Oh, Goody
cue: panicked civilians racing to embassy roof sfx: helicopter rotors
By streiff Posted in Archived — Comments (40) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
George McGovern, the former senator and Democratic presidential candidate, said Thursday that he will meet with more than 60 members of Congress next week to recommend a strategy to remove U.S. troops from Iraq by June. more...
I would comment but words fail me.
[UPDATE - Moe Lane] I have a few. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Democrats just won, yes? So why are they rushing to take political advice from somebody who lost so badly that a certain TV show thought about giving him a cameo role*? I mean, thanks and all, but you guys sure that's such a good idea?
*This did not actually happen.
« BREAKING: Bank Collapses. Feds cite Sen. Chuck Schumer as "immediate cause" of collapse — Comments (14) | Rave Reviews for Robert Gates — Comments (19) »
Oh, Goody 40 Comments (0 topical, 40 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
This is what people voted for. The American people don't have the stomach for protracted wars. Also, they don't recognize how dangerous our enemy is. How can they when Bush has been running around saying that Islam is the real of peace? So once again, the mighty US will tuck its tail between its legs and is humiliated.
I think what the public wants the most is for Bush to cut the scope back to fighting terrorists instead of nation building in Iraq and getting in the middle of their internal squabbles. Bush needs to communicate instead of just falsely saying "It's the war on terror, stupid". A sunni vs. shiite battle for control of turf and oil is not terrorism.
I don't know who is supposed to be Cindy Sheehan's support, but it certainly isn't me. The Democrats want to cut and run, while I want to win the war. Unfortunately many of my fellow Republicans help Sheehan by supporting slogans like "stay the course".
I'm just a republican who calls 'em like he sees 'em. Sunni battling Shiite over oil and turf is not "terrorism". Getting involved in these Iraqi internal squabbles is distracting from the real mission.
Unlike 3 1/2 years ago when Rumsfeld said we were wiping out the the "last remnants of a dying cause, the "dead-enders", we now have large groups which are part of the Iraqi government shooting at each other. There won't be peace while the main portion of the Iraqi people want to fight.
We need to stay in Iraq but out of the line of fire as long as the core Iraqi groups want to shoot it out. Any real terrorists will be destroyed on sight. Seeing that we aren't going anywhere, but we aren't falling in the trap of attrition, will be a big incentive to stop the "resistance". They need to see that they can't outlast us.
Peace in Iraq must start with the Iraqis. The large groups need to stop shooting at each other and come to a peace agreement. Then they need to start spilling their own blood for peace, in order to stop the smaller groups from fighting and to rout out the terrorists. Once they are serious about peace and dying for it themselves, then we'll start getting actionable intelligence and can help them.
The public will support a real war on terror until the end of time, but by making the internal Iraqi squabbles part of our war, Bush is falling in the trap of setting a timeline for getting out of Iraq, giving the enemy hope that they can outlast us. By pretending this is the war on terror when it is not, Bush ends up weakening support for the real war on terror.
is that there was a whole bunch of so called RINO's (like yourself)and Democrats that cheered and voted to enter the war but all of a sudden forgot what they did and cutting and running.
We need to get rid of those "dead-enders", if you voted for the war we now need to win it and stop the whining or crying.
Posting history would be great to have.
Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them. -Ronald Reagan
Anyone who reads my words will see that I am a conservative republican who wants our troops to stay in Iraq for a long, long time. Double clicking my name will show my posting history.
This is a question of how to win the war.
I kept quiet for way too long, and from now on intend to use my right to criticize the president, and to argue the strategy & tactics for the war.
I kept my mouth shut all through the Bush administration like I thought a good Republican should. I spoke up once, to say that Harriet Miers is an unqualified liberal whose shouldn't be on the Supreme Court. Bush's people then called all the conservatives who didn't want Miers "sexist".
As Rush Limbaugh said after the election, "I'm tired of carrying the water for people who don't deserve having their water carried" [the Republican leaders]. No more free rides for Bush. Every president sometimes gets too big for his britches and needs a kick in the pants from the people to fix it. It would have been far, far better if Bush's friends had corrected him in private, instead of letting the liberals try to do it with an election. Bush has already lost both houses of Congress for us, and I'm not going to stand by silently and let him lose the war.
if the Democrat victory was not enough to lose the war, he went and nominated Gates for SecDef. Between the two we don't need an enemy. You can write -30- to the effort in the Middle East. Bush has given up.
John
--------
Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel
campaign ads. If BUush has any balls left, he may have all of the ammo to work with the new "conservative" democrat congress critters to frustrate Nancy Pelosi. Probably not, but we can always hope the ghost of President Reagan will talk to him in the night.
Some see an opportunity in such a disaster, a political advantage purchased with blood. They have been emboldened, and the more responsible elements of the Democratic Party may have no control over these moral lepers. Given what happened with Rumsfeld, I don't look for any testicular fortitude out of the White House but would be pleased to be proved wrong.
This announcement comes the day after President Talabani said that Congressional democrats had "assured" him there was no plan for a quick withdrawal of troops.
"I'm kind of old-fashioned. I like to engage my brain before my mouth." Donald Rumsfeld
I'm sure nobody in the Democratic Party would trust the advice of George McGovern right now, because it would lead them back into the terrible Wood of Error that cost the Democrats so much over the past few decades...from which they never recovered...
Am I right? Am I?...
On second thought, they'll listen to Jon Stewart and Howard Dean, so who the heck really knows at this point? This news along with the revelation that Hill congressional staffers think the President should have canned Rumsfeld a month ago tells me that this country is in a very dangerous place indeed. There is absolutely no leadership or coordination, literally anything could happen, and probably will. That's why I'm putting some new batteries in my flashlight tonight.
Bring in George McGovern to discuss Iraq. Bring in Larry Flynt to address anti-porn statutes. Bring in Michael Moore to discuss the political agenda of the next congress, providing they can pull him away from the complimentary pastry table. Bring in the Dixie Chicks to sing. Yessir, bring them all in.
It'll be moonbats on parade and that promises to be very entertaining, as well as enlightening to the dupes who voted the Dems in. You wanted em', America, you got 'em. I'll just sit back and chuckle and wait for '08.
Smoking Monkey, you are absolutely right. I just wrote about this yesterday after the disappointment and outrage subsided.
Instead of us trying to hang the Dems, let's just give them enough rope because they'll do it themselves.
Steve Lockridge
http://redstateconservative.blogspot.com
-- Today we did what we had to do. They counted on America to be passive. They counted wrong. -- Ronald Reagan
I thought it possible that they would wait until the new congress was sworn in, but two days after the election?
If the progressive Caucus goes with McGovern what will Nancy do, how will Grandma manage this one, which and how many Democrats outside the caucus will be influenced
It's getting interesting already and we haven't even started the domestic side of the plate yet. Minimum wage increases,Social Security hikes, income tax "reform", full amnesty for any thug who can carry his drugs or bombs across the shreds of our borders, why a whole new world is opening up.
I see a new & expanding market for anti-depressants
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
They always drag out their success stories to guide their future plans.
How about this one ... Democrats lie to America AGAIN. Nutroots played the role of the fool, all the while lamenting Lamont. wonder if Lamont wants his money back. Murtha, he is the fool.
some Democrats desire, but this time at the Iraq Embassy, I thought it hyperbolic. Wrong.
If the Left continues down this path, and Bush continues to have to accomodate the movement, we need not have our brave men and women linger in Iraq one second longer. If the Left gets to micromanage the war, the goal will be a replay of this scene thirty years later.
The only reason why the liberals got traction and are partially controlling our destiny is because Bush let them. He was challenged again and again over the war. Bush refused to answer in any detail about why we were there, or knock down the charges made by the left. Instead he dug his heels in and tried to make it sound like the only two choices were fight the war exactly the way he is doing it, or cut and run. He refused to say why Iraqi internal battles are part of the war on terror, or even what our goals are in Iraq.
One other point: few things could hurt the war on terror more than giving control of Congress to the Democrats, but that's what President Bush played a big part of doing by stonewalling, and then only firing Rumsfeld right after the election. That's what congressional republicans believe, not just me.
http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/110906/rums...
To me this is like the Harriet Miers nomination. We need conservatives, not liberals to correct the way the president is fighting the war, or at least challenge him.
You guys (the Democrats) are killing me!
A laugh a minute...
(you'd think they would wait on this till at least Thanksgiving so that people wouldn't be listening)
We get the goverment that we deserve
To me the most telling passage from the article was:
"McGovern told the audience Thursday that the Iraq and Vietnam wars were equally "foolish enterprises" and that the current threat of terrorism developed because — not before — the United States went into Iraq."
McGovern used to live down the street from us, He had one of the cheaper houses, his successes not affording him with enough money to buy a bigger house. Long story short, he moved recently. Obviously he didn't like the neighbors :-).
Why do donks always go to their successful people when they are in need of advice. Admittedly, most may not even know who McGovern in, he is one of the leftover fossils from the Vietnam era, who lost the 72 election to none other than Richard Nixon by one of the largest margins in history -- in other words, total wipe out. Thats his claim to fame.
Murtha is the current incantation of McGovern, both huge ass clowns.
but you might want to consider that both of those men are authentic American war heroes. Being that today is Veteran's Day, I personally think you should show a bit more respect. The profanity is out of line.
for their active duty service in the military. "American war heros" they aren't, see here for the profile of an American war hero.
Please note, also, that military service does not connote anything after said service is over. Carter and McGovern were men with no vision for America and were failures in their attempt at government service in elective office (note that getting elected is not the same as successful service). Both have brought disrepute on their status as former elected officials through their comments and their work to undermine the policies of successive Administrations. John Murtha has become a self serving, whimpering coward masquerading as a former Marine.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
George McGovern was awarded a Silver Star, and a Distinguished Flying Cross for his service during WWII. John Murtha was awarded a Bronze Star, two Purple Hearts,the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry, and the Navy Distinguished Service Medal.
I agree with your point that it matters not after the fact, but whether you agree with their politics or not, they are both American war heroes.
I'll concede Carter. Actually the title of your post had overwritten him so I didn't see him there...LOL. He was not a war hero. He was Navy sub captain, and by all accounts not an exemplary one, although to even get to that level you have to be a pretty sharp cookie. I was enlisted sub nuke MM many years ago and there were still a few guys around who had some good Carter stories. They weren't generally complimentary.
I do not recall that was ever a submarine commander; as I recall he was an engineering officer in nuclear submarines. But I could be wrong, I've tried to the degree possible to erase Jimmah Carter from my memory.
John
--------
Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel
Read carefully. In any war, strategic decisions must be kept secret. In asymetrical war, the reasons for military and political actions require even more secrecy. The administration cannot explain its actions to the electorate without the enemy knowing. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfelt cannot speak clearly about our intermediate aims and goals without alerting the enemy. There is the rub. To explain what our strategy is is to render that strategy useless. As Roosevelt could not, in May 1944, give a fireside chat in which he informed the American puplic about the forthcoming Normandy invasion, Bush cannot explain why certain actions, which may appear unsucessfull, are actually part of a long-term strategy that is working. If your understanding of strategy is limited to "charge" or "mass the big battalions and advance" or "On to Richmond" or "Commit more troops to the battle of the Somme," you are lost tryiny to understand asymetrical warfare.
We don't live in a monarchy or dictatorship, so if Bush can't explain the war, then he can't fight it. The danger of tyranny from a rogue president who is above the law would be higher than from Islamic terrorists.
(Would anyone feel comfortable with President Hillary having that much power, to move hundreds of thousands of troops anywhere she wants and start a war without ever giving an explanation? What about the even more extreme Nancy Pelosi, who according to the Constitution will be third in line for the presidency starting in January?)
No one is asking the President to broadcast operational plans and troop movements. But now that we have achieved his goal of standing up Iraq with a constitution and elected government, he needs to say what the new goals are, and what they aren't, like if we will stay out of the line of fire in the Iraqi civil war.
It seems like the President has decided that information can be made available, since the report from this study group he commissioned will be made available to the public.
No one is asking the President to broadcast operational plans and troop movements
Maybe you aren't...but the Dems are!
Off cycle elections are determined by extremists. Normally the results of the war would have been sufficient, this time everything possible was done to suppress those results.
Lets face it the president didn't even begin trying to communicate until two weeks ago. I can't think of any candidate who did a great job of communicating why we need to be in this fight.
The saddest thing is that it would be so easy for the president to crush the democrats. The people still trust him far, far more to fight wars than the pacifist democrats. All he needs to do is find his voice. Yet he's been silent for two years while the democrats hurled one charge after another at him. The voters don't believe the wacky moonbat conspiracy theories but they're scared because Bush won't communicate.
This whole thing reminds me of Gulliver's Travels, that the tiny Democrats are tying ropes and yelling at the sleeping giant. All the president needs to do is wake up, and with a few speeches he could crush them like insects.
Our government does things because it has the support of the people or at least their acquiescence . When the government is able to engage in wildly unpopular actions by ignoring the people you will know we have become an empire.
US Embassy in Iraq or on the roof of the White House????
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=12988
This is a pretty good article giving 7 opinions on what victory in Iraq is, and how to get there.
FWIF, I agree with Stephen Biddle. Counter-insurgency tactics won't work when the whole country is the insurgency and the only group willing to fight and die for the Iraqi government is Americans.
You have already provide the visual.
I wonder; is this the America Democrats voted for on election day? A return to failed policies of the past and a pre 9-11 mentality?
Only time will tell.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"