The Surge is Working — Al Sadr Flees Baghdad
There is little that I can add to what other bloggers — and even the MSM — have already been saying about the flight of militia leader Moqtada al Sadr from Baghdad to Iran. ABC reports:
Sources believe al Sadr is worried about an increase of 20,000 U.S. troops in the Iraqi capital. One official told ABC News’ Martha Raddatz, “He is scared he will get a JDAM [bomb] dropped on his house.”
It seems the surge is already working.
At Powerline, John Hinderaker thinks his departure will undercut the morale of his troops, writing that “this will make it more difficult to sell the footsoldiers who stayed behind on the desirability of martyrdom.” Or, as Captain Ed puts it, “Who’s going to fight for someone who won’t stand up for himself?“
With one of the leading terrorists in flight, we see some success to the president’s new strategy. But, the success of this strategy likely won’t matter much to his perennial critics. Merely because it is President George W. Bush’s strategy, his critics find it to be a failure, even if it is similar to plans they put forward before the election. And I dare say House Democrats will still vote on a resolution to oppose this so-far successful strategy.
Or, as Captain Ed puts it, “Nancy Pelosi will be holding a debate to disapprove of a strategy that has already demonstrated success.“
60 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Let’s see, the borders are still wide open, the country’s electricity infrastructure is still vulnerable, the trade deficit just set another record, there are still dozens of court vacancies, no action on decreasing foreign energy dependence, no action on modernizing telecom regulations, no action on controlling the bloated federal budget… but the courageous Democratic leadership is tied up in knots over a resolution that does nothing but throw a temper tantrum and encourage our terrorist enemies.
Priorities, much?
Comment by V the K — February 13, 2007 @ 9:43 pm - February 13, 2007
The Surge might work, but Sadr is following the Democrats plan… just wait a little bit longer and we’ll leave.
We must project to the world that we are staying in Iraq for AS LONG AS WE NEED TO.. for a generation if we have to.
Instead, everyone in the Middle East is preparing for the day that we shamefully leave. Right now our presence is just something to endure the inconvience of. The Pause button has been pressed.
After the Democrats get their craven way, the Play X 2 Speed will be pressed and no one will be able to stop it.
Comment by Vince P — February 13, 2007 @ 10:35 pm - February 13, 2007
1: So now you’re attacking the Democrats for not not being quick enough about cleaning up the mess the Republicans made?
2: We? When are you heading to Iraq? (along with all the others who espouse their support for it)
Comment by Kevin — February 13, 2007 @ 11:19 pm - February 13, 2007
This is good news but no need to get too excited about it. Leaving isn’t the same as quiting. Like so many Arab “leaders” that fat bastard is a typical coward with no integrity who may just be waiting to kill another day.
It will be interesting to hear the dissapointment of the Left concerning this development.
Comment by VinceTN — February 14, 2007 @ 12:17 am - February 14, 2007
Now V… It’s all part of the plan. Crazy like a fox. Remember, the Democrats were for the surge before they were against it. (Harry Reid, as recently as 12/2006.) We poor benighted hicks just don’t get how “nuanced” they are.
Vince: Yeah, but the Iraqi Army should be on its way. It’s possible that they only need another 6-12 months of combat help and that’s it. Petraeus was the guy in 2005 who oversaw the first successes in regenerating them; they’ve been building slowly but surely.
Comment by Calarato — February 14, 2007 @ 12:50 am - February 14, 2007
#3
1. When have “democrats” EVER cleaned up anything? History shows libs make things worse.
2. I keep asking, but no Copperhead has had the balls to answer: how can you oppose a war you haven’t served in?
Further, “we” (for those who are retarded) refers to the people of this country. Obviously not those who hate this country and salivate in hopes of her defeat (read YOU).
Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 14, 2007 @ 1:08 am - February 14, 2007
The Republcans made the mess in the Middle East?
Once again, Democrats view everything from their outdated, obsolete “Democrats vs the evil Republicans” prism.
The Arab/Muslim culture is responsible for the Middle East… if they kept their barbarism to themselves and not attacked us in New York and Washington we wouldn’t have had to resort to such desperate actions to protect ourselves from the civilizational decay over there.
We: AMERICA . I dont live in your world DemocraticPartyistan.
I’ll head to Iraq after you enlist in the Jihad, move to France or commit suicide.
Or are you suggesting that the military should not respond to the citizens of this country and not be under civilian control?
Or are you really try using your tired rhetorical tactics to get someone you disagree with to be silenced?
Not enough you want us all killed , you want us to be quiet about it too? Too bad.
Comment by Vince P — February 14, 2007 @ 3:04 am - February 14, 2007
Not enough you want us all killed , you want us to be quiet about it too?
Ian, Kevin, Keough, Vaara etc. would gladly see 3,000+ people killed in this country if it only embarrassed Bush. That’s why they’ve been cheering on the “freedom fighters”, telling them via al-NYT how to fight us and what weapons & armor we have or have not. That’s why they gleefully tally the deaths of American soldiers.
Not a single one of them give a sweet rotten damn about the soldiers. They never did before and they sure as f*ck don’t now, despite their arrogant platitudes. Nor do they give a royal damn for the Iraqis. Didn’t care about them when they were mass grave filling, don’t care about them now, and certainly don’t care about their future since they’re more than happy to relegate millions of people to a bloodbath.
There’s not a single, solitary godd*mn thing any of them or their “leaders” could say to convince me or anybody else here that they do. Compassionate and tolerant my a$$. I’m sick to death of liberals and their constant lies to undermine “we” Americans. There’s not a single thing they’ve said in, at least, the past 7 years that’s been honest and they sure as hell ain’t going to start now.
Oh, Vaara. You can take “flame-out” and cram it sideways. You and your funky bunch can take your War on Truth to friendly douchebags who want to felch your load. We’re sick of you.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 14, 2007 @ 5:57 am - February 14, 2007
I must project to the world that it owes me a new car and a lifetime stipend.
The odds of either being fulfilled are about the same.
Fact of the matter is that Americans want outsy. From day one, they didn’t want to be in Iraq for too long or for too much money. Look, if the GOP wants to run on something opposed by at least 60% of the population, far be it from me to stop ‘em, but you should be aware of what it means.
Comment by jpe — February 14, 2007 @ 5:58 am - February 14, 2007
I see that gay conservative is a proud member of the die hard 30%. Good for you.
Comment by jpe — February 14, 2007 @ 6:01 am - February 14, 2007
> far be it from me to stop ‘em, but you should be aware of what it means.
You realize by insulting my intelligence you demostrate none yourself. You don’t think I realize what your precious polling means?
What did you think i was referring to when I said this:
“just wait a little bit longer and we’ll leave.”
Mr Intelligent… what did that mean?
And Mr Intelligent, now that you gleefully relate what we all know, that we’re leaving soon tell us..
What happens in Iraq after we leave?
How will you restore American credibility?
Why would any people anywhere listen to or rely on us for anything again?
Comment by Vince P — February 14, 2007 @ 6:06 am - February 14, 2007
>I see that gay conservative is a proud member of the die hard 30%. Good for you
I see gay hypocrite will probably be the first one complaining that it’s not fair he can’t get married for a week and that no matter how many people oppose gay marrage that it’s a matter of such importance the majority should be overruled.
But war? LOL. That’s nothing to worry about.
Comment by Vince P — February 14, 2007 @ 6:09 am - February 14, 2007
Dan, nicely put; concise. Thanks. And thanks to VdaK for putting it in perspective given the Democrats’ 100 Hours Agenda to make Congress work 5 days a week.
Those Democrat leader guys are really putting their shoulders to the grindstone… doing the People’s Business. Thank the Lord… opps, they don’t believe in Religion. Sorry.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — February 14, 2007 @ 8:41 am - February 14, 2007
So, are Democrats going to clean up all ‘Republican messes’ by passing meaninglesss resolutions? I look forward to future resolutions stating that America is energy independent, that public education works and all our children are brilliant, and the borders are secure.
The motto for the Democrat Congress, “Big Challenges Require Meaningless Resolutions.”
Comment by V the K — February 14, 2007 @ 8:46 am - February 14, 2007
If a war or the war in Iraq was a matter of civil rights, a matter that should not be defined by a popular vote, then Vince’s comment would make sense, but since marriage equality should flow from the Constitution regardless of current office-holders or polls, and war is declared and funded by popularly elected positions within our government, his argument, well, doesn’t make sense. I mean, I know the die-hard right wants to defend this war no matter what happens on the ground, but this is first I’ve heard someone indicate they might have a constitutional right to keep the troops in Iraq.
And Vince, in re: American credibility. Which way would you have it? America has already lost credibility in the world view, as evidenced by the recent moral lecturing we got from a thug like Putin, posturing that wasn’t greeted with derision and contempt like it should have been. America’s status has dropped so low that world leaders actually allow near-dictators like Putin and demagogues like Chavez to rail against us–and people listen. How much further down could our credibility go?
Also, I thought that one of the new imperatives our government is working under was taking the fight to the terrorists regardless of popular opinion or French/European disapproval. So do you care what the world thinks of us or not? If you do, then we’ve already lost our credibility. If you don’t, then why does it matter what people think if/when we leave?
Comment by torrentprime — February 14, 2007 @ 8:54 am - February 14, 2007
Of course, considering what results when Democrats actually do pass legislation, maybe they should stick to meaningless resolutions. Although their minimum wage increases are very successful… at putting teenagers out of work.
Comment by V the K — February 14, 2007 @ 9:07 am - February 14, 2007
V the K:
Remember this was the Howard Dean “plan”:
“The Democrats have a better idea. First we will conclude the negotiations with the Chinese and the North Koreans to disarm North Korea. Secondly, under no circumstances will a Democratic Administration ever allow Iran to become a nuclear power. Three, we will kill or capture Osama bin Laden and four, the authority and the control of the ports of the United States must be retained by American companies.”
It was no different than this “Monty Python’s Flying Circus.” sketch called “How to Rid the World of All Known Diseases”:
Alan (John Cleese): Well, last week we showed you how to become a gynecologist. And this week on “How to Do It” we’re going to show you how to play the flute, how to split an atom, how to construct a box girder bridge, how to irrigate the Sahara Desert and make vast new areas of land cultivatable, but first, here’s Jackie to tell you all how to rid the world of all known diseases.
Jackie (Eric Idle): Hello, Alan.
Alan: Hello, Jackie.
Jackie: Well, first of all become a doctor and discover a marvelous cure for something, and then, when the medical profession really starts to take notice of you, you can jolly well tell them what to do and make sure they get everything right so there’ll never be any diseases ever again.
Alan: Thanks, Jackie. Great idea.
Comment by Vince P — February 14, 2007 @ 9:12 am - February 14, 2007
The world has always hated America. And besides I didn’t ask what would people think when we leave. I asked what would happen.
My family left Italy in 1900 because it was horrible living there. The best people from all over come to America to live their lives. I give a rat’s ass what the peopel left behind say.
I notice that torrent didn’t mention a word about the people we’re fighting, only what people think of him. His objection to the war seems to be from a purely narcissist place.
Torrent what will our global jihadist friends think about the United States once we leave because you’re afraid of what Belgium might think?
Comment by Vince P — February 14, 2007 @ 9:24 am - February 14, 2007
Back during the Spanish-American war an ex-pat wrote to Mark Twain saying how embarassed he was to be an American because Europe was very disdainful of that war and the ex-pat was upset how America has ruined its reputation. This is Mark’s response.
A Word Of Encouragement For Our Blushing Exiles
“…Well, what do you think of our country now? And what do you think of the figure she is cutting before the eyes of the world? For one, I am ashamed.” [Extract from a long and heated letter from a Voluntary Exile, Member of the American Colony, Paris.]
Twain:
And so you are ashamed. I am trying to think out what it can have been that has produced this large attitude of mind and this fine flow of sarcasm. Apparently you are ashamed to look Europe in the face; ashamed of the American name; temporarily ashamed of your nationality. By the light of remarks made to me by an American here in Vienna, I judge that you are ashamed because:
1. We are meddling where we have no business and no right; meddling with the private family matters of a sister nation; intruding upon her sacred right to do as she pleases with her own, unquestioned by anybody.
2. We are doing this under a sham humanitarian pretext.
3. Doing it in order to filch Cuba, the formal and distinct disclaimer in the ultimatum being very, very thin humbug, and easily detectable by you and virtuous Europe.
4. And finally you are ashamed of all this because it is new, and base, and brutal, and dishonest; and because Europe, having had no previous experience of such things, is horrified by it and can never respect us nor associate with us any more.
Brutal, base, dishonest? We? Land Thieves? Shedders of innocent blood? We? Traitors to our official word? We? Are we going to lose Europe’s respect because of this new and dreadful conduct? Russia’s, for instance? Is she lying stretched out on her back in Manchuria, with her head among her Siberian prisons and her feet in Port Arthur, trying to read over the fairy tales she told Lord Salisbury, and not able to do it for crying because we are maneuvering to treacherously smouch Cuba from feeble Spain, and because we are ungently shedding innocent Spanish blood?
Is it France’s respect that we are going to lose? Is our unchivalric conduct troubling a nation which exists to-day because a brave young girl saved it when its poltroons had lost it - a nation which deserted her as one man when her day of peril came? Is our treacherous assault upon a weak people distressing a nation which contributed Bartholomew’s Day to human history? Is our ruthless spirit offending the sensibilities of the nation which gave us the Reign of Terror to read about? Is our unmanly intrusion into the private affairs of a sister nation shocking the feelings of the people who sent Maximilian to Mexico? Are our shabby and pusillanimous ways outraging the fastidious people who have sent an innocent man (Dreyfus) to a living hell, taken to their embraces the slimy guilty one, and submitted to indignities Emile Zola - the manliest man in France?
Part 2 to follow
Comment by Vince P — February 14, 2007 @ 9:25 am - February 14, 2007
Part 2
Is it Spain’s respect that we are going to lose? Is she sitting sadly conning her great history and contrasting it with our meddling, cruel, perfidious one - our shameful history of foreign robberies, humanitarian shams, and annihilations of weak and unoffending nations? Is she remembering with pride how she sent Columbus home in chains; how she sent half of the harmless West Indians into slavery and the rest to the grave, leaving not one alive; how she robbed and slaughtered the Inca’s gentle race, then beguiled the Inca into her power with fair promises and burned him at the stake; how she drenched the New World in blood, and earned and got the name of The Nation With The Bloody Footprint; how she drove all the Jews out of Spain in a day, allowing them to sell their property, but forbidding them to carry any money out of the country; how she roasted heretics by the thousands and thousands in her public squares, generation after generation, her kings and her priests looking on as at a holiday show; how her Holy Inquisition imported hell into the earth; how she was the first to institute it and the last to give it up - and then only under compulsion; how, with a spirit unmodified by time, she still tortures her prisoners to-day; how, with her ancient passion for pain and blood unchanged, she still crowds the arena with ladies and gentlemen and priests to see with delight a bull harried and persecuted and a gored horse dragging his entrails on the ground; and how, with this incredible character surviving all attempts to civilize it, her Duke of Alva rises again in the person of General Weyler - to-day the most idolized personage in Spain - and we see a hundred thousand women and children shut up in pens and pitilessly starved to death?
Are we indeed going to lose Spain’s respect? Is there no way to avoid this calamity - or this compliment? Are we going to lose her respect because we have made a promise in our ultimatum which she thinks we shall break? And meantime is she trying to recall some promise of her own which she has kept?
Is the Professional Official Fibber of Europe really troubled with our morals? Dear Parisian friend, are you taking seriously the daily remark of the newspaper and the orater about “this noble nation with an illustrious history”? That is mere kindness, mere charity for a people in temporary hard luck. The newspaper and the orator do not mean it. They wink when they say it.
And so you are ashamed. Do not be ashamed; there is no occasion for it.
[Written in 1898, first published in 1923 - Ed.]
Comment by Vince P — February 14, 2007 @ 9:26 am - February 14, 2007
I think the left’s constant assertion that it’s more important for America to be liked than to do right is just an example of intellectual development frozen at the high school sophomore level.
Comment by V the K — February 14, 2007 @ 9:28 am - February 14, 2007
Lets examined what happened when we were being nice and selfless.
- In the 1980s we had Marines trying to stablize the Lebanon Civl War to help Muslims
- In the late 80s/e90s we sent our Army to help Muslims in Kuwait get their country back
- In 1992 we were in Somali trying to prevent Muslims from starving to death
- In the mid 1990s after the gallant and morally perfect Europeans did nothing , we went into Bosnia to help defend Muslims
- In 1998 we went to war against Serbia to help the Muslims in Kosovo
Through this whole period we restrained Israel to help the Muslims of Palestine.
- In 2001 Muslims killed 3,000 of us in New York city.
Comment by Vince P — February 14, 2007 @ 9:37 am - February 14, 2007
Vince is patently wrong. I’ve lived as an expat for many years and can personally attest to the FACT that we have never in the past 20 year (at least) been hated the way we are hated today under Bush. There may have been animosity, jealousy, rivalry, but never such contemptuous loathing. Never. Call it Bush Derangement Syndrome if it makes you feel better. But as the last election proved, it’s becoming increasingly contagious, and I assure you it didn’t happen in a vacuum. We - the US, the world, everyone but the die-hard frothing-at-the-mouth Malkinites and Pajama Wearers - are all tired of this senseless, awful war. Period.
Sadr’s leaving does not in any way mean the surge is “working,” only that he’s smart enough to hide out (if indeed he has fled; that is in dispute), only to return when the time is more opportune. Let’s see in a few weeks how the glorious surge has gone. Because it seems like yet another mirage that gets us all hopeful for a few minutes, only to melt into reality as the IEDs keep slaughtering innocent Iraqis and young US soldiers whilst the contractors get fatter and richer. How many more of these “turning points” do we have to go through before we admit the obvious? This war in unwinnable at this point and all our young soldiers being asked to give up their lives or their limbs are doing so for a huge mistake.
Comment by richard — February 14, 2007 @ 9:39 am - February 14, 2007
Richard thinks the war is unwinnable now. As if this is a one-sided war and we’re fighting no body.
We’re fighting Islamic radicals who are trying to establish a Caliphate. In all your years of expattery did you ever learn the significance of that?
And of course the world is agitated,, confronting evil takes a lot more courage than appeasement and denial.
That’s why it’s hard to do the right thing.
The only way for evil to succede is for good men to do nothing.
Well if good men did nothing they wouldn’t be very good would they?
Your suggestion is to do nothing in the face of global Islamic revival. You either are ignorant to it or willingly suicidal.
Comment by Vince P — February 14, 2007 @ 9:45 am - February 14, 2007
I, for one, don’t care what a bunch of effete socialist Euro-pussies think of me. They may not give a damn about the next generation (because they’ve largely neglected to breed one anyway), but I don’t want my kids and grandkids living under sharia in some global Islamo-Fascist caliphate.
Comment by V the K — February 14, 2007 @ 9:47 am - February 14, 2007
Dan, I’m glad to hear that one of the many bloodthirsty clowns over there says he is retreating. Don’t know if that is proof that the surge is working. If tomorrow, two militia leaders say that they are now entering the war, will there be a post saying the surge is not working?
Comment by Pat — February 14, 2007 @ 9:49 am - February 14, 2007
#8:
That’s a lie.
That’s a lie too.
Another lie.
Do you never tire of simply making things up?
Brilliant! The next time someone accuses liberals of being “vulgar” or “uncivil” or “incapable of rational thought or argument,” now I know exactly where to send them.
Thanks!
Comment by vaara — February 14, 2007 @ 10:14 am - February 14, 2007
Pat, imagine the effect on enemy morale and their ability to recruit if our American political leadership sent a united message that we would keep pounding them, keep fighting them, “bear any burden” one might say, to wipe Islamo-Fascist terror off the face of the Earth.
Comment by V the K — February 14, 2007 @ 10:19 am - February 14, 2007
V the K, maybe it might help, I don’t know. There was widespread support for the war for about two years, but things got worse, and for all I know, emboldened the terrorists there. And now that there is opposition to the war, we perhaps got a good sign with Sadr going.
Since I’m assuming that all in Congress in the Administration agree that terrorism needs to be eliminated, it would be nice send that united message. Then work needs to be done to find a real plan to do this. It won’t be easy I’m sure. But I think the days of relying on conventional wars to solve this problem are over. By the way, I’m not saying that we need to eliminate all military action, as it looks like Iran may need to have a few bombs sent their way. And also, as I have admitted before, I do not have a plan. It’s just my view, (and I admit I may be wrong), that at this point, doing nothing is better than what we are doing now. Obviously, nothing is not good enough. I just hope our leaders can find the solution.
Comment by Pat — February 14, 2007 @ 10:44 am - February 14, 2007
2: We? When are you heading to Iraq? (along with all the others who espouse their support for it)
First, I believe the max age to enlist is 41. That puts me — and others on this board — a few years over the top.
Second, despite DADT, openly-gay people are still prohibited from joining the military.
As for “all the others who espouse their support for it,” you may want to ask all those (including the Democrats) who voted to send the troops in when all this started.
Happy St. Valentine’s Day!
Julie the Jarhead
Comment by Julie the Jarhead — February 14, 2007 @ 10:55 am - February 14, 2007
I just hope our leaders can find the solution.
The current congressional leadership isn’t even trying to find a solution, they’re just debating meaningless resolutions that have no purpose other than to embarrass the administration, placate their anti-war base, and encourage the enemy.
I know you mean well in trying to spread the blame around, but I think you are very naive if you think the Democrat leadership has any interest in winning the war, at least while a Republican is president, because they put their party politics ahead of the national interest. I also think a lot of Democrats take the John Kerry position that we should treat Islamo-fascist terror like a “nuisance,” learn to live with it, and hire a few more “first responders” to wipe up the blood after the next 9-11.
And I would be remiss if I did not fault the Bush Administration for recognizing that Global Jihad is an existential threat, but not treating it as such. Mooki al Sadr shouldn’t be hiding in Iran, his rotting corpse should be buried in Iraq, and should have been three years ago.
But, I’m about an inch away from supporting Bush’s impeachment for not securing the borders (of course, you’d have to impeach most of Congress too), so I’m not the altogether best critic.
Comment by V the K — February 14, 2007 @ 11:02 am - February 14, 2007
#30: Julie the Jarhead, I don’t see all those Democrats who supposedly support the war in Afghanistan rushing to sign up either.
Comment by V the K — February 14, 2007 @ 11:05 am - February 14, 2007
Moderate talk-show host Jerry Doyle has a nickname for the 110th Congress. He calls it, ‘The Seinfeld Congress,’ because it’s a congress about nothing.
And the Republicans better get used to being in the minority for a long time unless they start offering solutions and alternatives. If they don’t get their mojo back by 2010, Democrats will use gerrymandering in the state legislatures to keep themselves in power for another decade or more.
Comment by V the K — February 14, 2007 @ 11:25 am - February 14, 2007
America has already lost credibility in the world view, as evidenced by the recent moral lecturing we got from a thug like Putin, posturing that wasn’t greeted with derision and contempt like it should have been.
Really? Were you not greeting it with derision or contempt?
Or were you too busy worrying about “what others would say” and deciding that Putin must be right, since others weren’t sticking up for you?
If you want to know why these leftist countries are so mad at the United States, here’s reason one:
Preferential treatment was given to companies in France, Russia and China, all permanent members of the Security Council, who were more favourable to lifting the 1990 sanctions compared to the United States, Britain and Japan.
Among those named in the report as receiving oil vouchers that could be sold for a commission were British lawmaker George Galloway, former French UN Ambassador Jean-Bernard Merimee, former French Interior Minister Charles Pasqua and Russian ultranationalist leader Vladimir Zhirinovsky.
The other one was this — the fact that Saddam owed these leftist countries, many of which are running into financial crises thanks to the bloated costs of their welfare states, immense sums of money.
In short, Saddam offered a bonanza for leftist countries; a desperate buyer with unlimited amounts of cash who would pay outrageous prices for the uncompetitive and shoddy goods produced by their nationalized and partly-nationalized companies — and a market in which, by law, the US could not and would not compete.
In short, these countries are pissed because we put an end to their financial exploitation of an extraordinarily-bad and brutal situation.
but since marriage equality should flow from the Constitution regardless of current office-holders or polls, and war is declared and funded by popularly elected positions within our government, his argument, well, doesn’t make sense.
Well, unfortunately, the Supreme Court has also decided, in numerous cases, that the Constitution does not guarantee the right to marry whatever you want to have sex with, nor does it allow you to marry anyone and everyone you choose — a logical argument, since nowhere in the Constitution is marriage defined as a fundamental right of everyone. However, the Constitution does make explicitly clear who is commander-in-chief of the armed forces and who has ultimate authority in that sphere.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 14, 2007 @ 12:03 pm - February 14, 2007
V the K, although I side more with the Democratic Party, I have been critical of them for a variety of reasons, including their actions towards the war. And I hear what your saying about politics. I’m taking a guess that there are supporters of the war, who may really thing the current policy is a failure, whose support is only based on politics as well.
Of course, I would like it if terrorism is completely eliminated, and that should be the final goal. And I remember being initially disturbed by Kerry’s comment. However, I don’t think it’s possible in the forseeable future to eliminate terrorism, no matter what strategy is taken. Right now, if terrorism was just a “nuisance,” it would be an improvement.
Comment by Pat — February 14, 2007 @ 12:35 pm - February 14, 2007
As far as the damage that our Congressional leaders are presently doing to the nation of Iraq and to the lives of our troops in the field: Jawa Report has a great take on it.
For those who are too lazy to click on a link - and you know who I mean - here’s the nutshell.
War is hell. Only the hope of success makes people carry on with it. Only taking away the other side’s hope of success makes them stop. What are Murtha and the Democrats doing? Giving the terrorists hope of success. Directly undermining the painful work and achievements of our troops, thus prolonging the war and ultimately costing our own troops’ lives.
Yes Pat, I really believe that - though I have to say, you are considerably more reasonable and honest in expressing your doubts or a contrary view, than some others.
Comment by Calarato — February 14, 2007 @ 12:39 pm - February 14, 2007
Can we get there by wishing? No.
Only by (1) killing committed terrorists, part of (2) visibly destroying Islamo-fascism’s prospects of success as a viable ideology, and simultaneously with that, (3) establishing democratic order as a viable alternative to let the civilian people have better lives.
Comment by Calarato — February 14, 2007 @ 12:43 pm - February 14, 2007
Pat: I have so many issues with Bush and the way he has led this country but with the voices from all the over world that tear him down, I feel that enough people have pointed out the errors, so I dont go out of my way to bring them up.
I think it’s funny when you ask a Leftist what they think will happen if we leave Iraq tomrorow and instead of answering they say something “Well Bush said 3 plus 3 equals 5 two years ago.
Past mistakes are in the past, I can’t get one Leftist to look to the future. None of them will say what the consequences will be if we leave. They are so backward looking and regressive.
Bush’s public leadership has been awful, I blame him for the collapse of support. But he is one of the few leaders in this country who realizes the seriousness of the threat we face and I have to support him. I cant expect perfection from human beings. From everything I know about Bush I know he’s a honorable person. THe attack he faces from everyone in Washinton is totally over the top. Lessor men than he wouldn’t be able to stand to it.
Comment by Vince P — February 14, 2007 @ 1:10 pm - February 14, 2007
Very well put, Vince, Cal and Pat. Good way to show how you can “agree to disagree” without resorting to lower-case-libtroll histrionics.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — February 14, 2007 @ 1:16 pm - February 14, 2007
I don’t think it’s possible in the forseeable future to eliminate terrorism, no matter what strategy is taken.
I disagree. I think there is one fundamental strategy that would end terrorism. And that is… stop rewarding terrorists. Look at the Palestinians. Forty years of non-stop terror have won them concession after concession and made thugs into millionaires on “foreign aid” from gullible western governments. And terrorists are darn close to winning in Iraq because of the willingness of politicians to capitulate.
Terrorism could be defeated relatively quickly if terror-leaders were punished instead of rewarded.
Comment by V the K — February 14, 2007 @ 1:39 pm - February 14, 2007
“Eliminate terrorism” sounds like moving the goalposts to me. Terrorism is a form of evil, and of course you can’t “eliminate” evil in the world, or in the hearts of men. Duh.
I think that reducing terrorism - specifically, Islamo-fascist jihadism - to a genuine “nuisance level” where the jihadists are powerless to do much, would be a huge step forward. If we could do it for real, not as some fantasy, or some act of burying our heads in the sand like ostriches.
So again, it’s a question of how we can get there. And abandoning the fight - abandoning Iraq and/or Israel to the jihadists - would, as V points out, be rewarding the jihadists with a gigantic, historical success. Such a success would, I think, virtually guarantee nuclear bombs going off in LA, New York and Washington within ten years.
Comment by Calarato — February 14, 2007 @ 1:52 pm - February 14, 2007
Vince, I agree that Bush’s leadership has been awful. I’ve heard a lot of compelling arguments in support of the war here. I haven’t heard them from Bush. Granted, I haven’t watched every press conference, national address, or SOTU address, so it’s possible that I’ve missed all of these arguments. And you can only blame the media so much for his message not getting through. A good leader would keep at it until the message gets through. No offense intended to anyone here, but if I heard these arguments presented in a cogent, logical manner by the President, I might be more supportive of the war.
I watched Bush’s press conference today, since the ice storm is keeping me home. He finally touched on one of the argument’s presented here, I think. He mentioned that some nations will not do the right thing because of money. He may have been alluding to France and Russia’s financial involvement with Saddam. This is an example of what he should have been saying continuously and uncryptically as an explanation of why he haven’t received more international support.
Comment by Pat — February 14, 2007 @ 1:57 pm - February 14, 2007
Hi-ya, Vince. Actually, polls before the war told us that people wouldn’t support a war that went on for more than a few years and would cost more than 15 billion / year.
Bush could’ve been a modern day Cicero and it wouldn’t have mattered. Contra the right-wing position that the American people are irrational boobs that are easily manipulated by glowing reports and shiny objects, they’re actually pretty rational. Way back in ‘03 they said they wouldn’t support the war if it got to this point, and now they don’t support it.
Comment by jpe — February 14, 2007 @ 2:00 pm - February 14, 2007
Terrorism could be defeated relatively quickly if terror-leaders were punished instead of rewarded.
It sounds simple enough, and it may work. But why isn’t this being done now?
Comment by Pat — February 14, 2007 @ 2:00 pm - February 14, 2007
Bush’s public leadership has been awful, I blame him for the collapse of support.
I’ll reiterate what I’ve said previously. I think the US military has to realign strategic thinking with the idea that the maximum amount of time US forces can be employed before political and media opposition erode public support is two years. If Bush had gone into Iraq in 2003 knowing the bulk of forces would have to be withdrawn in 2005, the war would have been fought very differently.
The War against Islamo-fascism, in a sense, has been going on for several hundred years, ever since the Holy Land was over-run and the Islamo-fascists of old tried to over-run Europe before being turned back. Terrorism isn’t even so much of a new tactic as it is an old tactic with modern weapons, including nuclear.
What would be good for either party or both to do together is for those who are serious about winning to get together, consult with military strategists, and draw out a long-term strategy not for cutting and running, not for carrying on with the current policy, but something strong and innovative whose end-goal is a world in which terrorism is not a factor. I think Bush’s initial policy of democratizing the mideast had some of that flavor, since pluralistic Democratic regimes would be a strong bulwark against Islamo-fascism, but I don’t think he imagined that there would be so many people, in the middle east and in America, so opposed to Arab democracy.
Comment by V the K — February 14, 2007 @ 2:02 pm - February 14, 2007
It is. They’re trying. Murtha, the Democrats and many others are not helping.
Comment by Calarato — February 14, 2007 @ 2:05 pm - February 14, 2007
One last thing and then I have to go:
The arguments I’ve given today have been given by President Bush over and over, in speeches from 2001 to as recently as a month ago.
I think the media really does their best to “filter” the message, give banal misinterpretations of his speeches - or of Anna Nicole Smith - rather than his actual speech content, etc.
It’s been shown that MSM reporters supported Kerry in 2004 by 12:1. I think there is a cadre of aging Vietnam-era hippies out there, now leading the media, the upper CIA bureaucracy and the Democratic Party. For personal cultural reasons, they are silently committed to ignoring, distorting or denying everything Bush says. Because “he” said it. And as well, any information that might make Bush look sensible if it were known - such as the fact that Iraq really is the central front in the war with al Qaeda.
I agree with Vince’s criticisms also. Reagan faced some of the same vituperativeness, and had more natural charm and optimism and media savvy that let him work around it. Bush has not been great, on the communication side. But maybe not as much as people think. He has been saying a lot of these things, a long time.
Comment by Calarato — February 14, 2007 @ 2:19 pm - February 14, 2007
What would be good for either party or both to do together is for those who are serious about winning to get together, consult with military strategists, and draw out a long-term strategy not for cutting and running, not for carrying on with the current policy, but something strong and innovative whose end-goal is a world in which terrorism is not a factor.
Sounds good to me.
Comment by Pat — February 14, 2007 @ 2:39 pm - February 14, 2007
It sounds simple enough, and it may work. But why isn’t this being done now?
Politicial correctness and lack of will, primarily. Media bias plays a role, certainly. Hizbollah launched thousands of rockets against Israeli civilians last year, and yet the major news media were much more eager to paint Israelis as the aggressors, even if it meant pushing out altered fauxtographs.
There is a real question of why the western left is so eager to capitulate to Islamo-Fascism. Some have even suggested that there is a sort of Stockholm syndrome at work.
The real oddity is that the Left has enthusiastically joined the new fascists. Feminists on the Left have joined Islamofascists in blaming the United States — for being the fire brigade that is trying to put out the fire. The Left even defends women being pressured to wear the burqa, the ancient sign of women’s submission and sexual slavery in the most retrogressive kind of tribal Islam. Shari’a law prescribes exactly how women are to be physically slapped for failing to obey fathers and husbands. Feminists are silent.
The Left claims to value “peace” above all things; but that means that self-defense ranks nowhere. It’s not an option — at least not when Republicans are in office. If we leave out self-defense against Iranian nukes or El Qaida truck bombs, there is no option except submission. That is what “identification with the aggressor” comes down to. It is a Stockholm Syndrome for millions of people — most of the readers of the New York Times and the UK Guardian, just for starters.
To make things worse, the Left itself is ruthlessly aggressive against conservatives, democratic individuals who happen to disagree with them. There is a true persecutorial viciousness in the Left’s attacks on Republican presidents, from Herbert Hoover to Dwight D. Eisenhower and George W. Bush. Emotionally, these people want to destroy those who defy their demands.
Comment by V the K — February 14, 2007 @ 2:45 pm - February 14, 2007
47: You’re right that Bush has been saying the right things and he has consistantly. I think I spoke a little too broadly before.
What I meant to say is that he doesn’t speak nearly often enough. Every now and then he makes little spurts of communication. Like a few weeks of press conferences and apperances but then reverts back to silence, meanwhile every day the press is doing its best to spin this so that it seems nothing good is happening or that the enemy doesn’t really seem to exist and we’re there for no reason.
Comment by Vince P — February 14, 2007 @ 3:51 pm - February 14, 2007
Some of the better heads of state during wartime were awful when it came to public speaking and policy explanation. To wit:
Woodrow Wilson suffered a stroke while in the White House during World War I, and his speech was permanently damaged (his wife Edith gave daily press briefings).
King George VI of England had a persistant stutter, which made meetings with PM Churchill quite difficult - especially when both made addresses to the British Empire. Yet both of them persevered during World War II.
Eisenhower was not a “great communicator” either - but he brought the Korean War to a cease-fire.
Israeli PM Levi Eshkol was considered the “least likely to succeed” in the Knesset due to his un-telegenic appearance and monotone delivery. In fact, the nation preferred Defense Minister Moshe Dayan as the best successor to former PM David Ben-Gurion. Yet Eshkol successfully defended Israel against the combined Arab nations of Egypt, Syria and Jordan during the Six-Day War in 1967.
I’m sure there are other examples out there that I missed. But you get the general drift.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — February 14, 2007 @ 3:56 pm - February 14, 2007
DUBAI (Reuters) — A Saudi wing of al Qaeda called for attacks on U.S. oil sources across the world, saying targets should not be limited to the Middle East and listing Canada, Venezuela and Mexico as U.S. oil suppliers.
The threat appeared in the al Qaeda Organization in the Arabian Peninsula’s e-magazine, Sawt al-Jihad (Voice of Holy War), which was posted on a Web site used by Islamist militants.
“It is necessary to hit oil interests in all regions which serve the United States not just in the Middle East. The goal is to cut its supplies or reduce them through any means,” it said.
The group was behind the February 2006 failed suicide attack on the world’s largest oil processing plant in Saudi Arabia.
Comment by Vince P — February 14, 2007 @ 4:16 pm - February 14, 2007
#51 - Hey, pinche gabacho Chavez - looks like you got caught with your pantalones down. You just got sold out by your comrade OBL.
Wonder what Joe Kennedy will say about this?
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — February 14, 2007 @ 4:24 pm - February 14, 2007
Hezbelah has a presence in South America, so it’s entirely possible that such attacks can happen down there.
Comment by Vince P — February 14, 2007 @ 5:40 pm - February 14, 2007
More of the same.
http://www.ninaberman.com/index3.php?pag=prt&dir=marine
And more of the same.
Comment by jimmy — February 14, 2007 @ 7:27 pm - February 14, 2007
LOL….two can play that game, jimmy.
Now stand up and tell the world that you would rather let innocent Iraqi civilians, the sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, husbands, wives, nephews, nieces, cousins of others, be tortured, mutilated, and killed by the thousands than US soldiers be disfigured.
Ask the families in the pictures of Iraq if they would rather their loved one be dead than disfigured.
And ask the US families how many Iraqis they would rather have die than for their loved one to be disfigured.
There’s a reason that leftists like you, jimmy, were covering up Saddam Hussein’s abuses in the name of dealing peace; as much as we Americans want peace, we’re not willing to allow dictators to do as they will to get it.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 14, 2007 @ 8:16 pm - February 14, 2007
I wonder where all the Human Shields are today
Comment by Vince P — February 14, 2007 @ 8:19 pm - February 14, 2007
I’ve been gone all day and now I’d like to catch up (ahem):
#9
Look, if the GOP wants to run on something opposed by at least 60% of the population,
You’d think if that were true and the libs are so righteous, they’d take responsibility, slap their dicks (which I don’t believe they have) on the table and cut the funding.
#10
I see that gay conservative is a proud member of the die hard 30%.
60% and 30% is 90% total. You’re missing 10% somewhere. I was edumacated in MS. public schools, but even I wouldn’t do that.
#15
America has already lost credibility in the world view, as evidenced by the recent moral lecturing we got from a thug like Putin,
You call that “moral”?
posturing that wasn’t greeted with derision and contempt like it should have been.
Imagine that.
America’s status has dropped so low that world leaders actually allow near-dictators like Putin and demagogues like Chavez to rail against us–and people listen.
Actually, if you look at the video, there weren’t that many people listening to Chavez and people were walking out the whole time.
So I see that you’re more concerned with doing what’s popular instead of what’s right?
#23
- are all tired of this senseless, awful war. Period.
So tell the libs to sack up, cut the funding and let the real bloodbath begin. Just think of all the unemployed Iraqis who could get jobs digging mass graves.
Let’s see in a few weeks how the glorious surge has gone. Because it seems like yet another mirage that gets us all hopeful for a few minutes,
Huh. It was a great idea until Bush decided to go that route. Just like invading Iraq was a great idea right up until Bush decided to do it. Funny how that works. Seems like the libs are always for something before their against it.
#27
That’s a lie.
You’re sorta right. I forgot about Lieberman. Otherwise, there’s at least 7 years of cold reality and the words and deeds of the liberal left to back up my claims. To use your only retort, “prove it”.
#35
Of course, I would like it if terrorism is completely eliminated, and that should be the final goal.
How does handing Iraq over to them achieve that goal?
#57
I wonder where all the Human Shields are today
Particularly the a$$clown who sold off all of his posessions to go.
I’d also like to add:
You know, watching the latest Zawahri video (and all the others), I’d say a good place for information on UBL’s whereabouts (assuming he’s alive) is to check the DNC’s mailing list and/or blast-fax list. Did anybody ever report where Howie got that loan to float the ‘06 campaign?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 15, 2007 @ 2:34 am - February 15, 2007
Brave Al-Sadr Ran away…
Brave Al-Sadr ran away.
Bravely ran away, away!
When danger reared its ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled.
Yes, brave Al-Sadr turned about
And gallantly he chickened out.
Bravely taking to his feet
He beat a very brave retreat,
Brav…
Trackback by Random Numbers — February 15, 2007 @ 9:09 am - February 15, 2007
I always find it ironic how Zawahiri seems to capture DNC talking points in his rants towards the President.
I guess either you are with America, or you are with the terrorists. ‘Nuff said.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — February 15, 2007 @ 12:06 pm - February 15, 2007