in the wrong era. Soundly refuting
liberals online since 2000.
| Heritage | 0 | |
| Reuters | 2012 Watch: Mitt Romney’s message from GOP: Step it up |
0 |
| Fox News | Hmm: Obama to give 10 states a pass on No Child Left Behind deadline |
0 |
| CBS LA | Wha? LA County OKs $1,000 Fine For Throwing Football, Frisbee On Beaches |
0 |
| Ballot Box | AZ: Aide injured in Giffords shooting will run to replace her in House |
0 |
Audacity of Truth
Gaffetastic:
Vice President Joe Biden had his “oops” moment Wednesday speaking in a 49er-crazed SF when he told a crowd at a city political fundraiser that “the Giants are on their way to the Super Bowl.” - SF Chronicle, 1-18-12
The Defeatocrats
Rich Lowry writes in today’s NRO:
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 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.
Sad but true.
The defeatist mentality has been the Democratic theme almost from the word go as it relates to the Iraq war. I recall House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s (who opposed the Iraq war) statement after the dramatic scenes of the pulling down of the Saddam statue in Baghdad:
“I have absolutely no regret about my vote on this war,” she told reporters at her weekly briefing yesterday, saying the same questions still remain: “The cost in human lives. The cost to our budget, probably $100 billion. We could have probably brought down that statue for a lot less. The cost to our economy. But the most important question at this time, now that we’re toward the end of it, is what is the cost to the war on terrorism?”
Even the Democrats who were allegedly “forced” politically to vote for the Iraq war resolution (like Dem presidential candidate Senator John Kerry) have taken a decidedly negative tone on not only the war itself, but the aftermath. And the few Democrats who choose to remain optimistic about the war, like Senator Joe Lieberman, find themselves ostracized from the party’s so-called ‘mainstream’ wing.
When you’ve got a party that constantly harps on the negative (right along with the mainstream press) while refusing to emphasize the positive it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out why so many question their will to win the war.
Should we ignore negative news coming out of Iraq? No. Should we whitewash it with only the positive? No. We acknowledge the problems we face, work to correct those problems, while at the same time praising the efforts and accomplishments of the US military and Iraqi and other coalition forces who are working alongside them. You have to believe you can win something in order to be able to succeed. Simply put, today’s Democrats don’t believe we can win this war yet can’t seem to find the right way to say it without sounding weak, and that’s the face they are putting forth not just to the American people, but to those abroad who want to see us fail – who want to see us lose our resolve. It sends the wrong message, and for that reason alone, I hope that the Republicans do not lose control of Congress this fall. Yes, I was very disappointed in the Republican Congress’ stance on the UAE port deal but when you look at the big picture and look at the alternatives to Republicans who are committed to winning in Iraq, the choice is very clear.
Related Toldjah So posts:
- Dems still trying to find unified message on Iraq
- Dem party leaders feel as though they are in weak position
- Joe Klein: How to Stay Out of Power (and undermine the war in the process)
- Pelosi hails Democrats’ ‘diverse’ Iraq stances
- Dems once again fail to find unified message on Iraq
- Winning in spite of defeatist attitudes
- Dems and media determined to ignore Iraq progress
- The undermining of this war
- A powerful reminder of why we must never waver
- MoveOn.org pulls anti-war ad
- Democrats won’t want to hear this but…
- Rep House calls Dem House’s bluff (MINI-LIVEBLOGGING)
- Dem House Representative calls for immediate troop withdrawal
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Trackbacks
21 Responses to “The Defeatocrats”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Island of Misfit Bloggers
Stats
“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.”"
I thought that when bush gave this benchmark, it was going to be meaningfull. But I do see the point. Giving Iraqis ‘control’ of deserted parts of the country does not show progress. All it shows is misleading indicators of progress. Like Vietnam’s body count.
Andrew just to clarify this for you: Murtha 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.” That is Murtha’s words not Bush’s. And I am not sure how you are comparing this to the body count during The Vietnam War?
“That is Murtha’s words not Bush’s.”
Then I’m getting a bit confused as to where the number came from. Bush recently said that by the end of the year more of iraq will be patrolled by Iraqis than the US. That’s a benchmark, like hte 75% one. But I can see that it might be meaningless since a lot of Iraq is empty.
Its similar to the body count because its a statistic that people can point to but it doesn’t actually measure victory.
What a great post ST. You made my month with this post.
I just do not understand people who are stuck on the we shouldn’t have gone to war with Iraq. That was 3 years ago. We did go. We removed a government and not must hand back a functioning country just like we did with Japan and Germany. It is only IRRESPONSIBLE to ask us to be hasty or not do our due diligence and leave faster than we should. What is the goal of Democrats? To prolong this thing? They are succeeding I believe. Aid and comfort to the enemy is in the eye of the beholder. They may not “believe” they are doing it but that is their failure not ours for seeing it that way.
Andrew the “75%”was said by Murtha. Bush recently said that by the end of the year more of Iraq will be patrolled by Iraqis than the US. I didn’t hear Bush say ¾ or 75% he said “more of Iraq” let’s stick to what he said and not insert figures as Murtha did. If you want to believe Bush was including uninhabited areas of Iraq that is up to you I understood it as the inhabited areas. It makes absolutely no sense that Bush would be talking about the military patrolling miles of nothing unless you are talking about policing sand fleas. For one thing the body count in Vietnam is history the number of dead is now a fact not a statistic it is a number that can not be changed. The percentage of Iraqis patrolling Iraq’s cities can change as some are killed and more are trained to police there own.
Typical hypocrisy of the left, Murtha mumbles around his drool cup that “why, 75% is desert!” but has no problem with the MSM, who give the impression that all of Iraq is a violent, insurgent controlled fear zone, when the actual insurgency is pretty much limited to only 3 provinces. I guess facts are only important if the are used to support your cause.
You know if you just click on the CentCom on the bottom left of this page it will take you to all sorts of links and stories about Iraq. Including this link. Want to stay informed on Iraq, you go to the source. Not the guys hanging out at the hotel Baghdad. Things are getting better over there, and we have our men and women in the Military to thank. They have done an excellent job, and I pray that we show them the appreciation due them when they do finally get back home. It would be awesome to have a NYC parade. This is an excellent post Sister. Thank You so very much – Lorica
” I didn’t hear Bush say ¾ or 75% he said “more of Iraq” let’s stick to what he said and not insert figures as Murtha did. ”
Well, 75% or 50%, the point still holds that the number has the capacity to be meaningless because a lot of the country is empty.
And the 75% could come from somewhere in the admin.
“If you want to believe Bush was including uninhabited areas of Iraq that is up to you I understood it as the inhabited areas. ”
Well, its ambiguous. I’d like it to be what you said, and a meaningfull benchmark, but the point is it could not be. I think its important that we have transparent benchmarks and goals for success.
“Typical hypocrisy of the left, Murtha mumbles around his drool cup that “why, 75% is desert!” but has no problem with the MSM, who give the impression that all of Iraq is a violent, insurgent controlled fear zone, when the actual insurgency is pretty much limited to only 3 provinces.”
Uh, its not hypocrisy. its the same point. The 3 provinces are important ones. Car bombs in baghdad are a big deal. In the middle of the desert? no.
Andrew the insurgency is limited to 3 provinces and their area is getting smaller as the majority of Iraqis are getting fed up with the insurgents. Who do you think is informing us as to where the insurgents are? Using common sense Bush was not talking about uninhabited areas and what Bush said is not open to more than one interpretation.
Well, 75% or 50%, the point still holds that the number has the capacity to be meaningless because a lot of the country is empty.
You are right Murtha’s statement is meaningless.
Since you were using body counts in your earlier statements how come we are not hearing the body count of the Iraqis fighting the insurgents with our troops?
“Andrew the insurgency is limited to 3 provinces and their area is getting smaller as the majority of Iraqis are getting fed up with the insurgents.”
I have no idea if its getting smaller. They do seem to be killing each other more than than us now.
“Since you were using body counts in your earlier statements how come we are not hearing the body count of the Iraqis fighting the insurgents with our troops?”
Probably because body counts are problematic statistics that don’t tell us much about progress. If we kill zero insurgents, that could be a victory because there are none. Likewise if we kill thousands, that could be a loss because it means there is a lot of insurgents and a lot of fighting.
“You are right Murtha’s statement is meaningless.”
You’re getting the point.
Murtha’s statement is not meaningless. It speaks volumes about the liberals, Democrats, and his own fecklessness and lack of acquaintance with the truth. The statement itself, taken as a conveyor of information about Iraq, is worthless, you’re right that it conveys no information about Iraq that’s worth noting. However, as a measure and indication of Murtha’s, and his party’s, lack of will, lack of vision, and willingness to sacrifice US interests abroad on the alter of political expediency, it says much.
Severian that is a given with Democrats and Liberals!
3 years, 2300+, 17,000+ seriously wounded and bush believes that because one city, Talafar, is secure the war in Iraq is going well. Is it any wonder that 57%, of Americans believe that the illegal, preemptive invasion of Iraq was a mistake. 42%, think that bush should be impeached. 79%, think that he lied about why we went to war in Iraq. Peace
Steve did you get your percentages from Moveon.org?
Nope, Karl Rove. Thanks for asking. Peace
Good come back Steve I’ll bet coming up with Karl Rove took all your brain power?
And 100% think steve is a virtual village idiot!
So if you include Tommy and Andrew would that be “It Takes a Village of idiots”!
“He who laffs last, laughs best.” You guy’s really shouldn’t get too far out ahead of yourselves, because the woods are dark and full of nasty meanies. Peace
Hey Steve that’s what a chainsaw is for cut down some trees and use it as firewood so much for dark and when I go into the woods I’m usually hunting so bring on your nasty meanies wimpy. Lock-n-load!