to be less because you have any interest in fostering democracy there and more because you think that "we broke it, we bought it", but I'll take what I can get. Therefore, wouldn't you say that you are more aligned with George Bush (who wants to win, no matter how badly you think that he's going about it) than Dingy Harry, SanFran Nan, al-Murtha, Jon Kary, or the other leaders of the left? In '08, will you be tripping the lever for the candidate (if there is one) who wants to win in Iraq, or the one who promises to bring the boys home ASAP no matter what the result in Iraq?

Posted by Teresa | September 21, 2007 4:43 PM

AnonymousDrivel -- I actually offered McCain's speech NOT as a criticism of his position, but as an example of US Senators questioning a "commander in chief" during wartime. No one then called McCain or any of the other Republicans who wanted to pull troops out of Somalia a traitor for having a different idea about how US troops should be deployed. (The same things were said about us going to Bosnia.)

And I'm just guessing, but if Hillary wins the election and deploys troops somewhere that the Right doesn't think is the best they will feel free to criticize her.

Just because someone is President, doesn't make them immune from criticism. The is the very definition of a Stalinist state -- no dissent is allowed.

(For the record, I thought that the Move On ad was ridiculous, but I believe it is fair to ask Petraeus questions about his casulty figures, future plans, etc...)

Posted by Teresa | September 21, 2007 4:48 PM

docjim505 -- Don't you think Chuck Hagel is the equivalent of your Leiberman? I sure have heard him disparaged all over conservative websites for changing his position on the war and Redstate was trying to find a primary challenger to go up against him before he decided to retire.

Also, I think Joe Biden has offered a number of good suggestions for containing the violence in Iraq. I would say that most Dems believe we "won" when we toppled Saddam. We are not handling the occupation very well and they think the US presence is aggravating the situation there. That is a defensible position. I don't agree with it, but it is certainly not unreasonable.

Posted by unclesmrgol | September 21, 2007 4:56 PM

Teresa,

Few of us here think that, once we went in to Somalia, we should have gotten out before the mission was accomplished. When McCain spoke, he wasn't speaking for me; the mission was obvious, and our withdrawal was one of the things that led to the recent troubles there.

Your point about Clinton is cute. He didn't know when to withdraw and when not to withdraw. He was totally fixated on the moment, not the long term effects of his actions.

I much prefer the current President, who is not bending under the contrary winds of public opinion.

Posted by Scott Malensek | September 21, 2007 4:58 PM

Posted by rbj, "So they're retreating from retreat, or defeated on defeat? Lost on losing?"

Noooooooooooooo,

They're "redeploying" from retreat

Posted by DaveP. | September 21, 2007 5:10 PM

There is a profound difference between "questioning a commander-in-chief during wartime" and working for the good of the enemy, and for purely partizan reasons. Everyone but Democrats seems to recognize this.
It is possible to offer constructive criticism that IMPROVES the chances of victory, and to offer it in a polite and adult tone of voice. Everyone except the Democrats seems to recognize this.
People like MoveOn and their fellow-travelers, however, would RATHER see this war lost- and all of the horrifying consequences that follow- than see the Democratic Party lose an election. Once that fact is recognized all of their subsequent behavior becomes clear.

Posted by Nate | September 21, 2007 5:11 PM

A Republican and a Democrat are walking down a sidewalk together. Suddenly an Islamofascist shouts "Alahu Akbar!" and tries to kill them both. The Republican starts fighting him off.

The Democrat stands there flapping his arms and yelling at the Republican that he's doing it wrong. The Republican, seeing no options, ignores the bitching Democrat and continues fighting for both of their lives. The Democrat simply can not stand being ignored and goes into a fit of apoplectic rage, steadfastly refusing to help the Republican, and patting himself on the back for his brave and principled stance on the issue.

The Islamofascist takes heart at the Democrat's attitude toward the whole affair and redoubles his efforts. The fight takes a long time, but eventually the Republican starts to get the upper hand. The Democrat is worried about the Republican's potential victory because he won't get any credit for it. He ponders what to do....

Posted by Teresa | September 21, 2007 5:14 PM

unclesmrgol -- McCain was not the only Republican to demand withdrawal from Somalia. It was the general sentiment of all the Republicans at the time. I'm not sure I want to take the word of mad man (Bin Laden) on what got them worked up. Frankly, if it wasn't Somalia it would have been one thing or another. There were decent arguments to be made on either side of the case at the time -- as there are today.

At any rate, I'm dropping out of the argument for awhile. Hubby just called to say he was on his way home and taking me and the kids out for dinner. Yeah!

Posted by leftnomore | September 21, 2007 5:20 PM

Teresa-- whoever you are-- you are not READING the comments. You are off on a leftist tangent, just like the kind I read here all of the time by trolls. Did anyone in this section say we don't critisize GW?? For krissakes, actually READ read the comments before responding.

Out.

Posted by Del Dolemonte | September 21, 2007 5:31 PM

KauaiBoy said:

"Del Dolemonte---Hawaii is quite an interesting case; a welfare state that depends on military spending to survive yet elects a Republican governor and democratic congressmen and state reps. The voters are just being nice to the two Dans in continually reelecting them (respect for the elderly I guess). "

Yeah, I know all about it-I lived in Kailua (the one on Oahu) starting when Inouye was first elected right after Statehood. When I went back 40 years later for a visit, they hadn't even fixed the ceilings in my old elementary school. They're almost as bad as the folks in Teddy Kennedy-land.

Posted by KauaiBoy | September 21, 2007 5:51 PM

Teresa has children---God help us all!!!! What is the number for DYFS in trollland.

Posted by shmopot | September 21, 2007 5:52 PM

KauaiBoy says...
"Now its time to clean up the mess that is called Congress. Despots like Durbin, Reid, Kerry, Biden, Clinton, Pelosi etc etc"

One of those et ceteras is Sen Russ Feingold (WI), the only senator to vote against the Patriot Act. Past few days he has refused to condemn the Moveon.org ad and teamed with Reid to try again to force a timed troop withdrawl. Feingold has gotten a polite pass by WI voters for far too long. He needs closer scutiny by the Right blogsphere.

Posted by docjim505 | September 21, 2007 6:00 PM

Teresa: I think Joe Biden has offered a number of good suggestions for containing the violence in Iraq.

Is that a joke? Biden's only "suggestion" that I'm aware of is his idea to partition Iraq. Brilliant. Ask the Turks what they would think of (or, more to the point, do TO) an independent Kurdistan. Ask the good senator why a majority Shiia state wouldn't naturally gravitate right to their coreligionists, the Iranians (his answer would be especially interesting in light of the fact that a number of lefties criticize our current effort because they think we're on the road to establishing a Shiia-dominated theocracy... that will gravitate right to their coreligionists, the Iranians. And who would get the oil money?

But whatever his answer, do a thorough google search to make sure he didn't plagiarize it from somebody else. I'd check the islamofascist websites first.

Teresa: We are not handling the occupation very well and they think the US presence is aggravating the situation there. That is a defensible position. I don't agree with it, but it is certainly not unreasonable.

If the dems' position ended there, I would agree with you that it's a defensible position. As a matter of fact, there are people on the right (including many who regularly post here) who would agree that we often haven't handled the occupation very well. The difference is, of course, that they advocate STRONGER measures because they want to WIN. The left's attitude is, "We're not handling the occupation well. QUAGMIRE! We gotta get out now!" They like to say that the war is making us less safe, and sneer because GEN Petraeus answered "I don't know" when Sen. Warner asked him if the war was making us safer. Here's the problem: by what objective criteria do they say that the war is making us "less safe"? The fact of the matter is that this is an opinion, and, given that it comes from lefties, is an ignorant opinion. Are the terrorists still out there? Yep. Will the try to attack us at home again? Almost certainly. But I figure that every one of those mother fuckers who's taking a dirt nap in Tikrit or Fallujah or Baghdad is one less who will try to blow up Americans in Nairobi or Hamburg or New York City. I wonder if 9-11 would ever have happened had we been in Iraq or A-stan at the time? Or would Atta and his murderous band have died trying to blow up a patrol from the 101st... or a group of women and children in a marketplace in Kabul or Baghdad?

Liberal contrarianism can easily be seen with a brief review of their positions on troop levels. Before the surge, the call was "more boots on the ground" (when they weren't calling for outright withdrawal, that is); Bush "didn't listen to the generals" and wasn't sending enough men to stabilize Iraq. Now that the surge is underway and Bush IS putting "more boots on the ground", it's "we're stretching the Army too thin" (and we gotta withdraw). Petraeus, one of the generals who Bush was presumably ignoring before, is painted as a partisan hack and a liar whom NOBODY should listen to. It boils down to this: if Bush wants to do it, the libs will oppose it.

Again, libs never offer an iota of helpful criticism, just defeatism. I would also add that lib comments are generally accompanied by (1) gleeful predictions that the GOP will be trounced in '08 (and I thought libs were only concerned for the troops!) and (2) recitations of everything that George Bush has done wrong or is alleged to have done wrong since he "stole" the election in 2000. As I've written before, opposing the war ISN'T about anything for the libs but hatred of Bush. He's fighting the war and wants to win, so they oppose it. This is a childish, selfish, and destructive attitude. I also think that it is treasonous as it undermines our country while giving encouragment to the enemy. Imagine somebody in 1943 making the same kind of comments about FDR and "his" war as the left routinely makes about "his" war today. Think they would have been given a pass?

People can hate Bush all they want; it's a free country. They can call him a dirty sheep herding(*) son of a bitch and sell their children for medical experiments to donate the money to moveon.org as far as I'm concerned. But when they push for American defeat and humiliation, I've got a real serious problem with them and start to wonder how they'd look decorating the nearest gallows tree.

Teresa: Don't you think Chuck Hagel is the equivalent of your Leiberman?

Not a bad point. Many Republicans (including me) don't like him because he's been the MSM's "go to guy" when they need a Republican to criticize the war so that surrender appears to have bipartisan support. Lately, he's been joined by Sen. Warner, who must be entering his dotage. I'm glad that both these two clowns are retiring; good riddance (I wish they could convince the other 532 wardheelers to join them).

That being said, I'm not aware of quite the level of hatred being aimed at Hagel as was aimed at Lieberman. Any pics of Hagel in blackface? Has Republican / conservative hatred of Hagel become a national news story that I somehow missed? Has there been a huge national campaign to mount a primary challenge to that stupid SOB that I don't know about?

Oh, wait. Sorry. Hagel served in Vietnam, so I'm not allowed to say anything bad about him, am I?

---------

(*) A term I normally don't use as it upsets my sheepdog.

Posted by Terry Gain | September 21, 2007 6:01 PM

The discontent in the country might be because this administration has fought this war on the cheap.

And the country would have supported a "richer war"? Dream on. Your post is total bs. You go to war with the country you have and while the best of America and the best of the best - those risking their lives for the freedom of others- are the best in the whole wide world, the following are a big part of America. They have blunted the efficacy of the best of the best with their constant encouragement of the enemy throughout:

The Clintons (both of them) Soros, Kennedy, Hagel (a Republican yet who brainlessly protested that the Surge- the last chance for victory- was the most strategic mistake in the history of the United States- a quote that should live in infamy) Heinz and her husband Heinz-Kerry, Reid, Pelosi, Durbin, Feingold, Schuman, Leahy, Santorum (a weak minded Republican who was against the Surge and in favor of Webb's attempted weakening of the Surge) Carter,Gore ...etc etc etc.

Moore, Meyer, Stewart, Baldwin, Kos, Code Pink, Marshall, Sullivan ... etc etc etc,

and last but not least NYT, WP, LAT, NBC, MSNBC, CNN etc etc etc (and even O'Reilly who kept telling us again and again that Iraq was a mess. Yes it was but not nearly as big a mess as the U.S. Congress, and all of the above.

Sorry Teresa and Bayam. Though ever annoying you don't make the grade.

Posted by Bennett | September 21, 2007 6:19 PM

"Few of us here think that, once we went in to Somalia, we should have gotten out before the mission was accomplished."

What exactly was the mission? As I understood it, we started out under the first President Bush providing security for food shipments (pursuant to some UN resolution); under Clinton, the mission was expanded essentially to encompass nation building (again under a UN resolution) but with a relatively small international force (28,000) to carry out security and peace-keeping missions throughout the country.

Since the second mission would have first required a major pacification effort, there is no way 28,000 troops would ever be enough. It is also unlikely that the participating countries would have been willing to increase that number significantly enough to make a difference.

After the death of 18 American soldiers (and many more wounded), Clinton had to make a decision: either ramp up the number of troops from our country, try to talk the other countries into doing the same or get out.

To accomplish an escalation, he would have had to explain why it mattered and how it could be accomplished. He chose not to do that. Perhaps he wouldn't have been successful in any event.

I see little comparison between McCain and his opposition to our troop presence in Somalia --where there was no progress and no ability to effect any progress given existing conditions-- with the current Democratic senators' efforts to achieve a withdrawal from Iraq--where there is progress and an ability to make even more. And where we have a President who is at least trying to make the case for our continued efforts there. Something Bill Clinton chose not to do about Somalia.


Posted by jr565 | September 21, 2007 6:23 PM

Nate wrote:
The Democrat stands there flapping his arms and yelling at the Republican that he's doing it wrong. The Republican, seeing no options, ignores the bitching Democrat and continues fighting for both of their lives. The Democrat simply can not stand being ignored and goes into a fit of apoplectic rage, steadfastly refusing to help the Republican, and patting himself on the back for his brave and principled stance on the issue.
Don't forget where the Democrat says the republican could never win that the jihadist is just too strong while he's pounding on the conservative; that at any rate the republican probably had it coming because of something that occured ten years ago that the jihadist was mad about; that the democrat also goes out of his way to actively impede the republican from even punching the jihadist including saying the conservative is hitting too hard, isn't hitting hard enough, that you're hitting the wrong guy, and should be hitting the other guy, telling the jihadist where the conservatives punches are going to be and what the plan of attack is, and even grabbing the conservatives arms while he's trying to punch the jihadist. Of course he'd get involved in the fight, except this fight is illegitimate. If the republican would just run away and fight the jihadist in a more suitable place then he'd get involved.
And of course he's doing this all because he's the republicans "friend". Because critisism is the highest form of friendship

Posted by Captain Ed | September 21, 2007 6:47 PM

Teresa's moving goalposts again:

I actually offered McCain's speech NOT as a criticism of his position, but as an example of US Senators questioning a "commander in chief" during wartime.

That's not what MoveOn did, and that's not what the 25 Senators endorsed. MoveOn called a military commander a traitor; it didn't "question" a CinC during wartime.

Big difference.

Posted by SteveJ | September 21, 2007 7:27 PM

You can't be defeated when you don't have a mission.

The Congressional Republicans have until the beginning of November to throw the Bush out with the bathwater.

Should they choose to do so, it would be a reason for me to vote Republican in the Senatorial and Congressional races.

It does not look like I will vote Republican for the Presidency other than to write in Ron Paul.

If you think I represent a small percentage of Conservatives in the Republican Party, you are out of your minds!

Posted by MarkJ | September 21, 2007 8:16 PM

Dear SteveJ,

Important safety tip: You really shouldn't have mentioned Ron Paul at the end of your post because that alone immediately discredited everything else you wrote.

Forget about it: Ron Paul must not, can not, should not, and will not be President. Surrender, come to the Dark Side, and you will be well treated (we have a great 401k plan as well as full dental coverage!).

Posted by Teresa | September 21, 2007 8:25 PM

KauiBoy writes: Teresa has children---God help us all!!!! What is the number for DYFS in trollland.

--------------------------

By coincidence, I actually worked at DSS in SC for ten years doing child abuse investigations before I became a stay at home mom a few years ago, so no luck there -- I still have friends at the agency!:) Lord knows, if we soft hearted lefties didn't do that kind of work, no one else would.

Cap Ed -- As far as moving goalposts, if you read back I have always said Move On was wrong. I was responding to Kauai Boy's suggestion that :

"Despots like Durbin, Reid, Kerry, Biden, Clinton, Pelosi etc and their friends in the MSM need to be held accountable for their war crimes in aiding and abetting the insurgency. Send the troops there next, round them up and then give them the most expedient military trials and hangings they deserve."

That is the sort of over the top, Stalinist rhetoric that I think is wrong. Both the Dems and the Republicans have criticized war efforts in the past when the opposing party has been in charge. The Republicans (McCain, Hutchinson, Helms, et al) had no problem walking on the floor of the senate and advocating withdrawal from Somalia. Nor should they have. That is part of being in a democracy.

KauiBoy clearly wasn't just talking about Clinton, Biden, et al's response to the MoveOn ad, but all of their questions regarding the conduct of the war.

Unless, you want to make some news here and support the sentiment that Biden, Clinton etc.. ought to be hung as war criminals? I'm sure people like Howard Kurtz would be interested to hear that.

Posted by Teresa | September 21, 2007 8:37 PM

DocJim writes:

"People can hate Bush all they want; it's a free country. They can call him a dirty sheep herding(*) son of a bitch and sell their children for medical experiments to donate the money to moveon.org as far as I'm concerned. But when they push for American defeat and humiliation, I've got a real serious problem with them and start to wonder how they'd look decorating the nearest gallows tree."

First off, I'm not sure anyone I know wants "American defeat and humiliation." There are a lot of people who felt before the war started that it was a bad idea, that we should not go, and that it was likely to lead to a quagmire. (I was one of them.) For four years under Rumsfeld, we saw Iraq go from bad to worse all the while being told by people like Bush and Cheney that the "insurgents are in their last throes" and "mission accomplished." I think those people could argue that by going into Iraq woefully unprepared and undermanned that Bush & Cheney wanted "American defeat & humiliation." There were plenty of experienced folks telling them they were wrong to do Iraq on the cheap. So, I think we can forgive people for being a mite skeptical that things have suddenly become much, much better. It is not that they want America to "lose", but that they feel there is no way to "win" and that anyway "winning" seems to have constantly shifting definitions from the Bush administration.

As far as the Hagel/Leiberman comparison, for one thing, it was the RIGHT and the MSM pushing the story of poor, poor Joe Leiberman being abandoned by his party. If Hagel ran again, you would definately see a primary challenge. And so what? Do senators have the right to stay in office forever without being responsive to their constituents? I live in SC and you should hear the local right wing talk show hosts talking every day about how Lindsey Graham should be tossed out of office for supporting the "amnesty" bill. Rush Limbaugh calls him "Gramnasty" every other day. Constituents have the right to elect people who will represent what they want done. Graham will probably lose his seat in the next election. Is that fair?

Posted by SteveJ | September 21, 2007 8:47 PM

MarcJ

Ha!

I may decide on some other protest vote at the Presidential level.

But there seems to be a belief that Conservatives will vote Republican even if they aren't thrilled with the choices.

THAT IS NOT THE CASE

The problem is neocons and not Conservatives, are running the Republican Party's foreign policy. And as long as the Republicans maintain 40 seats in the Senate, I am not particulalry worried about punishing the party until it throws out the neocons.

And like I said before, I represent the feelings of a high percentage of Conservatives in the Republican Party.

The Congressional Republicans have very little time left to alter their subservience to Bush or face the consequences.

Posted by Eric | September 21, 2007 9:55 PM

Some great Americans once said:

“This mighty Democracy, has done well after 9-11, to live up to it's hard earned, commendable reputation, and continues to bring essential light to this Planet. Thanks to all, who opposed the self serving few, the dishonest manipulators, the bigoted liberal partisans, trying to sink the hopes of Millions seeking Freedom.” -Broklyn-hnav.

"You never win betting against America"-NoDonkey

“So they're retreating from retreat, or defeated on defeat? Lost on losing?”-Rbj

“The people who could have made that happen [cut funds, get troops home, make consequences of withdrawal look like W's fault], didn't have the political courage to do it, and now...they are looking into the abyss, and asking someone else to step forward first…”- Scott Malensek

“Had they not listened to their foreign handlers and the victims of BDS, we would have achieved progress faster and probably could have reduced the number of casualties sustained. Those SOBs don't deserve to breathe the air of freedom.” – KauaiBoy

“The anti-war left is not so much "anti-war" as they are "anti-Bush"; opposing the war is simply a childish, destructive and treasonous way to oppose a man that they hate. “ – Docjim505

“Maybe they have given up on giving up.” –exhelodvre

"We beat you yesterday, we beat you today, and we'll beat you tomorrow. We don't choose to lose." –John McCain via ordi


In reading these post, I feel like I’m reading from the memoirs of great American thinkers like our founding fathers. The others…not so much. Teresa, you don’t have a clue. You’re just pathologically wrong and you’re completely outclassed on this forum.

Posted by SteveJ | September 21, 2007 10:28 PM

Eric

You do bring up a good point that liberal arguments on this matter are not very substantive. They hate Bush.

But real Conservatives never signed on to the neocon drivel. And neither, might I add, would any of the Founding Fathers.

Posted by Rose | September 22, 2007 12:48 AM

It could not EVER have taken a political genius to figure out that what America was upset about was the GOP letting the DIMS attack our soldiers from the REAR as they did in Vietnam!

A pox on BOTH their houses. And double for the RINOS!

I'm really really proud of President Bush for taking up for General Petraeus so beautifully, this week!

NOW if we can just get the INTERIOR DEPT's attention on this STUPID ISLAMOFASCIST TRIBUTE on the crash site of Flight 93!!!

Oh, yeah, and may Columbia University shrivel up and die on the vine! DEAD!

Posted by Rose | September 22, 2007 12:59 AM

Posted by Teresa | September 21, 2007 3:58 PM

Well, Sherlock, you'll have to shoot Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Jesse Helms (too late), Bob Dole and a whole bunch of other winger media whores who gave similar speeches on Somalia.

But, you go right on and do that.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&

And Clinton took us to Somalia for WHAT American security reason????????

Sputter away, you Stalinist.

Posted by richard mcenroe | September 22, 2007 12:14 PM

Teresa -- So if protesting Clinton's Somali policy was treason why didn't he stick to it? We've seen, the last few years, that it is possible for a President to stand by policies and actions he believes in, if he has the basic moral foundation to stand on. Clinton didn't stand; he didn't even send the troops the armor they requested; and he reaped dead American soldiers with nothing to show for it.

Posted by jaeger51 | September 22, 2007 9:46 PM

Related observation: Saw an AP story on Iran's new fighter plane, which they quote the Iranian Defense Ministry as saying "is like the F-18, but more powerful." Did a quick Wiki on the name of the plane, and got a picture...it's an old Northrop F-5, designed in the early 60s, with twin tails. Obviously not a world beater. So here we go again..media tries to convince us not to mess with our oh so powerful enemies, we'll be sorry...remember the tough, combat-hardened Iraqi Republican Guard that was going to DESTROY the inexperienced US Army?

Post a comment