Redstate

This is the new talking point to describe any attempt to compare the Iraq political process to the promises the White House made. It's called desperation time, unless the Iraqi government decides to, well, govern within the next week.

Frankly, I don't give a darn about the benchmarks - except that the White House was foolish to make commitments it had no intention of keeping. We're not going to leave just because the Iraqis haven't made internal agreements X, Y, and Z. And we all know that. It just makes the Iraq policy look even worse than it already does.

I understand the President is going to address the nation on this again. I just hope this is an actual new policy, instead of the dream of a shiny, democratic Iraq.

The rest of us prefer to soldier on, thank you very much.

Do you have a better idea that the ones Bush/Petraeus are advancing? Or, are you just here to gripe?

"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)

if Whitfox quits?

Anyone?

Anyone at all?

(Are those crickets I hear?)

"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)

to the fact this is RedState, not NeoConState. From time to time, you're going to get tweaked, like all the other Republican factions here. And when it comes to a twist like the cartoon, it's well deserved.

As for Iraq, I suggest getting out of the civil order business, which is the Iraq government's problem. (Remember, the government we claim is in charge?) We should maintain a base in the area, and an active enough presence to encourage regional stability and to attack terrorists at our discretion.

Once our military recuperates, there's Iran to be dealt with. And while I prefer it not come to ground war, if that isn't a credible threat, we're going to see a nuclear Iran. And won't THAT be fun. Avoiding a similar situation was our prime reason for attacking Hussein in the first place, remember?

Iraqi democracy is a nifty project - for the Iraqis. I think we've given them enough of a start, if they want to finish.

that there's little of value in your opinions, which IMO are the product of facile thinking:

We should maintain a base in the area, and an active enough presence to encourage regional stability and to attack terrorists at our discretion.

Hey...why didn't we think of that??? Mmmmm....I didn't realize this whole Middle East thing could be so fixed so easily! Can you tackle Social Security next for us, Whit?

(I suspect you have no interest in my opinions either. That makes us even, then!)

So, tweak away, if you find fulfilment in so doing.

"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)

to read my posts, go right ahead! But then do me the favor of not asking for my opinions, as you did above. Even on the Internet, my time is worth more than that.

As for getting me to leave, I suggest that driving all Iraq dissenters out of the party is unwise. That's not a recipe for success in 2008. (Why do think I tolerate you?) Learn to deal with the fact that you haven't convinced the public-at-large yet.

if we don't do just that then we are no better than the Democrats.

I predict that Petraeus's testimony will mark the beginning of the end of Iraq as a serious political issue. If I am right, I am in favor of a wholesale purge.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

Is there any other grouping of conservatives you'd like to see purged from the party, besides hate-groups? Why is it bad for the party to purge fiscal-cons, libertarian-cons, or social-cons, but not those unwilling to endorse our Iraq policy?

When it came to immigration, and the White House argued that you couldn't round up all those people, we didn't take the bait. We pointed out there are intermediate positions between near-amnesty and mass deportations, and that they're quite capable of getting the job done.

But when it comes to Iraq, it seems there's only the one true way. Victory or defeat! It's even considered so obvious as to be without need of argument. But I think what was true in one case is true in the other: There are intermediate positions that get the job done - and better than either extreme.

The certitude I often see here on this issue is uncomfortable to watch. I believe we lost in 2006 because the public was looking for responsible adult leadership. Between the scandals and "stay the course", the Republican party didn't seem a good choice for that. Since then, the Democrats have helped us greatly by making fools of themselves. I just don't want our side looking a little maniacal as well.

If our Iraq policy is good enough to be above major modification, then the American people can be convinced. We may not always be well informed, but we're not a gaggle of blithering idiots. Our corporate response to the immigration bill should tell us that. Argument will work, without the necessity of purges and insults.

If our Iraq policy isn't that good, then shouldn't we be striving for it to be that good? This is not as simple as a defensive war, where the only options are indeed winning or losing. One of the advantages of being on offense is that you have the initative. Isn't it fair to ask what we should be doing with it?

No quicker path to death exists. Of course, there's appropriate issues worthy of purging, but those are few and far between. Apparently, for faux-cons, libertarians are the enemy and anyone who opposes ANY war is just anathema. And don't forget those outdated free-market economists...they're just wacky.

I feel like I'm in a war for my own party.

Enjoy your martyr complex. It'll go well with the rest of your delusions.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

do me the favor of not asking for my opinions, as you did above.

After reading what you've written so far, no problem! I think I'll take the easy path and pick at the many flaws in your opinions instead.

Even on the Internet, my time is worth more than that.

Don't be so sure.

As for getting me to leave

Bit of a martyr complex, eh? I'm not asking you to leave---I'm expressing an opinion that your thoughts add no value to this site. I suspect I'm not the only one with that opinion.

Why do think I tolerate you?

As I doubt you'd have any power to do anything meaningful if you weren't willing to tolerate me, I'll roll my eyes at that last comment. As I do with most anything else that you write.

Learn to deal with the fact that you haven't convinced the public-at-large yet.

We have...by recognizing that we don't really HAVE to convince the public-at-large, do we? No, the other side (yours?)has to convince the public-at-large to act to stop the surge. And, I am happily dealing with the obvious fact that Team Reid/Pelosi is not even close to accomplishing that. That would require competence on their part.

Let's see if this works

The point is, they're not really offering any kind of strategy other than "stay the course". I assume that's a synonym for "soldier on". But if we don't have real goals and we don't have a reasonable expectation for success at some point, isn't the venture fruitless? Republicans have never believed in no-win wars. If that's what this is, shouldn't we recognize that and rethink the strategy? My answer is to get out, but you may disagree with that. Even if you do, certainly you have to recognize that sticking with more of the same is NOT a solution. We've got to go beyond platitutes if we stay.

Oh, and "spreading democracy" is not a real goal. I won't accept that as an answer. This is left-over Wilsonian idiocy. You can't install democracy, and even if you could, you certainly can't assure that the "democracy" will be friendly once installed. We've held on to this pipe-dream long enough.

WF

The flavor aid is being prepared right now. No thinking for yourself, no questioning the "Decider in Chief". There are only two options, "Stay the Course" version 33 1/3 or the Democratic cut and run. You are not allowed to question the President, if you do you are quiting.

Senator Brownback and others have it all wrong, there are only two options and his opinion or questioning is just quiting.

Brownback

"Iraq
After my recent trip to Iraq, I am even more convinced that the situation there is precarious, but hopeful. I see hope in the Iraqi people. I believe this hope will be the foundation of a new Iraqi society. Much remains to be done, and I think we need a plan to turn this country over to its citizens. I will continue to work with the leaders in our country, as well as leaders in Iraq, to find a solution that protects the future of Iraq, and the pride and dignity of its citizens."

_______________________________
None of the Above !

WF

Another member of your Quitter brigade.

Senator John Warner, but what does he know.

"Sen. John W. Warner, one of the most influential Republican voices in Congress on national security, called on President Bush yesterday to begin withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq in time for Christmas as a new intelligence report concluded that political leaders in Baghdad are "unable to govern effectively.""

These weak kneed liberals, darn them all.

_______________________________
None of the Above !

Wasn't he one of the Gang of 14?

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

Neil,

Yep the gang of 14 that helped get Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito through confirmation....yea I remember them. The gang that pulled the matches away from fools who were up to their ankles in gasoline and were playing with matches, those folks?

Maybe your idea of governing is seeking confrontation at every turn with the opposition, to stomp them at every turn to make every issue a partisan fight, it's not how Ronnie practiced politics, but I guess that's what passes for governance in your mind.

_______________________________
None of the Above !

You KNOW he's not well liked around here, so why are you bothering to quote him in some weak appeal to authority fallacy?

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

Neil

Senator Warner has been for many decades one of the solid citizens and leaders of the Republican party, when he speaks I listen. Besides, he was once married to Elisabeth Taylor, that ought to count for something....LOL.

As to not being popular with partisan pygmies, or the followers of the Mullahs of the Right, big whoop.

_______________________________
A proud member of the Barry Goldwater Wing of the party !

Keep digging...

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

when you decide to pull your head out of your butt, drop me a line.

I'm not going to tolerate the flavor aid and mullahs of the right, etc from you any more than I would from any other kossack.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

First off, Steve, we're not the ones who are preaching the suicidial policies here.

Second, it's *Commander* in chief, not Decidier in chief. So close, but yes, he does decide. You don't like it? Run for President.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

Somebody forgot to close the command and now it's all italics, all the time (at least on my monitor)

Steve,

Are you saying that Hoyer isn't moving the goalposts? It seemed that all we heard from the Dem leadership pre-surge was something to the effect of: "Iraq is too violent. The military option won't work. The violence will never subside."

Now that the violence has decreased (rather markedly in some areas), now all we hear is: "The political process will never be resolved." So the focus on violence suddenly became the focus on the political process. Which is it? If it's both, how come they rarely ever mentioned anything about the political process before? Pre-surge, it was "violence, violence, violence!" Now it is "political process, political process, political process!"

Why can't there be *ANY* acknowledgment that the surge has been fairly successful (at least in terms of the decreasing amount of violence within the country)?

By the way, I see your signature is "None of the Above!" I was just curious if there is *ANY* candidate currently in the running who is anywhere close to your views? I would look for your previous posts to search for an answer, but that function doesn't seem to be working. And the reason I ask is that I've seen you as very critical of *every* Republican mentioned on this site. I understand that none of the candidates are perfect, and I also sympathize that there don't appear to be many good options this year, but it seems like you've been harsh on the Republicans and somewhat defensive of the Democrats. Are you planning on voting Democrat or Libertarian in the next election? Are you just dissafected with the party itself in general? I'm not asking to be facetious; I'm just generally curious. Thanks.

at least not until he has made his peace with the moderators!

(Bang! Slam! Thud!)

Another troll forcibly ejected from the premises.

This is one of the big reasons I love this place - the quick, rough justice the moderators deal out to the trolls.

Far too many conservative sites have pests that dominate nearly every thread, bringing up the same old lame talking points and disrupting the conversation with idiotcy. Basically, any 1st-tier one-man blog with comments has this problem (and I sometimes wonder, in my more paranoid moments, if some of these disruptive people are being paid to troll, for precisely that effect).

So, carry on. There are people cheering in the background when you do...

I don't know about the being paid part, but I would be willing to bet that someone has figured out that it only takes a couple to completely ruin the one man right leaning blogging sites. I've simply quit reading a half dozen of them in the past few months, because the comments have gotten so bad.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

Well, the constant BushLied™ drumbeat since, day two, has guaranteed that regardless of the proof provided against Tehran, the American people will be sure it is a lie.

It is, after all, just another RUSH TO WAR!