Well, It's Offical: We Just Lost The War
By haystack Posted in Spotlight Blogs | War — Comments (147) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
In one of the worst days in America since we abandoned Viet Nam, America is once again about to capitulate from a position of strength. I am, at the moment, ashamed of my country's Politicians...deeply ashamed.
Be careful what you wish for.
Read on . . .
Game:
Gates: U.S. Not Winning War in Iraq
Gates said he believes Iran is developing nuclear weapons, and that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is lying when he says Iran is not.
"Do you support an attack on Syria?" Byrd asked. "No sir, I do not," Gates said.
Earlier, Gates told senators that the United States should not be afraid to talk directly to its adversaries, as it did during the Cold War.
Set:
Al Jazeera:The next US defence minister has admitted the US is stuck in Iraq.
Match:
As far as I am concerned, it is time to immediately withdraw all troops and military resources out of the region and be done with it.
Allow the Middle East to fall in to whatever chaos they so choose, and await the next barrage. We can immediately focus all our troop strength to the ports and borders, hunker down, and wait for it.
"A Just and Honorable Alternative"
In a letter dated January 5, 1973, from President Nixon to President Nguyen Van Thieu of the Republic of Vietnam, our esteemed former Commander in Chief told the South Vietnamese:
We will proceed next week in Paris along the lines that General Haig explained to you. Accordingly, if the North Vietnamese meet our concerns on the two outstanding substantive issues in the agreement, concerning the DMZ and type method of signing and if we can arrange acceptable supervisory machinery, we will proceed to conclude the settlement. The gravest consequence would then ensue if your government chose to reject the agreement and split off from the United States. As I said in my December 17 letter, "I am convinced that your refusal to join us would be an invitation to disaster-to the loss of all that we together have fought for over the past decade. It would be inexcusable above all because we will have lost a just and honorable alternative."
As we enter this new round of talks, I hope that our countries will now show a united front. It is imperative for our common objectives that your government take no further actions that complicate our task and would make more difficult the acceptance of the settlement by all parties. We will keep you informed of the negotiations in Paris through daily briefings of Ambassador [Pham Dang] Lam.
I can only repeat what I have so often said: The best guarantee for the survival of South Vietnam is the unity of our two countries which would be gravely jeopardized if you persist in your present course. The actions of our Congress since its return have clearly borne out the many warnings we have made.
Should you decide, as I trust you will, to go with us, you have my assurance of continued assistance in the post-settlement period and that we will respond with full force should the settlement be violated by North Vietnam. So once more I conclude with an appeal to you to close ranks with us.
Just and honorable indeed. At what cost, and to how many lives, and with who's blood did they reach this honor they claim to have sought?
The South held up to their end of the bargain, capitulating to the demands made of them by the US and the North (sound familiar Hezbollah/Hamas/Israel?)...Nixon would go on, along with Ford two years later, to go back on these promises. Our Congress would further shut off funds to the South, turning the American people's backs on the South Vietnamese, and ultimately sealing their fates.
On the backs of over 58,000 fallen American Heroes two years forward from Nixon's letter, the South Vietnamese would die at slaughter, and North Viet Nam would take over the country in total violation of the Paris accords, and at the expense of far too many lives lost solely at the hands of a capitulating American Government and its feeble and shameless leadership.
We find ourselves at this very same nexus today, in the desert rather than the jungle, and we await much the same series of events as the ones described here that cover the last 6 years of the Viet Nam war .
Our men and women fought bravely in Viet Nam and got no thanks or appreciation or respect or dignity from an America that was, at the time, too self-absorbed in personal pleasures and self-discovery. Many Soldiers died and many more were wounded, fighting to prevent the very thing our Government ultimately caused to happen in SPITE of these sacrifices, and those warriors that DID make it home continue by and large to suffer from the collective American disdain for their service and their sacrifice.
We find ourselves staring at these prospects again, having learned nothing from history nor our foolish Military and Civilian leadership who would again manipulate their personal power struggles and their squabbles and partisan fights over the scraps of limelight they so desperately desire with no compunction for who's lives these gains in self-adoration are achieved at the expense of.
I am outraged by the repeated failure of our Political Heroes to grasp what is at stake here, and sickened by the continued deprecation of this country's greatness and might by the anti-war crowd who live among us like vultures and vermin. I can't even find the word that describes my anguish over the extent to which it is AGAIN at the expense of our men and women in uniform. I await the cost in Iraqi lives, and call my own Christian fatwa against all manner and form of American Politicians who have used the push to unseat and replace power as the means by which the new Viet Nam is about to be created.
"Peace with Honor"
On January 23, 1973 then-President Nixon would go on TV and Radio to announce:
Good evening. I have asked for this radio and television time tonight for the purpose of announcing that we today have concluded an agreement to end the war and bring peace with honor in Vietnam and in Southeast Asia.
The following statement is being issued at this moment in Washington and Hanoi:
At 12:30 Paris time today [Tuesday], January 23, 1973, the Agreement on Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Vietnam was initialed by Dr. Henry Kissinger on behalf of the United States, and Special Adviser Le Duc Tho on behalf of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam.
The agreement will be formally signed by the parties participating in the Paris Conference on Vietnam on January 27, 1973, at the International Conference Center in Paris.
The cease-fire will take effect at 2400 Greenwich Mean Time, January 27, 1973. The United States and the Democratic Republic of Vietnam express the hope that this agreement will insure stable peace in Vietnam and contribute to the preservation of lasting peace in Indochina and Southeast Asia. .
That concludes the formal statement.
Nixon would go on in this address to say this:
Throughout the years of negotiations, we have insisted on peace with honor. In my addresses to the Nation from this room of January 25 and May 8, [1972] I set forth the goals that we considered essential for peace with honor.
[...]
The people of South Vietnam have been guaranteed the right to determine their own future, without outside interference.
[...]
The United States will continue to recognize the Government of the Republic of Vietnam as the sole legitimate government of South Vietnam.We shall continue to aid South Vietnam within the terms of the agreement and we shall support efforts by the people of South Vietnam to settle their problems peacefully among themselves.
[...]
We must recognize that ending the war is only the first step toward building the peace. All parties must now see to it that this is a peace that lasts, and also a peace that heals, and a peace that not only ends the war in Southeast Asia, but contributes to the prospects of peace in the whole world.This will mean that the terms of the agreement must be scrupulously adhered to. We shall do everything the agreement requires of us and we shall expect the other parties to do everything it requires of them. We shall also expect other interested nations to help insure that the agreement is carried out and peace is maintained.
As this long and very difficult war ends, I would like to address a few special words to each of those who have been parties in the conflict.
First, to the people and Government of South Vietnam: By your courage, by your sacrifice, you have won the precious right to determine your own future and you have developed the strength to defend that right. We look forward to working with you in the future, friends in peace as we have been allies in war.
To the leaders of North Vietnam: As we have ended the war through negotiations, let us now build a peace of reconciliation. For our part; we are prepared to make a major effort to help achieve that goal. But just as reciprocity was needed to end the war, so, too, will it be needed to build and strengthen the peace.
To the other major powers that have been involved even indirectly: Now is the time for mutual restraint so that the peace we have achieved can last.
And finally, to all of you who are listening, the American people: Your steadfastness in supporting our insistence on peace with honor has made peace with honor possible. I know that you would not have wanted that peace jeopardized. With our secret negotiations at the sensitive stage they were in during this recent period, for me to have discussed publicly our efforts to secure peace would not only have violated our understanding with North Vietnam, it would have seriously harmed and possibly destroyed the chances for peace. Therefore, I know that you now can understand why, during these past several weeks, I have not made any public statements about those efforts.
The important thing was not to talk about peace, but to get peace and to get the right kind of peace. This we have done.
Now that we have achieved an honorable agreement, let us be proud that America did not settle for a peace that would have betrayed our allies, that would have abandoned our prisoners of war, or that would have ended the war for us but would have continued the war for the 50 million people of Indochina. Let us be proud of the 2 1/2 million young Americans who served in Vietnam, who served with honor and distinction in one of the most selfless enterprises in the history of nations. And let us be proud of those who sacrificed, who gave their lives so that the people of South Vietnam might live in freedom and so that the world might live in peace.
Look to history and consider such potentially similar circumstances for the Iraqis, Afghans, and anyone ELSE not so inclined to freely align themselves with the Radical Islam that is about to claim victory in the Middle East. Be creative, use your imagination:
[reference for the following is HERE]
January 27, 1973...four days later... the Paris accords were signed, and an estimated 150,000 North Vietnamese soldiers are allowed to remain in South Viet Nam.
On March 29, 1973 - The last remaining American troops would withdraw from Vietnam.
In April 1973 - President Nixon would renew his earlier secret pledge to respond militarily if North Vietnam violates the peace agreement.
On June 19, 1973 - The U.S. Congress would pass the Case-Church Amendment which forbid any further U.S. military involvement in Southeast Asia, effective August 15, 1973. The veto-proof vote is 278-124 in the House and 64-26 in the Senate. This Amendment would pave the way for North Vietnam to wage yet another invasion of the South, this time without fear of U.S. bombing.
On July 16, 1973 - The U.S. Senate Armed Forces Committee began hearings into the secret bombing of Cambodia during 1969-70.
On July 17, 1973 - Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger testified before the Armed Forces Committee that 3500 bombing raids were launched into Cambodia to protect American troops by targeting NVA positions. The extent of Nixon's secret bombing campaign angered many in Congress and resulted in the first call for Nixon's impeachment.
On August 14, 1973 - U.S. bombing activities in Cambodia were halted in accordance with the Congressional ban resulting from the Case-Church amendment.
On September 22, 1973 - South Vietnamese troops assault NVA near Pleiku.
On November 7, 1973 - Congress passeD the War Powers Resolution requiring the President to obtain the support of Congress within 90 days of sending American troops abroad.
On December 3, 1973 - Viet Cong destroyed 18 million gallons of fuel stored near Saigon...and the beginning of the slaughter of the South officially had begun.
In September 1974 - The U.S. Congress appropriated only $700 million for South Vietnam. This left the South Vietnamese Army under-funded and resulted in a decline of military readiness and morale.
In October 1974 - The Politburo in North Vietnam decided to launch an invasion of South Vietnam in 1975.
On December 13, 1974 - North Vietnam violated the Paris peace treaty and tested President Ford's resolve by attacking Phuoc Long Province in South Vietnam. President Ford responded with diplomatic protests but no military force in compliance with the Congressional ban on all U.S. military activity in Southeast Asia.
On December 18, 1974 - North Vietnam's leaders met in Hanoi to form a plan for final victory.
On January 8, 1975 - NVA general staff 's plan for the invasion of South Vietnam by 20 divisions is approved by North Vietnam's Politburo. By now, the Soviet-supplied North Vietnamese Army is the fifth largest in the world. It anticipates a two year struggle for victory. But in reality, South Vietnam's forces will collapse in only 55 days.
On January 14, 1975 - Testifying before Congress, Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger states that the U.S. is not living up to its earlier promise to South Vietnam's President Thieu of "severe retaliatory action" in the event North Vietnam violated the Paris peace treaty.
On January 21, 1975 - During a press conference, President Ford stated the U.S. was unwilling to re-enter the war.
On February 5, 1975 - NVA military leader General Van Tien Dung secretly crossed into South Vietnam to take command of the final offensive.
On March 10, 1975 - The final offensive begian as 25,000 NVA attacked Ban Me Thuot located in the Central Highlands.
On March 11, 1975 - Ban Me Thuot fell after half of the 4000 South Vietnamese soldiers defending it surrender or desert.
On March 13, 1975 - President Thieu decided to abandon the Highlands region and two northern provinces to the NVA. This resulted in a mass exodus of civilians and soldiers, clogging roads and bringing general chaos. NVA then shelled the disorganized retreat which became known as "the convoy of tears."
On March 18, 1975 - Realizing the South Vietnamese Army was nearing collapse, NVA leaders met and decided to accelerate their offensive to achieve total victory before May 1.
On March 19, 1975 - Quang Tri City fell to NVA.
On March 24, 1975 - Tam Ky was over-run by NVA.
On March 25, 1975 - Hue fell without resistance after a three day siege. South Vietnamese troops now break and run from other threatened areas. Millions of refugees flee south.
On March 26, 1975 - Chu Lai is evacuated.
On March 28, 1975 - Da Nang is shelled as 35,000 NVA prepare to attack.
On March 30, 1975 - Da Nang fell as 100,000 South Vietnamese soldiers surrender after being abandoned by their commanding officers.
On March 31, 1975 - NVA began the 'Ho Chi Minh Campaign,' the final push toward Saigon.
On April 9, 1975 - NVA closed in on Xuan Loc, 38 miles from Saigon. 40,000 NVA attack the city and for the first time encountered stiff resistance from South Vietnamese troops.
On April 20, 1975 - U.S. Ambassador Graham Martin met with President Thieu and pressured him to resign given the gravity of the situation and the unlikelihood that Thieu could ever negotiate with the Communists.
On April 21, 1975 - A bitter, tearful President Thieu resigned during a 90 minute rambling TV speech to the people of South Vietnam. Thieu read from the letter sent by Nixon in 1972 pledging "severe retaliatory action" if South Vietnam was threatened. Thieu condemns the Paris Peace Accords, Henry Kissinger and the U.S. "The United States has not respected its promises. It is inhumane. It is untrustworthy. It is irresponsible." He is then ushered into exile in Taiwan, aided by the CIA.
On April 22, 1975 - Xuan Loc fell to the NVA after a two week battle with South Vietnam's 18th Army Division which inflicted over 5000 NVA casualties and delayed the 'Ho Chi Minh Campaign' for two weeks.
On April 23, 1975 - 100,000 NVA soldiers advanced on Saigon which was now overflowing with refugees. On this same day, President Ford gave a speech at Tulane University stating the conflict in Vietnam is "a war that is finished as far as America is concerned."
On April 27, 1975 - Saigon was encircled. 30,000 South Vietnamese soldiers were inside the city but were leaderless. NVA fired rockets into downtown civilian areas as the city erupts into chaos and widespread looting.
On April 28, 1975 - 'Neutralist' General Duong Van "Big" Minh became the new president of South Vietnam and appealed for a cease-fire. His appeal is ignored.
On April 29, 1975 - NVA shelled Tan Son Nhut air base in Saigon, killing two U.S. Marines at the compound gate. Conditions then deteriorate as South Vietnamese civilians loot the air base. President Ford now orders Operation Frequent Wind, the helicopter evacuation of 7000 Americans and South Vietnamese from Saigon, which begins with the radio broadcast of the song "White Christmas" as a pre-arraigned code signal.
At Tan Son Nhut, frantic civilians begin swarming the helicopters. The evacuation is then shifted to the walled-in American embassy, which is secured by U.S. Marines in full combat gear. But the scene there also deteriorates, as thousands of civilians attempt to get into the compound.
Three U.S. aircraft carriers stand by off the coast of Vietnam to handle incoming Americans and South Vietnamese refugees. Many South Vietnamese pilots also land on the carriers, flying American-made helicopters which are then pushed overboard to make room for more arrivals. Filmed footage of the $250,000 choppers being tossed into the sea becomes an enduring image of the war's end.
On April 30, 1975 - At 8:35 a.m., the last Americans, ten Marines from the embassy, depart Saigon, concluding the United States presence in Vietnam. North Vietnamese troops pour into Saigon and encounter little resistance. By 11 a.m., the red and blue Viet Cong flag flies from the presidential palace. President Minh broadcasts a message of unconditional surrender. The war is over.
And, here we are again...right back in the same hell we couldn't see if it set us on fire.
[originated at NoEndButVictory]
Gates said we are neither winning or losing. the press is lying again (again? that would imply that they at some point stopped).
It is what he said--his initial, spontaneous response. He qualified after someone pointed out the error to him over lunch. That's the problem.
"I'm kind of old-fashioned. I like to engage my brain before my mouth." Donald Rumsfeld
I haven't checked the transcript, but my recollection of it is this. In his initial comment he said yes we are not winning. Then he qualified, referring to Pace, that we are not losing either. And somewhere he said that we can win; an outcome he is committed to.
After lunch, he said that the military had won every battle, and that his comment referred to the political situation.
If you have checked a transcript, then of course I defer to you.
John E.
the President and his men decided to rely upon wishful thinking rather than clear eyed hard reality. He wishfully believed that we could achieve our ends with a minimum number of troops. He wishfully believed that the Iraqi people would welcome us as liberators. He wishfully believed that the Iraqi oil profits would finance the cost. He wishfully believed that the American people would continue to support the war when they were constantly offered overly optimistic assessments of the situation that conflicted with actual reports from clear eyed realists.
The only difference between now and the beginning of the war years ago is that NOW the people who also wishfully believed the nonsense that the President was peddling have had to open their eyes to the fact that he has been terribly wrong about every major decision he has made in this war. It was a bad idea, badly executed, and now our nation will have to face the consequences of the actions of President Bush.
The phrase I'm keying on here: "He wishfully believed that the Iraqi oil profits would finance the cost." This is just a Mobified "No blood for oil."
--
It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones. -- Calvin Coolidge
And I don't care if he or she is a Democrat, a Communist, or Satan himself.
It is time we Republicans faced the reality that this whole operation was ill-considered and thoroughly botched. I am deeply sorry, as an American (and as a Republican who originally supported the invasion), that things have come to this, but there is no point in pretending we're going to "win." It will only make the situation worse.
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
despite controversy surrounding possible Norman origin of the Irish "DeVine" (see biggest pub in Dublin). The Normans were the last Frenchmen to be led to victory by a Frenchman instead of a Corsican. They were so happy that when they got to the emerald Isle and discovered whiskey, they set about cohabitating with the Scots to produce the Webb Born Fighting Jackson and Reagan.
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
Re: The Normans were the last Frenchmen to be led to victory by a Frenchman instead of a Corsican.
I suppose Joan of Arc does not count because she was a French woman? (I know you were being a bit tongue in cheek, but still...)
corrected and proudly include Joan in by non-PC all gender inclusive "Frenchmen" and even as a member of Mankind!
Yes, Viva la Femme de la Arc!
Napoleon!
Two that would never succumb to defeatism borne of dems, msm or even haystack (and we love you haystack as much as we love 311)
ps
I was actually counting on you alecs, beacuse I figured their were more Frenchmen than one woman (Charlemagne?) but i wanted to make a point and trying help win a war, and my french point is made even in the exceptions!, heh
and besides, with the french, its a pretty safe bet
the #1 key to victory is will
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
Your next personal shot is your last. We understanding each other?
-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.
and now wants to quit (hence the French reference) and have America lose, as questioning one's patriotism?
Let me ask you a question that I have asked many liberals over the years here at Redstate that none of them have ever answered. Write a sentence that you would consider to be unpatriotic so that it would be proper to question one's patriotism. I assume you would see no problem with truthfully identifying unpatriotic statements.
Have at it. Prove you are a patriot and show us you know unpatriotic statements when you see them. We have already established that it is not unpatriotic to call for one's country to quit and lose a war, so this should make the job easier.
(btw, my heritage is Scots-Irish, ie drunks, but with Norman, ie French origin and going back even further, Iraqi, ie Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden between the Tigris and Euphrates)
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
Unpatriotic: "I want what is bad for America."
Not unpatriotic: "I believe that (increasing troop levels/redeploying troops/staying the course/insert favored solution here) is best for America's interest."
Also not unpatriotic: "I believed that attacking Iraq was correct, but knowing what I know now, (it was not such a good choice in the first place and/or I support deploying the troops)."
Have you ever looked back at anything you've done and said, "if I knew then what I knew then I would have done something differently." Is this situation so much more difficult becuase of the magnitude of the original decision and the number of lives at stake.
Just becuase you disagree with another American's belief of what is good for America does not make them unpatriotic. The fact that we can debate what is best for our country while respecting that everyone wants what is best for the country is what has allowed the United States to be such a great country.
I'm sorry if this is difficult to understand.
agreed? And therefore same is unpatriotic by your definition. If we agree on the above, then we have made progress.
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
You may disagree about whether a troop withdrawl is a defeat or not, but your tautological answer doesn't really adequetely address the rather silly issue of whether he's patriotic or not.
When men yield up the privilege of thinking, the last shadow of liberty quits the horizon.
— Thomas Paine
He's wrong on at least two points. First, neither Bush nor anybody else expected oil to cover the whole cost of the war or rebuilding. They expected oil to pay for part of it, which it has, but not as much as we'd hoped. The main reason for that has been the violence directed toward staunching the flow of oil, which is not something that we could have predicted.
Second, there is no reason, even at this late date, to expect to "lose" in the sense that we must cede the field to Iran or Al-Qaeda. You know I am not a fan of how this war has been conducted, but that is no excuse to give the mullahs another country to play with. Our own security interests require that we refuse to accept defeat, change our strategy, and move forward. I have suggested that means abandoning the idea that we must have a democracy in Iraq, consider other alternatives such as Iraqi federalism, and possibly increase troop strength in Iraq temporarily in order to secure hot spots like Baghdad. Other than that we must KBO, for we have no real alternative.
A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli
I resent a Moby like you trying to appropriate that label for yourself.
A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
to care about whether someone you disagree with is a Moby. We have legitimate things to argue about since the election (as was beautifully articulated by many diarists on this site) and it just seems, I dunno, irrelevant now.
When men yield up the privilege of thinking, the last shadow of liberty quits the horizon.
— Thomas Paine
If we have important things to discuss, we need to discuss them with people who come here in honesty and good faith. Mobies do nothing of the sort. They come here to derail discussions, and sidetrack them with lies.
--
It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones. -- Calvin Coolidge
When it comes to Iraq, though, it's frankly not clear to me what is the correct course of action from here, and I can't tell a moby from a neo-con from a con any more. Like I've said before, I'm not a political expert like you guys or anything, but I come to redstate to observe (mostly) the exchange of ideas. The name calling and accusations just tire me out, esp. since the election. Usually you can tell the Mobys b/c they're flippin nuts, but I don't know - is the Iraq Study Group a bunch of mobys?
When men yield up the privilege of thinking, the last shadow of liberty quits the horizon.
— Thomas Paine
of admitted non-expert consensus seekers, for consensus's sake, not seekers of victory, which they are not qualified to determine in any event. I think they are just a pawn and device for Bush to use to play the PR game, with no relevance whatsoever as to what we actually do in fighting our enemies.
See below reporter (who will soon be fired if he works for an MSM outlet show the lack of clothing worn on the ISG.
Jonathan Karl, who used to be at CNN, the best question of the day. He might have been the fourth or fifth question. Best question of the day, and after he asked this question, there was a stunned silence for at least 20 seconds while Baker and Hamilton figured out what they were going to say in answer.
KARL: I understand you went to Iraq once. With the exception of Senator Robb, none of you made it out of the green zone. Why should he give your recommendations any more weight than what he's hearing from his commanders on the ground in Iraq?
RUSH: That's the question. Why should he listen to you guys? You went there once. You never got out of the green zone, except for you, Senator Robb. You never got out of the green zone. Why should he listen to you guys and not the commanders on the ground? And it was met with stunned silence. Both Baker and Hamilton were a little miffed at this show of disrespect for this august group of blue-ribbon panel members. Here's Hamilton's answer.
HAMILTON: The members of the Iraq study group are, I think, public servants of a distinguished record. We don't pretend now, we did not pretend at the start to have expertise. We've put in a very intensive period of time. We recognize that our report is only one. There will be many recommendations. But the report will stand on its own and will be acceptable or rejected on its own.
RUSH: Get this. Get this.
HAMILTON: We also hope that our report will help bridge the divide in this country on the Iraq war --
RUSH: Yippee.
HAMILTON: -- and will at least be a beginning of a consensus --
RUSH: Yeah.
HAMILTON: -- because without that consensus --
RUSH: Yeah.
HAMILTON: -- in the country --
RUSH: Yeah.
HAMILTON: -- we do not think ultimately you can succeed in Iraq.
RUSH: All right, so there you have it. Well, what we really want to do here is bridge the divide in this country. We're public servants and we work very hard. How dare you ask that question. Here's Jim Baker's answer.
BAKER: Let me add to that, that this report by these -- this bunch of has-beens up here is the only bipartisan report that's out there.
RUSH: See? See, ladies and gentlemen? Its value is that it's bipartisan and they're attempting to achieve consensus like the new castrati.
The new castrati mobies
Bush is the antithesis of castratis, old and new.
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
So, that would make him a Castrator? I'm sorry, but you know, that really does not clarify for me the correct course of action on Iraq.
When men yield up the privilege of thinking, the last shadow of liberty quits the horizon.
— Thomas Paine
Most of al Qaida has been castrated. Iran is fomenting violence in Iraq. And Iran has been the pre-eminent sponsor of terror since 1979. They are the ultimate destination in this war. We have then surrounded, the Gulf made into our lake, and free allies growing on their borders.
The whole reason for this enterprise was encapsulated on 9/11's attack on our soil by non-nuclear islamo-facists, of the type Iran has been supporting against us and Israel for decades.
For examples of what we must do, loom to past wars won by the US and other nations in history. The ISG consensus building essay ain't the way
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
"He wishfully believed that we could achieve our ends with a minimum number of troops."
Entirely possible, had we waged WAR rather than 'Win their hearts and minds'
"He wishfully believed that the Iraqi people would welcome us as liberators."
A great many of them did, or did you miss what the soldiers who were in the initial invasion said? Oh, that's right, it didn't fit into the agenda so the MSM forgot to report it...
"He wishfully believed that the Iraqi oil profits would finance the cost."
First, as has already been said above, he didn't. 2nd, So What? People have made financial errors before and the government has made bigger ones...
"He wishfully believed that the American people would continue to support the war when they were constantly offered overly optimistic assessments of the situation that conflicted with actual reports from clear eyed realists."
Certainly they would have, had War been waged rather than just threatened...
"The only difference between now and the beginning of the war years ago is that NOW the people who also wishfully believed the nonsense that the President was peddling have had to open their eyes to the fact that he has been terribly wrong about every major decision he has made in this war. It was a bad idea, badly executed, and now our nation will have to face the consequences of the actions of President Bush."
No. The difference is that the politicians involved were pathetic excuses for "leaders" and are now trying to save their careers. It didn't work for the guys who did the same with Vietnam. It won't work for these guys.
"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal comfort... has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill
... but I'm pretty sure you've made them to someone who is undergoing something akin to a cleansing ritual at the moment. Just saying.
Best -
-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"
I waited a month after the elections to bother posting here again. I didn't even gloat or anything. I read this post about "The war is lost" as a sign that even the people on this site are coming to grips with the realities of the Bush Presidency.
I'll go jump back on your pile now, but don't worry...I'll be back in January when the subpoenas begin coming out. I am very eager to hear the Redstate comments when the truth about Dick Cheney, Halliburton and war profiteering comes out.
Tick tock Redstaters...it's only a few weeks away....
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"
We can get really nasty with the new software we have. Think an IP ban sucked before? Oh, man. You don't even know. And I'm in just the mood to show you.
-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.
When men yield up the privilege of thinking, the last shadow of liberty quits the horizon.
— Thomas Paine
I wonder who Teeman hates more: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush, or Bin Laden, al-Sadr, and Ahmadinejad....
-TS
"What is a moderate interpretation of the text? Halfway between what it really means and what you'd like it to mean?" - Justice Antonin Scalia
>>>I'll be back in January when the subpoenas begin coming out. I am very eager to hear the Redstate comments when the truth about Dick Cheney, Halliburton and war profiteering comes out.
was in ofice will be featured writ large in any hearings conducted by Henry Waxman. Come back in January so that we can mock you once again.
2006 is done, 2008 is another day and another fight
confirmed to take orders from the man identified as "BUSH", already confirmed as Commander In Chief by the American people, (It should be pointed out that Bush did not face the same silly questions from the American people when he was facing Kerry that gates faced today. Moreover, Bush had weeks to correct misleading headlines unlike Gates) below:
MAIN EXCERPT:
"HUME: Speaking of objectives, what did you tell Bob Gates, when you chose him to succeed Donald Rumsfeld, was the objective in Iraq?
BUSH: A government that can sustain, govern and defend itself and is -- a free government that sustain, govern and defend itself and is an ally in the war on terror.
HUME That sounds very familiar, Mr. President. It sounds like you told him the same thing you've been telling everyone all along.
BUSH: Correct.
HUME: Your objective has not changed.
BUSH: My objective hasn't changed.
HUME: And did -- how did he respond to that? I mean, he did...
BUSH: He said, "I think we can achieve that objective."
HUME: And did he -- did you, in any sense, suggest to him that his mission was to get the United States out of there?
BUSH: No. My objective is to succeed, and I'll tell you why. Failure in Iraq would be a disaster for your grandchildren. And the reason why it'd be a disaster for your grandchildren is because we're now in an ideological struggle between extremists and people who want to live in peace. And the -- the -- al Qaeda has made it clear that they want to team up with extremists inside of Iraq to drive us out of Iraq and the Middle East. We'd be disgraced. Our allies would no longer support us.
And when you throw in the mix Iran, which is very aggressive in the Middle East, you've got the ingredients for a very dangerous situation. And so whether it be a democracy succeeding in Lebanon or a democracy succeeding in the Palestinian Territories or the young democracy of Iraq succeeding, it's in our interest that we achieve that objective. And Mr. Gates understands that we're in an ideological struggle and that the United States must succeed in helping this young democracy govern, sustain and defend itself."
EXPANDED EXCERPT
HUME: The town is buzzing over the Rumsfeld memo that leaked to the "New York Times." How do you view that memo? Do you consider that a list of things that you might do? How do you view it in relation to the other advice documents you're getting and will be getting?
BUSH: Well one of the key points is that I'm getting a lot of advice documents and of course these documents were never intended to be read in the public. These are frank assessments by different members of my administration. We're going to be getting another advice document from the Baker/Hamilton Commission soon. My attitude is I ought to absorb and listen to everything that's being said, because I'm not satisfied with the progress being made in Iraq.
And the good news is neither is the Iraqi leadership. And so I'm listening to the Iraqis. I'm going to listen to members of Congress. I want to listen to, obviously, Baker/Hamilton. More importantly, when it comes to military matters, I want to listen to the military, to come up with a -- a way of achieving our objective quicker. And so this is an important period.
HUME: Speaking of objectives, what did you tell Bob Gates, when you chose him to succeed Donald Rumsfeld, was the objective in Iraq?
BUSH: A government that can sustain, govern and defend itself and is -- a free government that sustain, govern and defend itself and is an ally in the war on terror.
HUME That sounds very familiar, Mr. President. It sounds like you told him the same thing you've been telling everyone all along.
BUSH: Correct.
HUME: Your objective has not changed.
BUSH: My objective hasn't changed.
HUME: And did -- how did he respond to that? I mean, he did...
BUSH: He said, "I think we can achieve that objective."
HUME: And did he -- did you, in any sense, suggest to him that his mission was to get the United States out of there?
BUSH: No. My objective is to succeed, and I'll tell you why. Failure in Iraq would be a disaster for your grandchildren. And the reason why it'd be a disaster for your grandchildren is because we're now in an ideological struggle between extremists and people who want to live in peace. And the -- the -- al Qaeda has made it clear that they want to team up with extremists inside of Iraq to drive us out of Iraq and the Middle East. We'd be disgraced. Our allies would no longer support us.
And when you throw in the mix Iran, which is very aggressive in the Middle East, you've got the ingredients for a very dangerous situation. And so whether it be a democracy succeeding in Lebanon or a democracy succeeding in the Palestinian Territories or the young democracy of Iraq succeeding, it's in our interest that we achieve that objective. And Mr. Gates understands that we're in an ideological struggle and that the United States must succeed in helping this young democracy govern, sustain and defend itself.
HUME: When Donald Rumsfeld was first named, of course, that was pre- 9/11, you gave him the mission of the transformation of the shape of the United States military. Everything I've been told about what goes on over there is that project goes forward only when and if Donald Rumsfeld is there to shove it forward with his energy.
BUSH: Yes.
HUME: Do you anticipate that Bob Gates will be able to carry that on in the way that Rumsfeld did?
BUSH: I think that Don Rumsfeld has done remarkable work in transforming our military. I believe he has got the process far enough down the road that -- and Bob Gates will be able to continue that.
HUME: You do? You're still convinced of that?
BUSH: Because it's an objective of my administration. It's exactly what I told him when I talked to him about taking this job. I talked to him about two things: one, succeeding in the Middle East and secondly, transforming the military at the same time.
READ THE WHOLE THING
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,178760,00.html
READ WHAT BUSH'S SPOKESMAN SAID ABOUT WHAT THE MEDIA SAID ABOUT WHAT BUSH'S SOON TO BE EMPLOYEE SAID
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_con...
I truly worry what might happen to haystack and Neil if I were to be absent from these parts for more than 72 hours.
ps
The terms "winning" and "losing" are meaningless at any time before one side has actually lost or won, beacuse whoever actually wins, was at all times prior thereto "winning" for the word "winning" to have any meaning.
Hence, we didn't know if that football team that scored 200+ points last week was winning until the whistle blew. They were ahead until they won, but we didn't know if...
you get the point?
Levin was thrown a bone or two
Can we please space these defeatist fits further apart in time?
with love
GC
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
That's the most logical thing i've read on this thread, thanks.
When men yield up the privilege of thinking, the last shadow of liberty quits the horizon.
— Thomas Paine
Bush is still president, and he isn't changing his objective. As for strategy, that is always up for grabs and should be.
I don't share in your sense of impending doom just yet. Call me what you like, but I still think the entire Rumsfeld/Gates affair is being done to buy time for a final push to control Baghdad, so we can leave on something of a a high note.
-----------------------
Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman
Exactly the problem here. Why are we leaving with the war not won in the first place?
God, this is going to make my job hard. I desperately hope my tour is over before the surrender becomes official...
"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal comfort... has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill
Five years from today, or ten years from today, we'll still have bases and troops in Iraq, maybe 10- or 15-thousand strong, half Air Force. And the sporadic killing will continue just as it does in India. Life goes on.
Actually they weren't. Because for the term "losing" to have any meaning, they must actually lose. Because if they win, then they always in the process of winning all along.
Gamecock, Six years of not falling for MSM word games and fake reality, and counting...
Would all of you please join me in that and in also not declaring the US under a CINC that has never wavered unless and until he actually does? It must be sad to get rushes from being the purveyor of gloom and doom. (I mean except when one is speaking to an ex-wife about how decadent their life is compared to yours.) It really multiplies the feeling if it actually comes to pas, and it saps victory of its full joy if one proves to be wrong. Don't get invested more in one's cynical predictions and the preening displays thereof, than one invests in Hope.
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
But until about Christmas Eve 1776 Washington was, truth be told, getting his butt handed to him. Regularly. Or was Thomas "These are the times that try men's souls" Paine just making it up?
And for a fair amount of 1861-1863 Lincoln was, in fact, losing. Badly.
Just saying.
-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"
The product of ing
Milk-ing produces milk
weave-ing produces cloth
lose-ing produces loss
Washington won
The Nats were trailing the Braves 7-6 in the 7th...
your pick got nitted
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
Say "Hi" to Lt. Uhura for me when you get there...
-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"
The difference? Lincoln and Washington's political leadership was willing to do what needed be done on the homefront.
"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal comfort... has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill
There have been several on this board since the last election who are willing to throw in the towel.
May I interject something personal?
I was not a believer in the Vietnam War. I could not provide an adequate answer to the cute little chick who sat next to me on the flight to Oakland.
"Why are you going?" she asked.
Months later, there were guys arriving in-country saying how much worse public opinion had become regarding the validity of the war.
Alot of good that did me.
What really mattered back then, and I daresay it is seared, seared in my mind to this very day, was making it back alive in one piece - even though those in charge Nixon and Henry Kissinger proved to be the ultimate in C(ing)YA.
I still can't find the similarity between those two and George W. Bush.
Today, I see our troops having to deal with real doubts, and they are not the result of questions being asked by cute little hippy chicks.
Instead, the doubts are presented by those who once spoke in favor of the war in Iraq.
Indeed, a parallel with Vietnam.
Is that the government that is supposed to support those soldiers is not making any substantial response to all the attacks on the troops by the other side.
That is what has caused all the doubt and fear among those who support the war, including the troops.
"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal comfort... has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill
me in the direction to where troops serving in Iraq have doubt and fear about their mission? Are there some sources?
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
(recommended for your comment). I watched a couple hours of the hearings today, then flipped on the local news at noon to see the weather and heard their AP summary. It was like they were talking about an entirely different hearing.
Don't believe one word that you hear from the media. Even if the words are correct, they take them out of context and remove their meaning. The MSM is an entirely untrustworthy place to get any information. You have to go to the source if you want to know anything.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
That was amply demonstrated when I switched from the headline at NewsMax.com to the one on the Drudge Report. You can definitely say that there was some 10-second soundbiting going on. The tragedy is that there will be no sane people left when all the dust settles from this, because in the end, the threats will still be ignored once the Left has its way and we're going to be awakened one day by a thunderous boom and a burning light with no one to turn to but God himself. And it just might be that we won't know anything until He starts holding the Interviews...
--
"Straight Talk Express"? My bum feet! -- Me, on Senator McCain and other "moderates"
"We're winning, but the President felt I made a prettier face than Rumsfeld on TV?"?
I don't care what he does to butter up Levin if he'll go out and win.
But you're aware of course that by merely mouthing these words - to be played to receptive MSM audiences around the world - Gates has basically thrown everyone who has been saying (with no small degree of truth) that 1) we're not getting the whole story out of Iraq and, 2) it's not nearly as bad as the MSM portrays it for the last 2-3 years under the bus, right?
Remember, this came from the mouth of the man George W Bush chose to run the Defense Department - and, by extension, the man who will be the day-to-day face of the Iraq war.
And he basically said, under oath, in front of a Senate Committee, that everything the President and his peeps have been saying about Iraq for, well, who knows how long is - how can I put this diplomatically... oh, I've got it! - no longer operative.
Super.
Just. Super.
-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"
baker tried his best to keep Reagan from saying the immortal:
"Mr. Gorbachev, Tear Down This Wall!"
At the time, all the buzz was how silly the old man was when contrasted with the urbane baker and co.
Now, whose words do me remember?
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
What precisely does this have to do with the price of eggs?
And are you seriously trying to say Bush 43 == Reagan?
-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
And it's trademarked, not patented. But certainly I, a humble engineer, am not about to explain that you you, a jurist.
But hey, any time Mr. Bush wants to have his Brandenburg Gate moment is just fine by me.
I'll only suggest that he may, just may, be running out of time.
-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"
Bush seems to prefer chain link moments. Reagan's gate moment was in a year 7 after a Reykjavik. Aren't there enough defeatist dems calling Bush, the troops and this Country a loser everyday? Must Bush and Cheney work 12 hour shifts each day constantly repeating what Bush said Monday (see up-thread), the last few weeks (see link below), what Tony Snow said today (see up thread) and that he and Cheney and Rummy and Condi have been saying since the Axis of Evil Speech in 2001 and since the invasion of Iraq in 2003 to prevent even us from announcing defeat every time the MSM tells us we should?
I have chastised republican elected leaders of Congress for emboldening our enemies almost as much as the dems (see below on Graham) for playing armchair CINKs 24/7, and have looked at Redstate as a refuge from all that. Yet, I can't count (retainer not paid) all the diaries and comments I have felt moved to make to combat utter defeatism, HERE. ALL unjustified, given Bush's spine. Why don't we save up all the wicked rushes of pleasure from pronouncing bad news for when and IF it actually occurs. It is a bit pathological to exult in pronouncements of despair and defeat time and time again, especially when between such pronouncements the BOSS always reiterates his same determination to win in Iraq and against Iran.
I'm tired but not dead, and alert for the next pixel paroxysm. And look, I'm not mad at you or haystack. It is hard to stomach anything less than Churchillian total victory statements for me too, but we are surrounded by idiot liberals of no small portion of the population and Bush has to deal with them in an exalted state of power in Congress, but he will still lead us to victory. We can trust Bush on the war, just like on judges. I hope you have had a chance to hear Scalia, Roberts, Alito and even Kennedy in the racist school board case. They are going to overrule forced busing! This is huge. (and of course, I was all for the end of legal racial segregation and me and my parents were leaders in integrating the races in the south with the first integrated cib scouts, little league and paralegals) But it is also wrong to deny a child a place in their local school based on race, and I'm sure you agree. I digress
Bush Still Sane, Still President. Resists Baker Coup to Surrender to Iran in Iraq
WASHINGTON - Despite a growing and virtually universal consensus both in the US and abroad that the United States must engage Syria and Iran if it hopes to stabilize Iraq, US President George W Bush appears determined to ignore Baghdad's two key neighbors as long as possible.
That is increasingly the assessment of analysts who had been hopeful that the Democratic sweep of the mid-term congressional elections in November, as well as Bush's decision to replace Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld with former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) director Robert Gates, would incline the president toward a more accommodating stance.
In particular, it had been thought that those two developments would make the anticipated recommendation by the congressionally mandated, bipartisan Iraq Study Group (ISG) co-chaired by former secretary of state James Baker - that Washington actively promote and participate in regional negotiations on Iraq that would include Iran and Syria - politically irresistible. Its long-awaited report will be released next week.
But recent statements by Bush and other senior administration officials, as well as the departure of a key "realist" adviser to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, have fueled growing speculation that Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney hope they can still prevail in Iraq without having to sit down with the two "evil-doers".
Indeed, that appeared to be the message Bush wished to convey on Tuesday at a North Atlantic Treaty Organization summit in Riga where he recommitted the US to support for Iraq's "young democracy" and vowed not to withdraw US troops "until the mission is complete".
"He has no intention to change his policy in Iraq," Pat Lang, a former top Middle East analyst at the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency, concluded after reviewing Bush's remarks.
In the same appearance, Bush also seemed to rule out talks with Tehran and Damascus under present circumstances. "Iran knows how to get to the table with us. That is to verifiably suspend their [uranium] enrichment programs," he said, stressing, however, that he had no objection to direct talks between the Iraqi leaders, such as those carried out over the weekend in Tehran by President Jalal Talabani, and their counterparts in Iran and Syria.
read it all
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/gamecock/2006/nov/30/bush_still_sane_still...
http://gamecock.townhall.com/g/7fc74600-34eb-4a3c-86cd-0ef29f0dbc97
Sen. Graham Displays GOP Culpability for Tepid Public War Support in Radio Interview
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/gamecock/2006/nov/01/sen_graham_displays_g...
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
Must Bush and Cheney work 12 hour shifts each day constantly repeating what Bush said ...
Yep. It stinks, but there it is. The last thing we need is 535 CinC's, but there was a void - and lots and lots of TV time - that needed to be filled and plenty of wanna-be's (Biden, Hagel, etc.) ready and willing to fill the time.
But to be fair to us "defeatists", I don't think there are any of us who want that result. But I have to tell you, short of putting everything we have in country, kicking the mother-loving Shiite out of everything not wrapped in an American flag and singing "I'm a Yankee Doodle Dandy", while also opening up a Trident D-5 sized can of Whoop @ss on Iran I really, truly, honestly don't see anything that can be called "victory" out there to be had.
Maybe it's there.
But from here on out it's going to take more than "Because Bush Sez So" for me to believe it.
But I'm happy you're not mad a me and 'stacks - at the end of the day.
-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"
I know you guys don't want defeat and I know that Haystack is having a ball knowing that I kind of fell for the hyperbole about a statement in a confirmation hearing less than 72 hours after all the Left on Sunday went ape that Bush had reiterated his determination to win with Malacki after assuming that the Dem victory guaranteed defeat and less than 48 hours after a detailed renunciation of any notion of retreat or dialogue with Iran unless they become Connecticut.
I would suggest that we look back at Washington, Lincoln and FDR and assume that of course everyone had confidence in them that they would win even when they were at a much lower state that we are. We have lost less than 3000 and occupy 2 nations surrounding the main enemy while a bunch of fanatics kill each other.
Bush sees reality. We can and will win. Thank God that past leaders facing doubters didn't give up. I see that stuff in Bush.
I see well.
btw, my intials really are
MAD!have faith
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
... what do you want to bet Baker's ISG comes up with nothing better than "stay the course" and "they stand up, we stand down" - only wrapped in a pretty colored Blue bow and dressed in fancy paper?
Even money, no worse.
Tomorrow's going to be a fun day.
-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"
I said essentially that a week or so back:
Rumsfeld's Departure, the Baker Commission & The Decider
Sunday, November 12, 2006 6:27 PM
excerpt
I also suspect that most of the work in Iraq requiring over 100,000 troops is largely done but that Bush's main goal is to make sure that when they begin with withdrawal it not be seen as a defeat like the Dems have tried to ensure. I think the Baker Commission will be the cover. It will cite the sterling achievements. The Dems cynical timetable ala Murtha actually coincided with the Bush's plans all along. But the Dems goal is that America be humiliated in the world.
See also Fred Barnes' "There's Still Life in that Lame Duck":
excerpt:
"With Rumsfeld's resignation, Bush demonstrated his willingness to make major concessions. Rather than change the strategy in Iraq, he changed the strategist. This is not the first step in a disguised retreat from Iraq, Bush aides insist, nor does it represent a turnover of national security policy to the "realists," as opposed to an idealist like Bush, who ran foreign affairs under Bush's father. The president told Rumsfeld's successor, Bob Gates, the goal is still to create a stable democratic Iraq that can defend itself--in other words, victory."
read the whole thing
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/945gol...
And read Bush's comments on the war in his pre-election interview with conservatives in the Oval Office and I think we should conclude that Bush will never stop defending us and will not betray our purple-fingered allies in Iraq nor our troops:
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/baroneblog/archives/061025/an_inter...
How many times have we worried that Bush would waver and weaken on the war due to his silence or media spin and speculation? Yet he has never wavered. Never. And The Decider won't.
read the whole thing after war and peace!
http://gamecock.townhall.com/g/142f2838-652c-4c36-b702-f912aae36e52
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
That's a good word gc, to describe those who want so badly to win, but are so frustrated by mistakes and setbacks that they throw in the towel. We may be contending with the defeatist on the other side of the isle. But on our side we are beset by the self-defeatist. I am so glad you have the energy to contiune to buck up. Right on bro!
John E.
George Bush, as recently as October 25, with regard to the war in Iraq: "Absolutely, we’re winning."
Robert Gates - George Bush's personal choice to head-up the DoD, yesterday, in response to a pretty damn simple question, "Do you believe that we are currently winning in Iraq?": "No, sir."
That is frustrating.
-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"
You don't have to tell me. I feel it too! I heard Gates in real time and had you been here you would only have had to look at me to understand my rant. I am very disappointed that Gates is not taking up the battle against the defeatist narrative of the Dems and the MSM. But as the recent election shows anyone who now contradicts the "failure" narrative is now pilloried by the thoughtless prejudice for that narrative. I realize Gates can't win that battle at the foot of the dais. What is ultimately important to me - far more important that the political gamesmanship - is that we win on the ground in Iraq. And if Gates is committed to that, I will forgive him for making the judgment that the best way to gain public support for his renewed victory efforts is to concede to the political narrative - a loss already determined in the election - while proclaiming that the course can be turned around.
His commitment to victory is what we should rally around, not his concession to the political narrative, as though that defeat means ultimate defeat. That is self-defeatist. He has not given up the ultimate fight. The president has not given up the ultimate fight and neither should we! We have to win and we have to continue to focus on the reasons we believe that we can win, not the mistakes and losses. Focusing on those losses is ultimately frustrating.
John E.
by focusing any and every disappointing syllable from any corner, especially those deemed "THE NEWS" by the MSM ally of our enemies.
There are many syllables, especially from Bush's mouth, that we can focus on that empower Bush and the troops.
Why won't RS join us johne? pathology?
I suspect so, coupled with youth? Is it simply a reflection of how most all Americans are weak on all things war?
I mourn.
Especially when I read of Washington at Valley Forge and the icy Delaware crossing on Christmas.
And especially when I see all the progress I see in Iraq and those brave people we have allied with.
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
Remember Reagan wasn't "Reagan" for 20+ yrs. He really didn't get much credit until after he died. Bush's legacy will start to form in 15 years as well.
If you always find yourself arguing the exceptions rather than the rule you just might be rapidly sliding down your own slippery slope to irrelevance. -CommonCents
Reagan's legacy was largely formed when the Berlin Wall came down. It's the (relatively) favorable press coverage that didn't start until well after 1989 - and only selectively even then.
-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"
His words make it a heck of a lot harder to win.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
I've been trying to say that for hours. Poorly.
-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"
However, our job is not done and we must not give in. If nothing else, it is our job to hold ALL of them to account. In 1975 after the fall of Saigon, there was no alternative to the liberal media. They got away with lies to the public, and not reporting the truth. This time, we need to keep the truth from being buried again.
This time we will not go quietly into the night!
I will not give up! I may want to throw up, but I will not give up!.
Wubbies World - The odds of hitting your target go up dramatically when you actually aim for it!
Nixon and Kissinger dealt with and attempted to make favorable deals with our communist enemy.
Lyndon Johnson chose to believe Walter Cronkite, et al.
I hate the smile the guy has on cnn's home page. Dispicable.
I sincerly wonder how you can hire a defensive secretary who believes we are losing.
Its one thing to say, okay, we need an adjustment. Its another thing to say we are getting our shorts pounded.
Will someone tell me what battle we lost? What territory are we losing?
The territory of being able to say, "We are Fighting this war."
Our supposed leaders never even showed up for those fights. Maybe it would have been different if Snowe had been the Press Secretary from the very beginning. But with how bad it had been allowed to get before he was hired, I don't see the effect of him being there right now.
"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal comfort... has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill
I like Rumsfeld as much as the next guy (especially if the next guy happends to be Dick Cheney); but there is the reality of Nov2, which the president has to deal with. And the reality is that, due to MSM propaganda, most people beleive that we're loosing in Iraq. So choosing a Def. Sec. who'll appeal to the moderates makes sence politically. So what if Gates disagrees with you and me on attacking Iran, it's not his call to make.
The point is, Gates' job is to run day to day operations at the Pentagon, rather than set policies. And his (grossly incorrect) opinions in those matters need not interfere with his job, while helping on the PR front. AlJazeera and NPR may have their celebration, but W is staying the course and is doing his best to get the American people on the side of victory. Until there's evidence to the contrary, let's not have 1960's-flashback moments, and support the mission.
The election we had was a Congressional election, not a Presidential election. The executive's mandate to govern started January 20, 2005 and lasts until 2009.
There's no reason for him to quit staying the course now. None. No excuse either, given how hard so many people worked, and how much money so many people gave to fight for his re-election.
--
It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones. -- Calvin Coolidge
I'm not suggesting that the president retreat, I'm suggesting that he is dealing with reality and taking steps to get the public on his side. Until there's actual evidence that he's running from Iraq, WE should support him instead of running around screaming that the sky is falling.
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
Gates may have either made a gaffe during his confirmation hearing, or told certain Senators (on the Dem side) what they wanted to hear, in order to give the Senators the impression that he was "different from Rumsfeld".
The moment of truth will come after Gates is confirmed. Will he believe MSM reports about a "civil war" told by reporters cowering in Baghdad hotels, who rely on Iraqi "stringers" of dubious credibility, with unknown agendas, for "news"? Or will he believe what soldiers are telling him from the field, such as the one interviewed in Baquba (sp?) by Oliver North last night on the Hannity & Colmes show, who said that the level of violence has consistently DECREASED over the past months, most of it coming from "Al Qaeda", not sectarian Sunni vs. Shiite attacks?
I don't really know what Gates will do when the test comes. But, until he is confirmed, he has not yet begun to fight. Let's give him a chance to win the war, before we blame him for losing it.
The bad news: Conservatism is hard to sell. The good news is that it works.
I don't think we are losing any battles in Iraq. Of course, I don't think there have been any "traditional" battles fought there in years. Our military personnel have done their job and have performed with honor and valor. However, the challenges in Iraq no can only be solved through diplomatic channels, where we are losing without question.
Please elaborate on what challenges we are losing ground on, thanks.
--
It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones. -- Calvin Coolidge
What we are losing is the political/diplomatic war, which was actually lost the second the President justified the invasion with accusations that were (in retrospect) false and supported by flimsy evidence in the face of soft support at home and little to no support internationally.
On the off chance you might actually have something to contribute, let me kindly suggest you put down the Talking Points™ and slowly back away. Quickly.
No one here is in the mood to go back over this ground - again.
-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"
They've gone and fired up the Talking Point Machine again!
"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal comfort... has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill
that my point of view is likely not going to be terribly popular here sometimes (I've been reading for a while). I'm not a Republican (or a Democrat for that matter). So as to avoid steering this discussion on an unwanted tangent, I'll leave it at "the point was that we're not losing anything on the ground, but elsewhere" and retract the rest of the statement.
Finally, I promise that I'll be civil with you guys, even though I'm quite sure that you (and not you specifically, but the general "youse" or y'inz for anyone from Pittsburgh) won't always be that way with me.
...we look forward to your commentary.
Once you write that 1,000 word essay on the origins and causes of the second Gulf War, that is. We'll turn your account back on once we get it via the Contact Us button.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
I wanted to show that some of us can be sports and say "thanks for the retraction". And thanks also that it was a "full-stop" retraction and not a "I'm sorry if someone was offended" retraction.
You may have acutally had a point or two to make - ones which you might be surprised to find would have some support here. But when you fire-up the Talking-Point-O-Matic like you did people (present company included) tend to get testy. In a hurry.
To the point that our resident "Fuzzy Puppy" drug-out his Boomstick™ and sent you into exile.
Oh well.
-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"
The thing that eternally makes this different than Vietnam is that there isn't even a way to define winning and losing in Iraq. Who's side are we on? Sunnis? Shias? If we leave and the Shias overrun the Sunnis like the NVA overran South Vietnam, did the US lose? How? And if a full-scale Civil War breaks out between the Al Qaeda proxies in the Sunni insurgency and the Iranian proxies in the Shia militia, is a war between Al Qaeda and Iran a loss for the US? We went to war against Saddam Hussein's government. For the US to "lose", does that mean that Saddam "wins"? In Vietnam, we lost because we were fighting for one side over another, for one cause over another, so there was a way to define "winning" and "losing" depending on whose side prevailed. The same binary world where there are two sides at war with each other simply does not exist in Iraq. There aren't even two sides in this war, there are at least 5 (Shia, Sunni, Kurd, US, Central Govt).
Instead of "winning" and "losing", the focus should be on getting out and leaving the country in as good of a place as possible (which, admittedly, cannot possibly be a very good place - but that won't change by us staying, either). As far as I'm concerned, ending the dreadful waste of American soldeirs' lives and American taxpayers' money in a situation where winning can't even be defined much less achieved is a "win" for the US.
It goes double or triple for me.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
This is a point that I definitely believe.
Iraq =/= Vietnam and Withdrawing =/= Losing in the way it was in Vietnam.
now breath deep, it's only begun. A war is over when both sides stop fighting, for whatever reason and whatever treaties or truces, therein lies a reason why the war hasn't ended but only one reason.
A--holes will discover, a few posted above, that it is not up to us to end the war, it being initiated by various third parties.
These a--holes will learn, slowly & how else, that this war has no horizons, no boundries, and no time limits.
The challange will be to continue to blame Bush, Rumsfeld, the neo-cons, and Little Orphan Annie if it helps, as the war continues.
Those who realize that Iraq was just a campaign, one military theatre of the war, will have the bitter satisfaction of observing the Democrats at the helm, of observing a Nancy Pelosi who, with the new Congress still weeks away, has succeeded magnificently in disgracing herself and displaying a stupidity that would confound a clinical psychologist. Of witnessing Reid, the drunk Ted Kennedy, Hillary, and the evasive & dishonest Barack Obama pay more attention to domestic programs whose hurtful if not destructive tendencies will be readily apparent.
But the war will continue despite what our motley collection of cynical and opportunistic Neville Chamberlains want or do.
How and to what extent they mangle or cripple it is left to knowledgeable imaginations, no blunder, no act of cowardice, no limit of disgrace, being beyond possibility.
And you may safely bet your life organs that it will always be Bush's war, not Islam, not the terrorists, no, Bush's war & the neo-cons. How else will the faithful live with the degeneracy and moral turpitude of their erstwhile Democratic saviors?
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
Indeed, Iraq is merely a battle in the long war. We'll not succeed in this war through carping at one another, or pointing a finger at someone, screaming shrilly, it's his/her fault.
This war is being waged on our culture, and belief that everyone is free to worship as they see fit. The enemy wants to see their religious beliefs held by all living people. Those who don't believe according to the right book, will be killed, enslaved, or converted.
The military will manage to fight a few battles, like Afghanistan, and Iraq, but our will and education will be the weapons that will win, or lose this war. Living in the culture in which we do, we cannot understand a culture where the religion overpowers a person's civil liberties. When we manage to grasp that, we will have identified the enemy, and can then march forward to battle, again, not always militarily, but through education.
Are we winning in Iraq. From the reports I’ve seen, yes. In three years time, we’ve lost a little over 3,000 soldiers. In that same time period, Iraqi’s killed have numbered significantly more (how much more is up for discussion). Have all of those Iraqi dead been enemy combatants? Probably not, however, a great many of them have, and many of the dead, have not been Iraqi, but Jordanian, or some other nationality obviously come to fuel the insurgency. To wage a battle and lose only a very small percentage of the friendly combatants involved is a success in any book. Why is the question being discussed?
"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government." --James Madison
"Living Documents" suffer this distortion
I'm going to say this, and I'm pretty sure a few of you will flame me. But I'm going to be honest.
If Bush loses this war, then I would want him to step down. It may not accomplish anything other than retribution upon the man. You don't go and fight a war in a politically correct manner, never mind the libs.
Just my 2 cents, now let the flames begin.
the 25 cents worth of gas it would take...
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
Bush stepping down will serve absolutely no purpose other than causing political mayhem domestically.
I vigorously oppose this President, primarily because of Iraq. But myself, and those who agree with me, had our chance to force him to step down. That was in November of 2004. Didn't happen.
I would appalled with him if he DID step down. It's the last thing this country needs.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
... never the less, I cannot continue to reward a president who is losing the front battle in the war on terror with my support. I know I won't have the majority opinion here, but it only takes a few voters in a disgruntled base to create major electoral losses (as witnessed a few weeks ago). I respect your opinions, but as the last election shows, you should respect mine as well.
...I actually don't care all that much aboout damfool opinions (well, provided that they aren't hateful, and I wasn't particularly exercised by yours), but I gotta point this out: we don't have to respect a darn thing. The Democrats didn't make you retroactively more - or less - of a nitwit because they flipped both houses of Congress. Probably made you feel a little less alone, which is a common reaction, and often mistaken for feeling a little more vindicated.
Put another way: you can make the argument that your ideas apparently are more popular than we factored. Not more accurate.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
It's just a plainly stupid idea. With reference to respecting your opinion, come up with one that makes any sense and it will get respect. Heck, most of us even respect flyerhawks opinions - even though most of them are dead wrong :>).
Should Cheney resign also or would you be happy with Big Dick becoming the Big Man?
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
I don't care who becomes 'The Man', as long as there is progress in the War on Terror. Its a tough choice between Incompetence (Bush) and Treason (Libs/Dems/NYT/MSM).
why don't you take some time, think any position through and come up with a rational idea. Until then, don't waste our time.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
You can dismiss my disgruntlement here, but you can't dismiss disgruntlement at the ballot boxes. As a conservative, as a GOP-er, I feel that Bush has failed us in effectively prosecuting this battle in the War on Terror in more ways than one. Maybe I'm wrong. But I do consider myself to be more educated with the issues than the average voter and if I am disgruntled, then I know many average voters are as well.
It is my opinion that we would be better served with Cheney as the Commander in Chief. He is strong, willing to fight back, and just as important ... articulate.
It is just my humble opinion, so I'll throw it out there. Flame away.
President Bush resigns, Dick Cheney becomes President, wins reelection in 2008, and is succeeded in the 2012 election by Vice President Jeb Bush.
I like it! Can you imagine anything that would drive the Kos kids madder? :)
Waking up?
Yes. Cheney (with his epic 19% approval rating) in '08 followed by more Bushes. I'd hitch my star to something that actually has a snowball's chance in hell.
It still pains me that after all this time there is still no border security to speak of. Rumsfeld should have been canned long ago, and we should have put in all those troops that are still stationed in Germany. (70,000+)
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
We lost the war on November 7th, not today.
And we lost the war in '04 when someone (who's name I won't mention) decided to declare Mission Accomplished before the half-time show.
Let's face it, we could have won in Iraq if we'd taken the war seriously. But after the smash and grab of Bagdad, our Administration told us we won and that we shouldn't worry anymore. It's been downhill ever since. We got cocky, we went in thinking we were too cool for school, and now we're getting our kesters handed to us in extra innings.
So the voters, god bless their cut-and-run souls, decided better to forefit the game than to play it out till the end, because money is expensive and terrorists are scary and another plane through a building is apparently the price we're willing to pay to make them stop covering the war on TV. Not the smartest move (by a long shot), but I can't blame them for being a little upset with the home team.
We must summon the power of super man to defeat our enimes and win the war with supermans super lazer beams he will disentigrate the enemy with ultamit victory hahahahaha it is the only way to victory MWHAHAHAHHA Salute BUsh and superman
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
Gimme a pass on the guides and I'll be stronger in the future.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
I am deeply ashamed too, i agree with you 100 percent
De Opresso Liber
going against my better judgement simply because some things can not be left unsaid.
I take specific issue with Haystack's treatment of Nixon at the end of the Vietnam experience. I do this because it is at the heart of the two or three other more general observations I will make.
Nixon & Vietnam: By the time Nixon took office the Vietnam War had NOT been 'lost' militarily - but rendered politically unwinnable. The difference between the two is subtle, but profound. The Vietnam war - for whatever reasons entered into by Kennedy - was so poorly pursued by Johnson in every way that it could never had been turned around except by actual simultaneous invasion of the North and occupation of eastern Cambodia and Laos - which should have occured as soon as possible after he committed American troops in the south.
Just my opinion - but I did spend four years there watching the enemy conduct massive build-ups in Cambodia and Laos from which they launced Divisions into South Vietnam and without the SLIGHTEST concern that they might have to defend their homeland from invasion or have their troops decisively engaged in Laos and Cambodia.
The only significant simularities between Vietnam and Iraq is the disloyal conduct of political and social elements and the MSM at home. In both instances a President/C-in-C was given no-risk legislative authority to wage war - without declaring war. In each instance American military forces never lost a major battle, never lost a major military unit and were on the cusp of driving the enemy into the ground - when the rug was politically pulled from under then at home.
I will say at this point that many of the faces in Congress, the media and elsewhere who ultimately turned their back on the nation and its military in Iraq, were kwy players during Vietnam.
Is this betrayal? I don't know. It is in MY opinion.
Is it treasonous and disloyal? I don't know. It is in MY opinion.
But I'll relate what I do know (I've said it here before): I have three times in my young life seen American troops sent off to war, only to have their efforts subverted at home - mostly by the same peop,e who sent them in the first place; and (if Iraq becomes the third time as it appears it will) seen our troops senselessly butchered and denied victory because it all became just too difficult at home. All of which leads to my final two points.
I think I can be forgiven for concluding (after three disgusting examples) that this country may never again be politically able to successfuly wage another war.
Why? Because the "Military is 'broken'"?
Not on your life!
It is premarily because our government is broken.
Whatever magic was concocted nearly 300 years ago in Philadelphia for 13 very disparite colonies - no longer works for 50 individual states and an overarching Federal Government.
Whatever harmony once existed especially between the Legislative and Executive branches has historically been difficult to maintain. But, the conduct of the not-so-loyal minority during this president's tenure all but rendered the government dysfunctional - a classic example of the disruptive capacity of a ruthless minority.
Politics as usual?
Not with 3000 dead in New York's streets; 2700 dead in a foreign war and madmen swearing this country's death on the eve of their nuclear accession.
Could it be that America is demostrating symptons of governmental, then cultural, then social progenria? I don't know, but I personally beive it is. If not that - then what could cause abherrent political conduct during three wars to become self-fullfilling prophesies?
All of which is to state that the war in Iraq is over. We won the moment Saddam was jerked out of his rat hole. However, the peace is probably lost, mainly because for certain elements at home and abroad - political will was absent or political expediency overruled
Here is the upshot. America is now seen as the 'Paper Tiger' it was called decades ago by China; huge and powerful - but no longer dangerous or respectible.
The issue in Iraq always was, is and will remain much larger than Iraq, itself. It is about our orderly governance at home, our will to sustain under difficulties decisions we made in calmer times. It is about what will now become of the Middle East, Israel and future American endeavors.
Win, lose or draw in Iraq we have shamed and endangered ourselves by our shameful conduct at home. Like 'Nixon's War' in Vietnam, we have rendered Iraq 'unwinnable' (regardless of the definition of the word). And with far, far more dangerous future outcomes.
So be it -
Merely my opinions.
GB
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
It is impossible to give my full opinion of the dis-loyal opposition here at home (due to posting guidelines) and it reassures me not one whit to know that they will pay in an enormous way. Because we all have to pay for their treachery.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
I have come in, written long flowing comments, and found myself deleting every one until you "forced yourself" to get it said.
Forgive my implied blame on Nixon-I agree with your analysis of the Johnson loss...not the Nixon loss. We couldn't have known then, and you had no way of knowing while you were in the jungle, that he was using the war to dally away from what he knew was coming vis a vis Watergate...the old bait and switch as it were...and there is a very sad bigger point to that which you come close to coming right out and saying-
These (expletive removed in deference to the posting guidelines) politicians became then, and continue to be now, more wrapped up in their p.r. campaigns and next election cycle brownie points than they are about the individual lives they play games with like so much of a poorly played Jr. High school chess game.
It is shameful that the war in Viet Nam, righteous in its ideology of both standing up against the spread of communism, and standing BY its chosen ally (the South Vietnamese) finds itself right back in our living rooms 30 years forward.
I have been beaten bloody in some quarters for using Viet Nam analogies...mostly from the left(no surprise)...but I stand firm in my conviction that we are staring right down the barrel of the same gun.
We can fight all day long about WMD's and "mission accomplished" and whatever else, but we find ourselves in Iraq exactly where we were in 1973...righteous in our ideology of standing up against Islamo Fascism and standing BY our chosen ally (the Iraqis)...and we see right in front of us a Democratic party hell bent on punishing a Commander in Chief for being from the opposing party...and for getting re-elected...regardless of what effects that has on the lone Soldier getting shot by a sniper live on CNN...
What we do in life echoes in eternity.
-Maximus Decimus Meridius
to find myself in agreement with you haystack! The naysayers are infuriating and there seems to be no justice for them.
But - I can't stop my digs, as much as they pain me - justice for them is secondary to righteous American victory. No end but victory. We have to lock arms and turn back the foolish tide.
John E.
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
De Opresso Liber
at the same point now in Iraq as we were in Vietnam 30 years ago; for the same reasons and mainly by the same people (or their political spawn).
I have no arguments with your comments other than a disagreement viz Nixon vs. Watergate vs. the war.
The difference between the two circumstance at the end of each of these malodious military campaigns is that we ARE NOT at the same place either in history or within our own current global arena.
Although the Vietnam War was fought differently (Everybody showed up for 'work' each day, all with their automatic weapons and got right down to the business of killing and dying).
Even though we skulked away in the end, the shame was ours for it but it was never likely to affect our homeland, its citizens or our national security. We were simply at play in the fields of the (Democratic) gods - until the fun went away.
Iraq is totally different because of the likely physical effects upon our home and our people if we produce a vacuum for its Islamic neighbors and radical Islamist to fill. They have already attacked us: In New York, Lebanon, Embassies, our ships, aircraft - you remember them all. What does anyone suppose they will do if they conclude that they will be able to strike us in our homes again with impunity in the future?
Therein lies the principle differences between the two wars that we all should rightfully fear today.
Vietnam was simply one of the intermediate plays in the long Cold War - that actually worked to our national advantage in the end.
Iraq is our first major offensive in a long, intense and unfamiliar type of conflict with a rabid, murderous radicalized religion. We had better not give up the field - not now, not ever. If we do, the betrayal will go far beyond our military and extend to all Americans who are quite likely suffer the major consequences.
And yes, the enemy at home includes, not Democrats, per se, but our own home-grown leftist anti-Americans who employ the corpse of the old Democratic Party they hijacked in the 70s - 80s for their own purposes today.
There, Haystack, I said it! YOU drew me out.
I wonder, if we back out of Iraq, what we will EVER again convince young Americans is worth dying for in an all Volunteer military; or their families; or survivors.
Be Well
GB
I would vote to reduce the military to just enough force to keep the Canadians and Mexicans out. Bring everybody home from overseas postings and let the UN protect people.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
Bush is not Nixon.
Some of us are not going to put up with retreat, no matter how much noise the defeatists make. The soundness of our conviction may turn the tide back. Many of us are standing firm because the stakes are too high to give way.
John E.
Bush is not Nixon, but he sure has brought in some notable Fordies into his adminsitration. And guess what happened to South Vietnam under Ford...
--
It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones. -- Calvin Coolidge
I am not really sure what to make of your Fordies reference other than you want to declare that our defeat is inevitable under Bush. Of course, how could you know that Neil?
And so unless you actually want us to lose, why dwell on that? You create a self-defeating prophecy. How does one fight with the resolve that may defeat the odds when one focuses on the possibility that the outcome of defeat is predetermined?
I believe you want us to win. And so I am tempted to respond truculently with a two-word sermon. But I mind my manners.
So you will have to show me what is the value of contemplating your observation.
John E.
People's judgments of where that line is, but in my estimation we are pretty close to that point now. If Bush isn't serious about winning any more (and the appointment of Gates is a pretty good indicator that he is not), then loss becomes inevitable.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
And are you saying that you know it is inevitable zukio?
If so
then you have broken grip with the ranks and joined the thrashing tide. You are now the force we brace to turn back. For that reason you would become indistinguishable to me from the signer of damich's petition.
If not
then why do you whisper doubts in our ear that would serve to make us loosen our grip, to wash out with the tide rather than turn it, to join the signers of the shameful petition.
If you are the latter then I bid you hold your tongue. If the former then do your worst but meet my scorn.
John E.
It seems an awful lot of people here want to dig their feet in the sand and became intransigent because of this report.
Do you not agree that the current policies in Iraq are not working? Or do you think we should just stay the course and hope to wait out the insurgents?
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
I have not been one of those piling on the ISG report, even if I do sympathize with many of the criticisms. If the ISGR gives Dems cover for all their nay-saying - which I despise them for and which has led us up to the brink of defeat due to demoralized public support similar to Viet Nam - so that they can declare that they were right while now going all in for winning and supporting the CinC for the good effort in Iraq, then I am fully ready to forget about all that past for the sake of winning. For me, political victory is utterly secondary to winning the fight for American security.
I do not think the insurgents can beat us or make us leave. I trust the assessments of General Abazaid more than the political talking heads or the MSM. And I am glad for where the president gets his information. For me stay the course has always meant not giving up. We have been adjusting our tactics to the situation since day one. Unfortunately never fast enough. The president has been adjusting all along and if all the naysayers want to say that he hasn't but now we made him so now we support him, then fine, as long as they support him now and go back to convincing the American people that we must, can and will win. The insurgents have only been beating us in the propaganda war here at home and Wormtongue has been their ally.
Turning internal security over to Iraqis is a primary objective. Duh. Talking to Iran and Syria is fine with me. The meeting ought to go something like this: After we turn security over to Iraqi government we are moving our troops to your borders where we will begin intercepting any arms shipments or unauthorized personnel. When we find agents or arms we are going to demand you find the source and eliminate it, else we will. And we are going to destroy any militant proxies you create in Iraq. We will never leave Iraq as long as you are mucking around trying to destabilize it.
John E.
And are you saying that you know it is inevitable zukio?
I'm saying it looks like we are close to that line, and at some point, possibly in the very near future, I might be able to come to the conclusion that we are over that line. At that point, I can't in good conscience support continuing with something I know won't succeed. Not when the costs are as high as they are. If we are going to fail, there's no point in dragging it out.
I'd rather we not fail, but it isn't my call to make. It's the President's call, and I don't know where he really stands on the issue any more... I haven't known that since 11/8. What he decides to do with these ISG recommendations will tell the tale.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
You might take some heart from what he says as gamecock points out.
At any rate, I know that you and Neil and others are worried about that. I know Achance's reasoning and that he pulled up stakes and that Thomas said the American people have made loss inevitable. I grasped that reasoning about not dying for a lost cause as it has been expressed for the last 3 weeks.
And all this speculation about how close to the line we are just pushes more people over the edge. Personally, I don't want to hear it. I am interested in generating support, not eroding it. I can't see what good purpose you think your speculation serves unless you are really after loosening our commitment to winning and a snowball effect to loss. If you are still on the win team then I would like to see you build momentum for support, not the other way around. The president wants to win and he needs public support for that cause. So what I want to say to you and Neil about your speculations is shut up.
John E.
there are vast differences in the bushlieddems since 2003 mantra, the mccainbidenisms of do it my way or we will lose 24/7 armchairqbisms, and the post-2006 election gop-rs defeatistisms, they do have one thing in common:
they weaken the ONE CINC we have that has said and done nothing ever to deserve to be weakened and
AND HEAR ME CLEAR REDSTATERS
they embolden our enemies that rightnow have our troops in their sights.
I am an American First. Not a conservative, not a republican, and not a Redstater. And I love Redstate.
America's Commander in Chief leads America's armed forces today and will for 2 years. He is committed to victory, and even if i thought the Dems could make Bush and America lose, that would only embolden me to fight all the he more!
But I know these Dems have not the guts to defund Bush and the troops.
Bush challenged himself today to imagine that he had lost this war and faced the judgment of history. Bush is measuring himself against a standard so far above Redstate defeatists, that it isn't comparable.
So throw off the vanity boys. Bush is listening to the call of a different drummer.
Johne, I know we have many like-minded thinkers here, but just as a vocal minority in the MSM, or a minority of terrorists can make their voice seem the loudest, all the defeatist here make me fell lonely and tired.
So, thanks for staying the course. Staying the course, like Jesus did. He pointed towards the Cross even as he "changed tactics" based on facts on the ground!
That smart people get wrapped up in silly generalizations...
It insults my intelligence. A lot like democrats did.
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
I want to win. But President Bush fired Secretary Rumsfeld.
I want to win. But President Bush hired a replacement who can't seem to see clearly what's going on.
I want to win. But President Bush has shaken my confidence in him to the core.
As for the value of my observation, I'm just looking at history to see what happened the last time Democratic freaks got a big win during war. And as it turned out, the example that comes to mind is President Ford failing to win a political fight with the emboldened Democrats, and watching as our country failed the people of Vietnam.
I don't want President Bush to be like President Ford, but right now I'm fearing that he will be.
--
It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones. -- Calvin Coolidge
Neil, on at least 5 different occasions since Election Day, Bush has shown he has not changed. Yes, he is dealing with the political situation, but as said earlier, he will use the baker report for his purposes, taking a sentence here and there in his strategy speech mixed with more sentences from Pace and Abizaid. Bush made clear today that no ISG will trump his view of the Axis and his duty to prevent a Middle East dominated by extremist regimes wielding nukes and controlling oil. It was also clear that Gates was spanked by Bush during the recess.
Bush ain't Ford and this is is post 911. Don't despair. The Cowboy lives...
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/gamecock/2006/dec/07/its_official_the_cowb...
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
Time for a change of course, as we lost the war in Iraq months, if not years, ago. Those who think the Study Group or rejection of Republicans on Nov. 7 are the cause of the loss of the war in Iraq are seriously deluded!
For the US to have lost, two things have to have happened.
A) We no longer have the freedom to manuever against our opponents in necessary force to prevent them from reaching their objectives.
B) A specific entity has to have taken over the country.
So please explain....Who can prevent the US from achieving any military goal we desire on that terrain? And, if we don't control Iraq, who controls it instead?
2006 is done, 2008 is another day and another fight
imagine seeing you here!
hold on tight bud-you are in for a ride!
What we do in life echoes in eternity.
-Maximus Decimus Meridius
De Opresso Liber
between losing a war and forfieting it purposly.
There is only one way murderous bushwacking cowards who kill innocents indiscriminately and from a distance in the streets, in the markets, or mosques or their homes can 'win' this war - and that, sir, is in the minds of faint-hearted, poseurs and political wannabes here at home. They have certainly not been able to do it mano-a-mano in real shoot-outs with real warriors.
Those noted above are the defeated: the cowed, pampered, sychopantic political hacks, court jesters, town criers, jugglers, balladeers and lisping thespians of our so-called cultural elite and their MSM enablers.
If America actually ever 'loses' a major war or conflict, it will be these national parasites who will come first squealing in fear and mewling in penitence to the military they scorned and betrayed - to PLEASE keep the boogy man away.
No. This war has NOT been lost. This war has been 'condemned' by those who think they have nothing to lose if America should actually scuttle away from it.
Tell you what: Next time you are out and about and have an opportunity, ask a soldier sailor or Marine how it was that they happened to, yet again, fecklessly lose another needless war. Then come on back and share your experiences with us. Oh, and be sure you also take a split second or two to convince them of how much you really support them - anyway.
By the way. It may be a little soon to begin crowing about how the people have 'rejected' the Republicans by serving up democrats election victories they should have realized two elections ago.
Now, they have the legislative majority. Let them show us what they can do besides excoriate the president these people elected twice.
Voters are not in love with democrats. They are angry and frustrated with Republicans. No worries, though. The electorate will have had seen through the impotent democrat charade next cycle. Their inabilioty to do little other than deconstruct Bush's administration will see to that.
I am a die hard Liberal I read this to keep up with the enemy but. I must say that there is no way we leave Iraq. You can call this anything you like terrorism, sectarian, civil war, armagedon. This war we started, right or wrong, we must finish it. If we do not draw the line in the sand in Iraq it will be the biggest mistake in America's history. We must win no other choise. I will vote for McCain based on this one issue alone
Saddam started a war when he invaded Kuwait. 41's coalition of the UN lowest (Syria) common denominator and Powell and 41's "heart" refused to finish the job when we had 500,000 troops on the ground and after we encouraged Iraqi's to rise up against Saddam only to abandon them to slaughter. Saddam violated the ceasefire American soldiers died to achieve nevertheless, which means that Saddam re-started the First Gulf War.
Moreover, al Qaida and a terror network that included terror sponsoring nations like Iraq and Iran had been waging war against us since 1979 up to including and after 9/11/2001, after which Saddam violated the Bush Doctrine as well.
Moreover, al Qaida and its ilk, many with Iran's backing, have invaded Iraq to wage war against us and their fear of a free ally in their backyard.
We, the United States of America did not start this war or these wars.
agreed?
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
The AlQueda forces, the various Shite and Sunni insurgencies and the plain old criminal elements have been, in effect, spinning their wheels for quite a while. They have been successful in improving their people killing skills but they have not been able to secure recruits in sufficient numbers to accually move to the next phase in the War of National Liberation handbook. They cannot occuppy and hold sufficient territory to justify the appellation "civil war." Looking at the situation in Iraq from our opponents point of view, you will see that, although they can kill unarmed civilians with relative impunity, they do not have either the number of fighters or supporters to support even a "Whiskey Rebellion" type of action. Also, their constant killings has not placed them in the lead for the "hearts and minds" of the Iraqi people.
Our real problem in Iraq is that we have not been able to establish the type of intelligence network to deal with relatively small groups dispersed within a much larger body. As Gates said " We are not winning" but neither is the opposition. The difference is that, when we solve the intelligence puzzle, we will win but, no matter how many people they kill, the opposition cannot win.
This would make me mad, but I already concluded this the day President Bush ditched Secretary Rumsefeld and make his speech capitulating to the Democrats.
So I already worked out that anger. At this point I'm just numb.
--
It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones. -- Calvin Coolidge