Redstate

"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville

I wrote this weekend at Townhall that:

Bush Acts to Win as Dems Mail Surrender Terms Letter

Sunday, January 07, 2007 11:54 AM

President Bush is making clear that he intends to win this war from his rejection of the Baker ISG's surrender plan, rejection of the Dems' letter requesting surrender (see below), re-shuffling of generals, CIA and other government positions, as well as his recent orders communicated to Iraq's Prime Minister (see below).

Moreover, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) gave a virtuoso performance in debate on MTP today with Tim Russert and Senator Joe its Bush's War Biden (D-DE), in articulating the imperative that we win this war.

Meanwhile CNN reported on TV today that Iranians are rioting in the streets against the Mullahs for the suffering they expect from UN sanctions.

Captain Ed's view from his Quarters is that the recent announcement by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki that he will take immediate action against sectarian militias of all stripes in Baghdad is the result of President Bush's "come to Jesus" demand in a discussion less than 72 hours ago.

This announcement by al-Maliki comes less than a week before an expected Oval Office address that will re-affirm the President's determination to finish the victory in Iraq, less than a month after his rejection of the Iraq Surrender Group's recommendations and less than 24 hours before the Democrat Party took control of Congress and promptly but rejection of a strategy for finishing the victory in Iraq in writing.

Democratic Leaders Oppose More U.S. Troops in Iraq

Apparently the new, self-dubbed "Most Powerful Woman in the Country" a/k/a Nancy Drew-Mystery-Wonder Woman-osi, is at least more powerful than Senate Majority Leader "Dingy" Harry Reid, who just days ago publicly expressed support for a US troop surge that Bush is reported to be contemplating as a means to help secure Baghdad.

Moreover, MSM-dubbed moderate alternative to the former "Most Powerful US Woman but possibly still "Smartest Woman in the World" (yes, World!), Barack Obama, turns out to be just another Big-Eared Dove, as he orally affirmed his support for the "Surrender in our Time" Democrat love letter to Bush described at Bloomberg above.

Read it all and the RS debate on Cross-post.

Gamecock, DeVine Op-Ed for Charlotte Observer, blogs at Race 4 2008.

As I said in my weekend post, history tells us Iraq is worth the cost. What disturbs me is how Democrats have played politics with this issue and mislead a curiously accepting public.

Can someone please explain to me how the U.S. successfully prosecutes this war without meeting the long term goals in Iraq? Have those accepting this strategy thought about how we deal with Iran or Syria in the future? Do we go back to a pre 9-11 mentality of hoping these countries acquiesce to a peaceful world view? Does the lack of any credible military threat or the potential reality we will lose our nerve if aggressors just wait long enough concern anyone?

The Democrat strategy is so short sighted it leaves us incredibly vulnerable to immeasurable ramifications. I just hope the public sees that before it is too late.

By the way, you forgot to mention Pelosi said Republican’s gave the President “Carte Blanche” on Iraq expenditures without providing any justification. That statement alone is so specious it defies the imagination.

"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"

We have not increase USAR end strength in the past six years, according to Oak Leaf over at PoliPundit. Consequently, we literally have run out of support strength (guys on their second tours, third tours, etc.), to pull off a large surge. We've run up against the consequences of Rummy's decision not to increase Army End Strength, and especially Reserve End Strength.

"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it"-Winston Churchill

In case anyone doubts that substantial progress is being made in Iraq, see the following link:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20070107-095331-4955r.htm

The story is in the Washington Times, but the key facts were originally published by Newsweek International. Kudos to Newsweek!

Why the WH is so slow to report good news baffles me. No wonder we are known as the "stupid party."

forgets we fought a war in Southeast Asia and lost after congress cut-off funding. Vietnam, Bob, remember Vietnam?

SCHIEFFER: Madam Speaker, you were saying to me something that has not been said here, and that is--before--and that is that Congress under your leadership and Senator Reid's leadership in the Senate, is prepared for the first time to use the power of the purse to change US policy.

(Note: pdf format)

And Nancy Pelosi proves, without a doubt, that the dems: a) are delusional b) loathe the U.S. military, c) refuse to acknowledge the regional nature of this conflict, d) cherish an illusional international reputation more than the tangible national security interests of the American people, e) are heavily invested in the defeat of the United States of America.

Rep. PELOSI: I would say, Bob, instead that Congress is ready to use its constitutional authority of oversight to question what is the justification for this spending? What are the results what we are receiving? The president likes to say that he's not going to follow the advice of politicians in Washington, but generals on the ground. The generals on the ground have said that the escalation, the increased number of troops going into Iraq will not be effective.

SCHIEFFER: Now, one of the things you said in the letter that you and Senator Reid sent to the White House was that we should begin a phased withdrawal in the next four to six months. How does that work? Is the president going to have to assure you that he intends to do that? And what do you think, perhaps more importantly that would be the question, what do you think will happen in Iraq if, indeed, the president adopts the suggestions that you have made?

Rep. PELOSI: One of the benefits of oversight is that we can try to get the ground troops as to what is happening in Iraq now. The situation could hardly be worse, and our young people are losing their lives. So what we're saying to the president is, again, speak truth to the Congress of the United States, more importantly to the American people. Let us stipulate to a set of facts of what the conditions are on the ground there. We know that our troops' presence there--our troops are targets there. Over one year ago, Mr. Murtha talked about moving us over the horizon with a serious, responsible redeployment of our troops. That's over a year ago. We are now saying, again, let us begin in four to six months. Many lives have been lost in that period of time, a tremendous impact on the budget of the United States, again, loss of reputation in the world and damage to our military readiness, so what we want to know is what are the facts, what are the results of the policies we have been pursuing, and what is the justification for the plan that the president will present.

I will admit though, it was an exceptionally good campaign strategy on the democrats’ part to keep Pelosi out of the public-eye for the entire month of October. Lucky for us, she’s the face of the Democrat Party now, and that strategy won’t work in 2008.

Only time will tell if the GOP is successful, and we are able to keep the dems, under Pelosi's leadership, from causing irreparable harm to our nation.

***

“The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan

Any casual observer can surely see that the President is doing serious questioning and research to try to figure out the best way to fight this war. The Democrats are standing with their chin out and their fingers in their ears.

These people are the opposite of statesmen.

I read the other day where Harry Truman once said, "I sit here all day trying to persuade people to do the things they ought to have sense enough to do without my persuading them." This statement could not be more true then than now.

I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.

I thought Tony Snow made it clear- back in october or november that there would be no changes in strategy only tactics- has something changed?