Thursday, April 26, 2007
One Signature Away
Senator Barack Obama says that we are "one signature away from ending this war," making the remarkable statement in the first debate of democrats for the 2008 Presidential Election.
Not to be outdone in the visualize peace exercise, Senator Hillary Clinton repeated her promise, that "if George Bush doesn't end the war, as President, I will."
A central assumption of both of these naive positions is that the US fights "George Bush's war" in isolation. If we weren't there, nobody in Iraq would be blowing people up. If we weren't there, Iraqis would work out there differences. If we weren't there, terrorists would stop being terrorists, or at least, go on to unidentified other targets elsewhere in the world, but in places that we just don't need to worry about either.
You almost get the feeling this is all some made-up war, dreamed up on some ranch in Texas. Heck, the only reason Iraq has erupted in "civil war," to hear Surrender Democrats tell it, was out of spontaneous anger and hostility towards the US presence.
Readers of analysis that is actually informed by facts and reality, of course, know that both Iran and Al Qaeda have gone to extreme lengths to try to ignite a civil war between Sunnis and Shia in Iraq, but they have failed, in places, spectacularly, as we are seeing evidence of now. Sunni tribes and major leaders are turning against Al Qaeda. Shia have exercised amazing restraint in recent months, holding back from serious reprisals against Sunnis, not falling for the bait when terrorists attack Shia sites and neighborhoods. Al Qaeda has even taken to attacking former allies who now line up with the Iraqi Government, further alienating themselves from the Sunnis in Iraq.
People who really want to know what's happening in Iraq, read MILBLOGS, and consult experts like those at Strategy Page, or listen closely to what GEN Petraeus tells us. Not so Congressional Democrats, who skip out on briefings, grossly distort what he says, and declare that if the GEN shares any good news, he's lying.
So we watch Speaker Pelosi make all kinds of self-justifications, asking rhetorically whether this or that is ethical. What I found most interesting, as I do with most hypocrites, is the 180 degree departure from reality in most of her assertions of questionable ethics. Just two easy examples. Every major abuse or instance of wrong-doing in Iraq were identified by military members, investigated and punished by military officials. On the issue of personal and vehcile armor, the military had significant problems at the war's start with OIF I, but reacted quickly and subsequent rotations were adequately armored. So for Pelosi and Clinton to keep harping on armor is dishonest in the extreme -- unless they just want to manufacture scandals or revive old ones for political gain.
Likewise, their colleagues in Congress rehash 3-4 year old scandals, such as the 1 month delay in admitting that Pat Tillman was killed by friendly fire, or blaming the Pentagon for wildly inaccurate reports about PFC Lynch, rather than the media who hyped a story no one admits to creating.
Democrats have written a pathetic chapter in US history, refusing to confront terror with any seriousness, obstructing the President and military, facilitating advancement of the propaganda and strategic objectives of our enemies. And thereby, giving aid and comfort to these same enemies.
I know Democrats go crazy when pro-victory commentators say things like that, but if they could ever view the situation dispassionately, objectively, or consider as foremost the interests of the US, such obstructionist efforts would be viewed differently.
But sadly, George Bush and his Administration officials are more the Enemy to these people than the people who blow up children, slaughter innocents, and terrorize populations.
And that's always what this has been all about.
Not to be outdone in the visualize peace exercise, Senator Hillary Clinton repeated her promise, that "if George Bush doesn't end the war, as President, I will."
A central assumption of both of these naive positions is that the US fights "George Bush's war" in isolation. If we weren't there, nobody in Iraq would be blowing people up. If we weren't there, Iraqis would work out there differences. If we weren't there, terrorists would stop being terrorists, or at least, go on to unidentified other targets elsewhere in the world, but in places that we just don't need to worry about either.
You almost get the feeling this is all some made-up war, dreamed up on some ranch in Texas. Heck, the only reason Iraq has erupted in "civil war," to hear Surrender Democrats tell it, was out of spontaneous anger and hostility towards the US presence.
Readers of analysis that is actually informed by facts and reality, of course, know that both Iran and Al Qaeda have gone to extreme lengths to try to ignite a civil war between Sunnis and Shia in Iraq, but they have failed, in places, spectacularly, as we are seeing evidence of now. Sunni tribes and major leaders are turning against Al Qaeda. Shia have exercised amazing restraint in recent months, holding back from serious reprisals against Sunnis, not falling for the bait when terrorists attack Shia sites and neighborhoods. Al Qaeda has even taken to attacking former allies who now line up with the Iraqi Government, further alienating themselves from the Sunnis in Iraq.
People who really want to know what's happening in Iraq, read MILBLOGS, and consult experts like those at Strategy Page, or listen closely to what GEN Petraeus tells us. Not so Congressional Democrats, who skip out on briefings, grossly distort what he says, and declare that if the GEN shares any good news, he's lying.
So we watch Speaker Pelosi make all kinds of self-justifications, asking rhetorically whether this or that is ethical. What I found most interesting, as I do with most hypocrites, is the 180 degree departure from reality in most of her assertions of questionable ethics. Just two easy examples. Every major abuse or instance of wrong-doing in Iraq were identified by military members, investigated and punished by military officials. On the issue of personal and vehcile armor, the military had significant problems at the war's start with OIF I, but reacted quickly and subsequent rotations were adequately armored. So for Pelosi and Clinton to keep harping on armor is dishonest in the extreme -- unless they just want to manufacture scandals or revive old ones for political gain.
Likewise, their colleagues in Congress rehash 3-4 year old scandals, such as the 1 month delay in admitting that Pat Tillman was killed by friendly fire, or blaming the Pentagon for wildly inaccurate reports about PFC Lynch, rather than the media who hyped a story no one admits to creating.
Democrats have written a pathetic chapter in US history, refusing to confront terror with any seriousness, obstructing the President and military, facilitating advancement of the propaganda and strategic objectives of our enemies. And thereby, giving aid and comfort to these same enemies.
I know Democrats go crazy when pro-victory commentators say things like that, but if they could ever view the situation dispassionately, objectively, or consider as foremost the interests of the US, such obstructionist efforts would be viewed differently.
But sadly, George Bush and his Administration officials are more the Enemy to these people than the people who blow up children, slaughter innocents, and terrorize populations.
And that's always what this has been all about.
Labels: government, Iraq, politics, war on terror
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
