Lindaland
  Global Unity
  Failures in Courage and Common Sense

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   Failures in Courage and Common Sense
jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted March 21, 2006 12:06 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

March 21, 2006, 8:00 a.m.
Murtha Democrats
The Pentagon is the embodiment of farsightedness and circumspection compared with its critics.

For most of the three years of the Iraq war, the Democrats have been trying to beat something with nothing. Lately, they have been reduced to a fate even worse: trying to beat something with Murtha.

John Murtha is the longtime Pennsylvania congressman and former Marine who fits the Democratic party’s preferred political formula on the war. That formula is to say inane or incoherent things, but have a veteran say them on the theory that, then, no one will notice their inanity or incoherence. This was basically the rationale of the John “Reporting-for-Duty” Kerry presidential campaign in 2004. Murtha was on Meet the Press this past weekend to mark the third anniversary of the launching of the assault on Baghdad.

Murtha produced his usual hail of misstatements. He said Bush went to war “against the advice of his father and the whole administration.” But the closest there was to a major dissenter in the administration was then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, who supported the war. Murtha said there was “no connection to terrorism in Iraq itself.” Leaving aside the more controversial arguments about Saddam’s relationship with al Qaeda, it is incontrovertible that Saddam was giving $25,000 to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, a rather stark connection to terrorism. He cited the U.S. military’s goal of giving Iraqi forces control of security in 75 percent of Iraq, and scorned it because “75 percent of it is desert.”

It is impossible to know if Murtha wants to be deliberately misleading or is simply ill-informed — but neither option is flattering. Nearly half of the key Baghdad province has been handed over to Iraqi security forces. According to USA Today, these forces have also been given responsibility for parts of such dangerous areas as Fallujah, Ramadi, and Samarra. This is why U.S. deaths are down to one a day — almost the lowest level since the insurgency began — while Iraqi deaths are increasing. So much for deserts.

The difficulties in Iraq have created an open season for the war’s critics, who get a license to say anything even if it has no connection to reality. A few months ago, The Atlantic Monthly ran a cover story by James Fallows titled, “Why Iraq Has No Army.” It was widely cited, even though it appeared smack in the midst of an extraordinarily successful training effort to build up an Iraqi army. From February 2005 to February 2006, top-rated Iraqi security forces went from 10,000 to 54,000, according to researchers from the liberal Brookings Institution, who report that “Iraqi security forces continue to improve.”

The rise of these forces has been a key part of the administration’s strategy all along. Murtha not only pretends that they don’t exist, he portrays himself as having been a brave, lonely advocate for creating them. He said that his advice to Bush early in the war was that “you need to train the Iraqis sooner.” Unassailable advice, to be sure, but from the beginning the U.S. was trying to train Iraqis rapidly — in fact, too rapidly. Haste made waste, as the Iraqi security forces initially shoved out the door weren’t properly prepared. The Pentagon retooled and came up with a more effective training program in the beginning of 2004 that has now borne fruit, although everyone is loath to give it any credit.

For all its missteps, the Pentagon is the embodiment of farsightedness and circumspection compared with its critics, whose imperative often seems simply to declare defeat as quickly as possible. Despite all the hue and cry over Iraq, there is a basic consensus around a common-sense strategy that involves attempting to form a national-unity government and train Iraqi security forces. Whether it ultimately works no one can know, but it is irresponsible to lack the patience to give it a reasonable chance.

Democrats think there is a percentage for them in exactly such irresponsibility, and John Murtha is walking point.
http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200603210800.asp

IP: Logged

lotusheartone
unregistered
posted March 21, 2006 12:15 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Thanks Jwhop..that's encouraging!

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted March 21, 2006 12:19 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
December 16, 2005, 8:18 a.m.
Dazed and Confused on Iraq
The damaging power of Democratic convictions.

Cynics charge that Democrats have been following the polls in their stepped-up criticisms of the war. But it’s much worse than that — they have been following their convictions.

It is political calculation that has long kept Democrats from airing what they truly believe about the Iraq war, but with the changed political environment, they finally feel that they can reprise 1968, that glorious year when they helped sink another American war effort. So, Senator John Kerry is back to accusing American troops of “terrorizing” women and children just as he did 35 years ago. The Iraq war offers two great dramas: Iraqis voting in their third national election as they struggle to create a viable democracy, and Democrats shadowboxing with infantile obsessions from the Vietnam era.

More than 100 Democrats in Congress voted to authorize the war because many of them thought it was good politics to do so. It turns out it would have been much better politics to have voted their beliefs, so no flip-flopping would be necessary when they came to oppose the war openly. Part of the Democrats’ indictment against President Bush is that he made them vote on the war prior to the November 2002 election as if to say, “How dare you make us vote at a time when we would be running scared from our own principles.”

All the pressure that had built up from this self-defeating opportunism burst when formerly hawkish Rep. John Murtha (D., Pa.), called for an immediate pullout of American troops in Iraq. A frisson of excitement coursed through the Democratic party at the prospect of again declaring a war lost: Oh, to be young (or even graying and paunchy) was very heaven once again!

Rep. Murtha, a former Marine, was declared by the media the perfect vessel for an antiwar message. Not quite. Blogger Mickey Kaus noticed that within the same interview he said we had to get out of Iraq because there was a raging civil war, and also that it was O.K. to get out of Iraq because a civil war wouldn’t erupt if we left. He told Newsweek that he wouldn’t have publicly denounced the war if the White House had returned his calls. Maybe if he makes the list for the White House Christmas party he’ll call for more American troops in Iraq.

The sight of Murtha denouncing (even incoherently) the war was too much temptation for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.). The House Democrats’ strategy was to let Murtha take the lead with his surrender proposal, and otherwise get out of the way. But Pelosi couldn’t resist blurting out that she agreed with Murtha’s call and so did most House Democrats. As the political damage of that outburst sank in, Democrats — including Pelosi — began to backpedal. She explained that she would lobby her House colleagues to keep them from officially adopting her position and, apparently, their own position.

Elsewhere, in the spirit of the moment, Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean declared the war lost — until a furor prompted him to explain what he really meant to say was that we could still win, and that it’s imperative that we do so.

The Democrats can’t help themselves. The party’s attitudes about matters of war and peace were forged during Vietnam, and so defeat is stamped in its DNA. Learning what they consider the lesson from Vietnam — that the war dragged on too long when it was a lost cause — they consider declaring defeat the height of geopolitical wisdom in almost any circumstance.

Perhaps they eventually will be proved right, but the American public would prefer to try to win. This is why Democratic calls for retreat are so politically perilous, and so senseless, when Iraq might be on the cusp of a turning. What a fine irony it would be if after denouncing President Bush for being out of touch with Iraqi reality, Democrats were even more so, right at the moment they began to be true to themselves.
http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200512160818.asp

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted March 21, 2006 01:23 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The Durbin Peace Plan for Iraq
David Limbaugh
Tuesday, March 21, 2006


Democrats are constantly accusing Republicans of blindly defending President Bush's Iraq War policies, but how about their steadfast refusal to make leaders of their own party accountable for their ridiculously irresponsible positions on the war and national security matters generally?

New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, writing after the 2004 election, complained that the "red states" re-elected President Bush "despite an utterly incompetent war performance in Iraq and a stagnant economy. This was not an election. This was station identification."

Democrats are still saying the very same thing. While I strongly reject their premise, I believe we ought to turn the tables on them and ask how they can support the whining leaders in their party who have abandoned any pretense of sober judgment concerning the war.

A revealing exchange occurred on "Fox News Sunday" when Chris Wallace, interviewing Sen. Dick Durbin, read a quote from Zbigniew Brzezinski, former President Carter's national security adviser. Brzezinski said: "Democratic leaders have been silent or evasive. They have not offered an alternative to the war in Iraq. It's easy to criticize."

Wallace then pressed Durbin to explain the Democrats' plan for Iraq. Anyone who still maintains the Democrats have a plan after witnessing their utter failure to produce anything remotely resembling one for the past three years ought to read this Fox News transcript.


Story Continues Below

Durbin first tried to pass off the question by offering only criticism of President Bush. Commendably, Wallace would have nothing of it, saying, "Well, that's criticism, sir. What is your plan?"

Durbin, after promising to "be very specific," proceeded to offer an embarrassingly vague three-point "plan." He said Democrats support the "bipartisan" Senate approach to: 1) establish 2006 as "a year of transition, where the Iraqis take control of their own security and defense;" 2) put Iraqis on notice that "they have to form a government that embraces all of the factions within Iraq so that we can see finally a government of unity leading to some sort of progress for the people of Iraq;" 3) demand accountability from President Bush, by making him report our progress in Iraq every three months.

With respect, this tripe wouldn't be taken seriously in a high-school debate. The third point cannot reasonably be considered part of a plan at all; merely a reporting requirement. And President Bush is already trying to accomplish the first two points, but they are broad goals, not specific elements of a strategic plan.

As for point one, everyone knows the administration has been trying feverishly to train Iraqi security forces to take over the primary role of defending Iraq. But neither Durbin nor any other Democrats offered specifics to expedite the transition because even they know it is a matter for the generals to handle, not officious, micromanaging politicians.

Indeed, their chest-pounding about training Iraqi troops faster reminds me of the weaselly President Charles Logan on the phenomenal TV series "24," demanding, with all the authority of the late "Barney Fife," that CTU "find those terrorists right now before they release their nerve gas."



Can Pheromones Fix Your Relationship?
Can You STILL Get Rich In Real Estate?
Protect Your Identity with New Service!
Sir John Templeton Warns of Housing Crash -- Prepare!

Like the Democrats, there is an inverse relationship between the shrillness of Logan's demands and the rationality and constructiveness of those demands. Like the Democrats, Logan brings nothing to the table. He just criticizes and impedes those genuinely trying to protect America's interests.

As for point two of the plan, President Bush clearly envisions Iraqis working together in the newly formed government. But he hasn't issued threats in case of their noncompliance.

But how about Durbin? What does he propose we do if Iraqis don't demonstrate the degree of unity that he and his fellow uniters demand? Precisely how would he suggest that we Americans compel greater sectarian harmony in the new government structure? Again, they offer nothing specific. In fact, what they offer doesn't even rise to the level of vagueness. It's just nothing. Nothing at all but more insultingly vacuous rhetoric.

Moving on, Durbin's responses to Wallace's questions about Sen. Feingold's attempt to censure President Bush were equally revealing of the Democrats' unfitness on national security matters.

First, he said Feingold's frustration with the Republican Senate for not holding Bush accountable is what led to the censure resolution. Second, he admitted that they needed more information to determine whether the NSA surveillance program "violated the law."

So here we have a leading Democratic senator refusing to condemn a like-minded colleague for trying to censure a president – an extremely serious act – for violating a law they don't even know for sure was violated – all because they are frustrated with fellow legislators – not the president. Talk about a reckless transferal of hostility.

Isn't it time for Democrats to demand more from (their leaders?
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/3/20/215019.shtml

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted March 21, 2006 03:12 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Pillars of nutty-putty. They stand for nothing but they're against everything.

Washington Prowler
Defiantly Shaky
By The Prowler
Published 3/20/2006 12:08:11 AM

Sen. Harry Reid told reporters last week that it might be true that American voters don't know where Democrats stand, but that they will know by November.

That may be a little too late for undecided voters, which is why both House and Senate Democrats on the Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee and the Democrat Senatorial Campaign Committee keep insisting that they have a positive message.

On Thursday, both Democrat campaign committees began touting their election-year plans and policies. Democrats in the Senate intend to go the route of Sen. Russ Feingold, pressing anti-war rhetoric at every turn.

On the House side, DCCC chairman Rahm Emanuel, he of the ballet and Clinton Administration career track, says his candidates will be attacking "rubber stamp Republicans" at a time when Republicans in the House and Senate are anything but. Emanuel thinks so much of the moniker that his staff says that he has trademarked the name "Rubber Stamp Congress." We expect to see it on coffee mugs and T-shirts across the nation.

Emanuel briefed reporters on the DCCC plans last week, and called Republicans "rudderless" and "divided." He refused to discuss his own party's confusion and division, for example on the Feingold censure initiative and his caucus's plans to dump its leadership in January 2007.

"We don't have to have specific policy ideas or positions," says a DCCC staffer. "Rahm is taking a bigger picture approach to our candidates. We'll give them themes to play off of, but we think the best candidates will take those themes and create local issues and initiatives that catch the attention of the specific voting block they are trying to attract."

When asked about running against the war, the staffer said, "That goes without saying, unless they are in a district that tends to run counter to that notion."

So much for tough stands.

On the Senate side, Sen. Harry Reid and his chairman of the DSCC, Sen. Chuck Schumer, continue to press the anti-war rhetoric as key to their success. On Thursday afternoon, Reid took heat from some members for his soft response to Republicans who called Democrat bluffs on a censure vote against President Bush for the NSA overseas terrorist monitoring program.

According to sources with knowledge of the closed-door meeting, Reid pushed back on his colleagues, telling them that it wasn't a good idea to vote to censure anyone with ties to the NSA program, particularly since there was a criminal investigation underway to determine who had leaked the NSA program's specifics, and that investigation could enmesh one or more of their own.

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=9553

IP: Logged

All times are Eastern Standard Time

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Linda-Goodman.com

Copyright © 2011

Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.46a