Discussing The President's Speech With Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell
Clear, Hold, And Build
By California Yankee Posted in Featured Stories | War — Comments (8) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell held a conference call with a few bloggers this morning, to give us his take on President Bush’s Iraq address and to respond to the Democratic objections.
In his opening statement, Senator McConnell expressed his support for President Bush's "courageous and correct" plan. The goal is to win, which to McConnell means a stable Iraqi government which is an ally in the War on Terror. This can't happen unless Baghdad is secured. The Minority Leader characterized the revised strategy as Clear, Hold, and Build.
The revised strategy is going to utilize a significant number of Iraqi troops, especially the hold part. The Leader is encouraged that no neighborhoods will be off limits including Sadr City.
Leader McConnell mentioned the Democrats' plans for a House resolution opposing sending more troops to Iraq. He said what the Democrats are really saying is that we should just leave. McConnell said the Democrats ought to be honest about it and vote to cut funding like Vietnam.
Read on.
He pointed out that when we left Vietnam, they didn't follow us. Iraq is different. The Senator reminded us that there has not been another terror attack in the U.S. since 9/11. He says that is not an accident, but the direct result of staying on the offense.
I asked Senator McConnell if considering the warning to Iran in the President's speech warning that "we will seek out and destroy the networks" coupled with last night's raid on an Iranian diplomatic mission in Iraq, we can conclude that we are going after Iran. The Senator gave the only appropriate answer. The President has been intentionally vague on that and the vagueness is the correct approach.
Leader McConnell was asked whether the Senate Republican caucus will hold together in the face of the opposition to the revised strategy. He said he was hopeful of being able to muster the 40 votes necessary to prevent a vote on any antiwar resolution in the Senate. He expects Senator Lieberman's support in that area.
The Senator declined to answer hypothetical questions such as what happens if the Iraqi's don't stand up and meet their burden to help clear then hold areas.
Senator McConnell was asked about the change in the rules of engagement, but said he wasn't yet familiar with that part of the revised strategy.
Finally, when Leader McConnell was asked about President Bush's relationship with Prime Minister Malaki, he expressed frustration. He said we are not happy with how it and that it is time for Malaki to produce results.
You can listen to the conference call here.
There is more at Power Line and Right Wing News. John Hawkins posts that McConnell seems to be taking the right approach, hitting the right notes, and backing the President on the war. I agree, after all, what choice do we have?
I thank Senator McConnell for again taking time to reach out to the right side of the blogosphere. As I said last week, we need to work together with the Senate minority to push back against the left-wing extremists that now control Congress. A special thanks to Jon Henke, New Media Director for the Senate Republican Communications Office, for setting up the blogger conference call.
« Republican Moderates May Walk Away From Veto Threat — Comments (17) | Obstruction On The Political Front — Comments (51) »
Discussing The President's Speech With Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell 8 Comments (0 topical, 8 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
I wonder if Sen. McConnell was one of the congressional leaders who heard this:
He put it far more bluntly when leaders of Congress visited the White House earlier on Wednesday. “I said to Maliki this has to work or you’re out,” the president told the Congressional leaders, according to two officials who were in the room. Pressed on why he thought this strategy would succeed where previous efforts had failed, Mr. Bush shot back: “Because it has to.”
Because it has to? That's it?
I don't think it's an ether or proposition, it's not back the President or "cut and run".
If the Iraqi government does not hold up it's end of the bargain, how about pulling North with US forces to the parts of country which are Kurdish territory, strategic protections of the oil fields and let the Sunni and Shia sort out their Civil war without our participation. US forces can secure the borders, cutting off the flow of material from Iran and Syria, and the fight will eventually resolve itself.
Would this result in a genocide, perhaps, but what US interest is served if the Iraqis want to kill each other and we try to stop them?
Oh yes, Tony Snow on Fox now....must trust the Iraqis, must not insult them, must not talk about plan B. I'm not buying, take the gun out show them what will happen if the Iraqi governement does not "fish or cut bait".
_______________________________
Another South Park Republican spouting off !
Are you saying that with all troops withdrawn from combat areas- we would have the resources to secure the borders?
just curious.
I don't know.
But it's not the same as the Mexican border, and anyone coming across into Iraq would not be coming for a job, or school or benefits or anything else.
_______________________________
Another South Park Republican spouting off !
the Mexican border. Unless of course you're suggesting we start shooting the crossers, in which case an infantry company, combined arms exercise with a couple of dozen Super Cobras and half a dozen unarmed predators would do the job. No fence would be needed.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
Just a note. The ever so wise Mr Brownback came out against the surge in troops. This is who you guys want as Prez?
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/01/from_iraq_brown.html
after all, what choice do we have?
Speaking for myself, I'd like to see more suggestions, or threats, of a variety of "Plan B's" if just going house-to-house to clean out insurgents doesn't work.
HOW ABOUT RAZING BLOCK-WIDE PERIMETERS AROUND THOSE GRAY ZONES IN THE BAGHDAD MAP? How about razing the whole things?
How about completely moving Sadr City and other slums halfway to Basrah?
How about those movies made with airborne (balloon-mounted?) cameras (including infrared ones for nighttime) which, when run backwards allow you to see where the car bombers and other bad guys actually came from?
How about being open to ideas in general?
Helloooo???