Jump To » Mobile / Confirm Them / Right Shelf / Sports / State Blogs / About / Contact / Help / Posting Rules / Conservative Book Club / Human Events
Well, It's Offical: We Just Lost The War
By haystack Posted in Spotlight Blogs | War — Comments (147) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
In one of the worst days in America since we abandoned Viet Nam, America is once again about to capitulate from a position of strength. I am, at the moment, ashamed of my country's Politicians...deeply ashamed.
Be careful what you wish for.
Read on . . .
Game:
Gates: U.S. Not Winning War in Iraq
Gates said he believes Iran is developing nuclear weapons, and that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is lying when he says Iran is not.
"Do you support an attack on Syria?" Byrd asked. "No sir, I do not," Gates said.
Earlier, Gates told senators that the United States should not be afraid to talk directly to its adversaries, as it did during the Cold War.
Set:
Al Jazeera:The next US defence minister has admitted the US is stuck in Iraq.
Match:
As far as I am concerned, it is time to immediately withdraw all troops and military resources out of the region and be done with it.
Allow the Middle East to fall in to whatever chaos they so choose, and await the next barrage. We can immediately focus all our troop strength to the ports and borders, hunker down, and wait for it.
"A Just and Honorable Alternative"
In a letter dated January 5, 1973, from President Nixon to President Nguyen Van Thieu of the Republic of Vietnam, our esteemed former Commander in Chief told the South Vietnamese:
We will proceed next week in Paris along the lines that General Haig explained to you. Accordingly, if the North Vietnamese meet our concerns on the two outstanding substantive issues in the agreement, concerning the DMZ and type method of signing and if we can arrange acceptable supervisory machinery, we will proceed to conclude the settlement. The gravest consequence would then ensue if your government chose to reject the agreement and split off from the United States. As I said in my December 17 letter, "I am convinced that your refusal to join us would be an invitation to disaster-to the loss of all that we together have fought for over the past decade. It would be inexcusable above all because we will have lost a just and honorable alternative."
As we enter this new round of talks, I hope that our countries will now show a united front. It is imperative for our common objectives that your government take no further actions that complicate our task and would make more difficult the acceptance of the settlement by all parties. We will keep you informed of the negotiations in Paris through daily briefings of Ambassador [Pham Dang] Lam.
I can only repeat what I have so often said: The best guarantee for the survival of South Vietnam is the unity of our two countries which would be gravely jeopardized if you persist in your present course. The actions of our Congress since its return have clearly borne out the many warnings we have made.
Should you decide, as I trust you will, to go with us, you have my assurance of continued assistance in the post-settlement period and that we will respond with full force should the settlement be violated by North Vietnam. So once more I conclude with an appeal to you to close ranks with us.
Just and honorable indeed. At what cost, and to how many lives, and with who's blood did they reach this honor they claim to have sought?
The South held up to their end of the bargain, capitulating to the demands made of them by the US and the North (sound familiar Hezbollah/Hamas/Israel?)...Nixon would go on, along with Ford two years later, to go back on these promises. Our Congress would further shut off funds to the South, turning the American people's backs on the South Vietnamese, and ultimately sealing their fates.
On the backs of over 58,000 fallen American Heroes two years forward from Nixon's letter, the South Vietnamese would die at slaughter, and North Viet Nam would take over the country in total violation of the Paris accords, and at the expense of far too many lives lost solely at the hands of a capitulating American Government and its feeble and shameless leadership.
We find ourselves at this very same nexus today, in the desert rather than the jungle, and we await much the same series of events as the ones described here that cover the last 6 years of the Viet Nam war .
Our men and women fought bravely in Viet Nam and got no thanks or appreciation or respect or dignity from an America that was, at the time, too self-absorbed in personal pleasures and self-discovery. Many Soldiers died and many more were wounded, fighting to prevent the very thing our Government ultimately caused to happen in SPITE of these sacrifices, and those warriors that DID make it home continue by and large to suffer from the collective American disdain for their service and their sacrifice.
We find ourselves staring at these prospects again, having learned nothing from history nor our foolish Military and Civilian leadership who would again manipulate their personal power struggles and their squabbles and partisan fights over the scraps of limelight they so desperately desire with no compunction for who's lives these gains in self-adoration are achieved at the expense of.
I am outraged by the repeated failure of our Political Heroes to grasp what is at stake here, and sickened by the continued deprecation of this country's greatness and might by the anti-war crowd who live among us like vultures and vermin. I can't even find the word that describes my anguish over the extent to which it is AGAIN at the expense of our men and women in uniform. I await the cost in Iraqi lives, and call my own Christian fatwa against all manner and form of American Politicians who have used the push to unseat and replace power as the means by which the new Viet Nam is about to be created.
"Peace with Honor"
On January 23, 1973 then-President Nixon would go on TV and Radio to announce:
Good evening. I have asked for this radio and television time tonight for the purpose of announcing that we today have concluded an agreement to end the war and bring peace with honor in Vietnam and in Southeast Asia.
The following statement is being issued at this moment in Washington and Hanoi:
At 12:30 Paris time today [Tuesday], January 23, 1973, the Agreement on Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Vietnam was initialed by Dr. Henry Kissinger on behalf of the United States, and Special Adviser Le Duc Tho on behalf of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam.
The agreement will be formally signed by the parties participating in the Paris Conference on Vietnam on January 27, 1973, at the International Conference Center in Paris.
The cease-fire will take effect at 2400 Greenwich Mean Time, January 27, 1973. The United States and the Democratic Republic of Vietnam express the hope that this agreement will insure stable peace in Vietnam and contribute to the preservation of lasting peace in Indochina and Southeast Asia. .
That concludes the formal statement.
Nixon would go on in this address to say this:
Throughout the years of negotiations, we have insisted on peace with honor. In my addresses to the Nation from this room of January 25 and May 8, [1972] I set forth the goals that we considered essential for peace with honor.
[...]
The people of South Vietnam have been guaranteed the right to determine their own future, without outside interference.
[...]
The United States will continue to recognize the Government of the Republic of Vietnam as the sole legitimate government of South Vietnam.We shall continue to aid South Vietnam within the terms of the agreement and we shall support efforts by the people of South Vietnam to settle their problems peacefully among themselves.
[...]
We must recognize that ending the war is only the first step toward building the peace. All parties must now see to it that this is a peace that lasts, and also a peace that heals, and a peace that not only ends the war in Southeast Asia, but contributes to the prospects of peace in the whole world.This will mean that the terms of the agreement must be scrupulously adhered to. We shall do everything the agreement requires of us and we shall expect the other parties to do everything it requires of them. We shall also expect other interested nations to help insure that the agreement is carried out and peace is maintained.
As this long and very difficult war ends, I would like to address a few special words to each of those who have been parties in the conflict.
First, to the people and Government of South Vietnam: By your courage, by your sacrifice, you have won the precious right to determine your own future and you have developed the strength to defend that right. We look forward to working with you in the future, friends in peace as we have been allies in war.
To the leaders of North Vietnam: As we have ended the war through negotiations, let us now build a peace of reconciliation. For our part; we are prepared to make a major effort to help achieve that goal. But just as reciprocity was needed to end the war, so, too, will it be needed to build and strengthen the peace.
To the other major powers that have been involved even indirectly: Now is the time for mutual restraint so that the peace we have achieved can last.
And finally, to all of you who are listening, the American people: Your steadfastness in supporting our insistence on peace with honor has made peace with honor possible. I know that you would not have wanted that peace jeopardized. With our secret negotiations at the sensitive stage they were in during this recent period, for me to have discussed publicly our efforts to secure peace would not only have violated our understanding with North Vietnam, it would have seriously harmed and possibly destroyed the chances for peace. Therefore, I know that you now can understand why, during these past several weeks, I have not made any public statements about those efforts.
The important thing was not to talk about peace, but to get peace and to get the right kind of peace. This we have done.
Now that we have achieved an honorable agreement, let us be proud that America did not settle for a peace that would have betrayed our allies, that would have abandoned our prisoners of war, or that would have ended the war for us but would have continued the war for the 50 million people of Indochina. Let us be proud of the 2 1/2 million young Americans who served in Vietnam, who served with honor and distinction in one of the most selfless enterprises in the history of nations. And let us be proud of those who sacrificed, who gave their lives so that the people of South Vietnam might live in freedom and so that the world might live in peace.
Look to history and consider such potentially similar circumstances for the Iraqis, Afghans, and anyone ELSE not so inclined to freely align themselves with the Radical Islam that is about to claim victory in the Middle East. Be creative, use your imagination:
[reference for the following is HERE]
January 27, 1973...four days later... the Paris accords were signed, and an estimated 150,000 North Vietnamese soldiers are allowed to remain in South Viet Nam.
On March 29, 1973 - The last remaining American troops would withdraw from Vietnam.
In April 1973 - President Nixon would renew his earlier secret pledge to respond militarily if North Vietnam violates the peace agreement.
On June 19, 1973 - The U.S. Congress would pass the Case-Church Amendment which forbid any further U.S. military involvement in Southeast Asia, effective August 15, 1973. The veto-proof vote is 278-124 in the House and 64-26 in the Senate. This Amendment would pave the way for North Vietnam to wage yet another invasion of the South, this time without fear of U.S. bombing.
On July 16, 1973 - The U.S. Senate Armed Forces Committee began hearings into the secret bombing of Cambodia during 1969-70.
On July 17, 1973 - Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger testified before the Armed Forces Committee that 3500 bombing raids were launched into Cambodia to protect American troops by targeting NVA positions. The extent of Nixon's secret bombing campaign angered many in Congress and resulted in the first call for Nixon's impeachment.
On August 14, 1973 - U.S. bombing activities in Cambodia were halted in accordance with the Congressional ban resulting from the Case-Church amendment.
On September 22, 1973 - South Vietnamese troops assault NVA near Pleiku.
On November 7, 1973 - Congress passeD the War Powers Resolution requiring the President to obtain the support of Congress within 90 days of sending American troops abroad.
On December 3, 1973 - Viet Cong destroyed 18 million gallons of fuel stored near Saigon...and the beginning of the slaughter of the South officially had begun.
In September 1974 - The U.S. Congress appropriated only $700 million for South Vietnam. This left the South Vietnamese Army under-funded and resulted in a decline of military readiness and morale.
In October 1974 - The Politburo in North Vietnam decided to launch an invasion of South Vietnam in 1975.
On December 13, 1974 - North Vietnam violated the Paris peace treaty and tested President Ford's resolve by attacking Phuoc Long Province in South Vietnam. President Ford responded with diplomatic protests but no military force in compliance with the Congressional ban on all U.S. military activity in Southeast Asia.
On December 18, 1974 - North Vietnam's leaders met in Hanoi to form a plan for final victory.
On January 8, 1975 - NVA general staff 's plan for the invasion of South Vietnam by 20 divisions is approved by North Vietnam's Politburo. By now, the Soviet-supplied North Vietnamese Army is the fifth largest in the world. It anticipates a two year struggle for victory. But in reality, South Vietnam's forces will collapse in only 55 days.
On January 14, 1975 - Testifying before Congress, Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger states that the U.S. is not living up to its earlier promise to South Vietnam's President Thieu of "severe retaliatory action" in the event North Vietnam violated the Paris peace treaty.
On January 21, 1975 - During a press conference, President Ford stated the U.S. was unwilling to re-enter the war.
On February 5, 1975 - NVA military leader General Van Tien Dung secretly crossed into South Vietnam to take command of the final offensive.
On March 10, 1975 - The final offensive begian as 25,000 NVA attacked Ban Me Thuot located in the Central Highlands.
On March 11, 1975 - Ban Me Thuot fell after half of the 4000 South Vietnamese soldiers defending it surrender or desert.
On March 13, 1975 - President Thieu decided to abandon the Highlands region and two northern provinces to the NVA. This resulted in a mass exodus of civilians and soldiers, clogging roads and bringing general chaos. NVA then shelled the disorganized retreat which became known as "the convoy of tears."
On March 18, 1975 - Realizing the South Vietnamese Army was nearing collapse, NVA leaders met and decided to accelerate their offensive to achieve total victory before May 1.
On March 19, 1975 - Quang Tri City fell to NVA.
On March 24, 1975 - Tam Ky was over-run by NVA.
On March 25, 1975 - Hue fell without resistance after a three day siege. South Vietnamese troops now break and run from other threatened areas. Millions of refugees flee south.
On March 26, 1975 - Chu Lai is evacuated.
On March 28, 1975 - Da Nang is shelled as 35,000 NVA prepare to attack.
On March 30, 1975 - Da Nang fell as 100,000 South Vietnamese soldiers surrender after being abandoned by their commanding officers.
On March 31, 1975 - NVA began the 'Ho Chi Minh Campaign,' the final push toward Saigon.
On April 9, 1975 - NVA closed in on Xuan Loc, 38 miles from Saigon. 40,000 NVA attack the city and for the first time encountered stiff resistance from South Vietnamese troops.
On April 20, 1975 - U.S. Ambassador Graham Martin met with President Thieu and pressured him to resign given the gravity of the situation and the unlikelihood that Thieu could ever negotiate with the Communists.
On April 21, 1975 - A bitter, tearful President Thieu resigned during a 90 minute rambling TV speech to the people of South Vietnam. Thieu read from the letter sent by Nixon in 1972 pledging "severe retaliatory action" if South Vietnam was threatened. Thieu condemns the Paris Peace Accords, Henry Kissinger and the U.S. "The United States has not respected its promises. It is inhumane. It is untrustworthy. It is irresponsible." He is then ushered into exile in Taiwan, aided by the CIA.
On April 22, 1975 - Xuan Loc fell to the NVA after a two week battle with South Vietnam's 18th Army Division which inflicted over 5000 NVA casualties and delayed the 'Ho Chi Minh Campaign' for two weeks.
On April 23, 1975 - 100,000 NVA soldiers advanced on Saigon which was now overflowing with refugees. On this same day, President Ford gave a speech at Tulane University stating the conflict in Vietnam is "a war that is finished as far as America is concerned."
On April 27, 1975 - Saigon was encircled. 30,000 South Vietnamese soldiers were inside the city but were leaderless. NVA fired rockets into downtown civilian areas as the city erupts into chaos and widespread looting.
On April 28, 1975 - 'Neutralist' General Duong Van "Big" Minh became the new president of South Vietnam and appealed for a cease-fire. His appeal is ignored.
On April 29, 1975 - NVA shelled Tan Son Nhut air base in Saigon, killing two U.S. Marines at the compound gate. Conditions then deteriorate as South Vietnamese civilians loot the air base. President Ford now orders Operation Frequent Wind, the helicopter evacuation of 7000 Americans and South Vietnamese from Saigon, which begins with the radio broadcast of the song "White Christmas" as a pre-arraigned code signal.
At Tan Son Nhut, frantic civilians begin swarming the helicopters. The evacuation is then shifted to the walled-in American embassy, which is secured by U.S. Marines in full combat gear. But the scene there also deteriorates, as thousands of civilians attempt to get into the compound.
Three U.S. aircraft carriers stand by off the coast of Vietnam to handle incoming Americans and South Vietnamese refugees. Many South Vietnamese pilots also land on the carriers, flying American-made helicopters which are then pushed overboard to make room for more arrivals. Filmed footage of the $250,000 choppers being tossed into the sea becomes an enduring image of the war's end.
On April 30, 1975 - At 8:35 a.m., the last Americans, ten Marines from the embassy, depart Saigon, concluding the United States presence in Vietnam. North Vietnamese troops pour into Saigon and encounter little resistance. By 11 a.m., the red and blue Viet Cong flag flies from the presidential palace. President Minh broadcasts a message of unconditional surrender. The war is over.
And, here we are again...right back in the same hell we couldn't see if it set us on fire.
[originated at NoEndButVictory]
except that's not what he said
by Dienekes
Gates said we are neither winning or losing. the press is lying again (again? that would imply that they at some point stopped).
It is what he said
by AcademicElephant
It is what he said--his initial, spontaneous response. He qualified after someone pointed out the error to him over lunch. That's the problem.
"I'm kind of old-fashioned. I like to engage my brain before my mouth." Donald Rumsfeld
I haven't checked the transcript, but my recollection of it is this. In his initial comment he said yes we are not winning. Then he qualified, referring to Pace, that we are not losing either. And somewhere he said that we can win; an outcome he is committed to.
After lunch, he said that the military had won every battle, and that his comment referred to the political situation.
If you have checked a transcript, then of course I defer to you.
John E.
This war was lost from the moment that
by Teeman
the President and his men decided to rely upon wishful thinking rather than clear eyed hard reality. He wishfully believed that we could achieve our ends with a minimum number of troops. He wishfully believed that the Iraqi people would welcome us as liberators. He wishfully believed that the Iraqi oil profits would finance the cost. He wishfully believed that the American people would continue to support the war when they were constantly offered overly optimistic assessments of the situation that conflicted with actual reports from clear eyed realists.
The only difference between now and the beginning of the war years ago is that NOW the people who also wishfully believed the nonsense that the President was peddling have had to open their eyes to the fact that he has been terribly wrong about every major decision he has made in this war. It was a bad idea, badly executed, and now our nation will have to face the consequences of the actions of President Bush.
Thar she blows!
by Neil Stevens
The phrase I'm keying on here: "He wishfully believed that the Iraqi oil profits would finance the cost." This is just a Mobified "No blood for oil."
--
It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones. -- Calvin Coolidge
And I don't care if he or she is a Democrat, a Communist, or Satan himself.
It is time we Republicans faced the reality that this whole operation was ill-considered and thoroughly botched. I am deeply sorry, as an American (and as a Republican who originally supported the invasion), that things have come to this, but there is no point in pretending we're going to "win." It will only make the situation worse.
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
I am as American (and Republican) as you are
by rhatican
even though your comments make you sound like a dimwitted, Kool-Aid guzzling hick.
which ones? - nt
by gamecock
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
despite controversy surrounding possible Norman origin of the Irish "DeVine" (see biggest pub in Dublin). The Normans were the last Frenchmen to be led to victory by a Frenchman instead of a Corsican. They were so happy that when they got to the emerald Isle and discovered whiskey, they set about cohabitating with the Scots to produce the Webb Born Fighting Jackson and Reagan.
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
Cherchez la femme
by Aleks311
Re: The Normans were the last Frenchmen to be led to victory by a Frenchman instead of a Corsican.
I suppose Joan of Arc does not count because she was a French woman? (I know you were being a bit tongue in cheek, but still...)
corrected and proudly include Joan in by non-PC all gender inclusive "Frenchmen" and even as a member of Mankind!
Yes, Viva la Femme de la Arc!
Napoleon!
Two that would never succumb to defeatism borne of dems, msm or even haystack (and we love you haystack as much as we love 311)
ps
I was actually counting on you alecs, beacuse I figured their were more Frenchmen than one woman (Charlemagne?) but i wanted to make a point and trying help win a war, and my french point is made even in the exceptions!, heh
and besides, with the french, its a pretty safe bet
the #1 key to victory is will
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
You know what?
by Thomas
Your next personal shot is your last. We understanding each other?
-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.
and now wants to quit (hence the French reference) and have America lose, as questioning one's patriotism?
Let me ask you a question that I have asked many liberals over the years here at Redstate that none of them have ever answered. Write a sentence that you would consider to be unpatriotic so that it would be proper to question one's patriotism. I assume you would see no problem with truthfully identifying unpatriotic statements.
Have at it. Prove you are a patriot and show us you know unpatriotic statements when you see them. We have already established that it is not unpatriotic to call for one's country to quit and lose a war, so this should make the job easier.
(btw, my heritage is Scots-Irish, ie drunks, but with Norman, ie French origin and going back even further, Iraqi, ie Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden between the Tigris and Euphrates)
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
Let me try this:
by Kyle2005
Unpatriotic: "I want what is bad for America."
Not unpatriotic: "I believe that (increasing troop levels/redeploying troops/staying the course/insert favored solution here) is best for America's interest."
Also not unpatriotic: "I believed that attacking Iraq was correct, but knowing what I know now, (it was not such a good choice in the first place and/or I support deploying the troops)."
Have you ever looked back at anything you've done and said, "if I knew then what I knew then I would have done something differently." Is this situation so much more difficult becuase of the magnitude of the original decision and the number of lives at stake.
Just becuase you disagree with another American's belief of what is good for America does not make them unpatriotic. The fact that we can debate what is best for our country while respecting that everyone wants what is best for the country is what has allowed the United States to be such a great country.
I'm sorry if this is difficult to understand.
agreed? And therefore same is unpatriotic by your definition. If we agree on the above, then we have made progress.
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
that's not what he said in either letter or spirit
by virginiaDaring
You may disagree about whether a troop withdrawl is a defeat or not, but your tautological answer doesn't really adequetely address the rather silly issue of whether he's patriotic or not.
When men yield up the privilege of thinking, the last shadow of liberty quits the horizon.
— Thomas Paine
No he's not, at least not on all points
by Leverkuhn
He's wrong on at least two points. First, neither Bush nor anybody else expected oil to cover the whole cost of the war or rebuilding. They expected oil to pay for part of it, which it has, but not as much as we'd hoped. The main reason for that has been the violence directed toward staunching the flow of oil, which is not something that we could have predicted.
Second, there is no reason, even at this late date, to expect to "lose" in the sense that we must cede the field to Iran or Al-Qaeda. You know I am not a fan of how this war has been conducted, but that is no excuse to give the mullahs another country to play with. Our own security interests require that we refuse to accept defeat, change our strategy, and move forward. I have suggested that means abandoning the idea that we must have a democracy in Iraq, consider other alternatives such as Iraqi federalism, and possibly increase troop strength in Iraq temporarily in order to secure hot spots like Baghdad. Other than that we must KBO, for we have no real alternative.
A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli
As one of the resident "realists" on this site
by Leverkuhn
I resent a Moby like you trying to appropriate that label for yourself.
A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli
Heh...
by mbecker908
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
I'm finding it harder and harder
by virginiaDaring
to care about whether someone you disagree with is a Moby. We have legitimate things to argue about since the election (as was beautifully articulated by many diarists on this site) and it just seems, I dunno, irrelevant now.
When men yield up the privilege of thinking, the last shadow of liberty quits the horizon.
— Thomas Paine
Of course it matters who's a moby
by Neil Stevens
If we have important things to discuss, we need to discuss them with people who come here in honesty and good faith. Mobies do nothing of the sort. They come here to derail discussions, and sidetrack them with lies.
--
It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones. -- Calvin Coolidge
i think that's true with regard to politics.
by virginiaDaring
When it comes to Iraq, though, it's frankly not clear to me what is the correct course of action from here, and I can't tell a moby from a neo-con from a con any more. Like I've said before, I'm not a political expert like you guys or anything, but I come to redstate to observe (mostly) the exchange of ideas. The name calling and accusations just tire me out, esp. since the election. Usually you can tell the Mobys b/c they're flippin nuts, but I don't know - is the Iraq Study Group a bunch of mobys?
When men yield up the privilege of thinking, the last shadow of liberty quits the horizon.
— Thomas Paine
yes, the ISG is a New Castrati whale
by gamecock
of admitted non-expert consensus seekers, for consensus's sake, not seekers of victory, which they are not qualified to determine in any event. I think they are just a pawn and device for Bush to use to play the PR game, with no relevance whatsoever as to what we actually do in fighting our enemies.
See below reporter (who will soon be fired if he works for an MSM outlet show the lack of clothing worn on the ISG.
Jonathan Karl, who used to be at CNN, the best question of the day. He might have been the fourth or fifth question. Best question of the day, and after he asked this question, there was a stunned silence for at least 20 seconds while Baker and Hamilton figured out what they were going to say in answer.
KARL: I understand you went to Iraq once. With the exception of Senator Robb, none of you made it out of the green zone. Why should he give your recommendations any more weight than what he's hearing from his commanders on the ground in Iraq?
RUSH: That's the question. Why should he listen to you guys? You went there once. You never got out of the green zone, except for you, Senator Robb. You never got out of the green zone. Why should he listen to you guys and not the commanders on the ground? And it was met with stunned silence. Both Baker and Hamilton were a little miffed at this show of disrespect for this august group of blue-ribbon panel members. Here's Hamilton's answer.
HAMILTON: The members of the Iraq study group are, I think, public servants of a distinguished record. We don't pretend now, we did not pretend at the start to have expertise. We've put in a very intensive period of time. We recognize that our report is only one. There will be many recommendations. But the report will stand on its own and will be acceptable or rejected on its own.
RUSH: Get this. Get this.
HAMILTON: We also hope that our report will help bridge the divide in this country on the Iraq war --
RUSH: Yippee.
HAMILTON: -- and will at least be a beginning of a consensus --
RUSH: Yeah.
HAMILTON: -- because without that consensus --
RUSH: Yeah.
HAMILTON: -- in the country --
RUSH: Yeah.
HAMILTON: -- we do not think ultimately you can succeed in Iraq.
RUSH: All right, so there you have it. Well, what we really want to do here is bridge the divide in this country. We're public servants and we work very hard. How dare you ask that question. Here's Jim Baker's answer.
BAKER: Let me add to that, that this report by these -- this bunch of has-beens up here is the only bipartisan report that's out there.
RUSH: See? See, ladies and gentlemen? Its value is that it's bipartisan and they're attempting to achieve consensus like the new castrati.
The new castrati mobies
Bush is the antithesis of castratis, old and new.
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
RE:Bush is the antithesis of castratis, old and new.
by virginiaDaring
So, that would make him a Castrator? I'm sorry, but you know, that really does not clarify for me the correct course of action on Iraq.
When men yield up the privilege of thinking, the last shadow of liberty quits the horizon.
— Thomas Paine
Most of al Qaida has been castrated. Iran is fomenting violence in Iraq. And Iran has been the pre-eminent sponsor of terror since 1979. They are the ultimate destination in this war. We have then surrounded, the Gulf made into our lake, and free allies growing on their borders.
The whole reason for this enterprise was encapsulated on 9/11's attack on our soil by non-nuclear islamo-facists, of the type Iran has been supporting against us and Israel for decades.
For examples of what we must do, loom to past wars won by the US and other nations in history. The ISG consensus building essay ain't the way
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
"He wishfully believed that
by Raven
"He wishfully believed that we could achieve our ends with a minimum number of troops."
Entirely possible, had we waged WAR rather than 'Win their hearts and minds'
"He wishfully believed that the Iraqi people would welcome us as liberators."
A great many of them did, or did you miss what the soldiers who were in the initial invasion said? Oh, that's right, it didn't fit into the agenda so the MSM forgot to report it...
"He wishfully believed that the Iraqi oil profits would finance the cost."
First, as has already been said above, he didn't. 2nd, So What? People have made financial errors before and the government has made bigger ones...
"He wishfully believed that the American people would continue to support the war when they were constantly offered overly optimistic assessments of the situation that conflicted with actual reports from clear eyed realists."
Certainly they would have, had War been waged rather than just threatened...
"The only difference between now and the beginning of the war years ago is that NOW the people who also wishfully believed the nonsense that the President was peddling have had to open their eyes to the fact that he has been terribly wrong about every major decision he has made in this war. It was a bad idea, badly executed, and now our nation will have to face the consequences of the actions of President Bush."
No. The difference is that the politicians involved were pathetic excuses for "leaders" and are now trying to save their careers. It didn't work for the guys who did the same with Vietnam. It won't work for these guys.
"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal comfort... has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill
Good points all, Raven...
by docj
... but I'm pretty sure you've made them to someone who is undergoing something akin to a cleansing ritual at the moment. Just saying.
Best -
-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"
I waited a month after the elections to bother posting here again. I didn't even gloat or anything. I read this post about "The war is lost" as a sign that even the people on this site are coming to grips with the realities of the Bush Presidency.
I'll go jump back on your pile now, but don't worry...I'll be back in January when the subpoenas begin coming out. I am very eager to hear the Redstate comments when the truth about Dick Cheney, Halliburton and war profiteering comes out.
Tick tock Redstaters...it's only a few weeks away....
Score another one for my CetaSense (nt)
by Neil Stevens
--
It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones. -- Calvin Coolidge
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
Clean-up on Aisle 12. (nt)
by docj
-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"
No, in fact, you won't.
by Thomas
We can get really nasty with the new software we have. Think an IP ban sucked before? Oh, man. You don't even know. And I'm in just the mood to show you.
-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.
buh-bye (nt)
by virginiaDaring
When men yield up the privilege of thinking, the last shadow of liberty quits the horizon.
— Thomas Paine
In all seriousness...
by TheSophist
I wonder who Teeman hates more: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush, or Bin Laden, al-Sadr, and Ahmadinejad....
-TS
"What is a moderate interpretation of the text? Halfway between what it really means and what you'd like it to mean?" - Justice Antonin Scalia
I seriously doubt Military Contracts Let While Clinton
by Repair Man Jack
>>>I'll be back in January when the subpoenas begin coming out. I am very eager to hear the Redstate comments when the truth about Dick Cheney, Halliburton and war profiteering comes out.
was in ofice will be featured writ large in any hearings conducted by Henry Waxman. Come back in January so that we can mock you once again.
2006 is done, 2008 is another day and another fight
confirmed to take orders from the man identified as "BUSH", already confirmed as Commander In Chief by the American people, (It should be pointed out that Bush did not face the same silly questions from the American people when he was facing Kerry that gates faced today. Moreover, Bush had weeks to correct misleading headlines unlike Gates) below:
MAIN EXCERPT:
"HUME: Speaking of objectives, what did you tell Bob Gates, when you chose him to succeed Donald Rumsfeld, was the objective in Iraq?
BUSH: A government that can sustain, govern and defend itself and is -- a free government that sustain, govern and defend itself and is an ally in the war on terror.
HUME That sounds very familiar, Mr. President. It sounds like you told him the same thing you've been telling everyone all along.
BUSH: Correct.
HUME: Your objective has not changed.
BUSH: My objective hasn't changed.
HUME: And did -- how did he respond to that? I mean, he did...
BUSH: He said, "I think we can achieve that objective."
HUME: And did he -- did you, in any sense, suggest to him that his mission was to get the United States out of there?
BUSH: No. My objective is to succeed, and I'll tell you why. Failure in Iraq would be a disaster for your grandchildren. And the reason why it'd be a disaster for your grandchildren is because we're now in an ideological struggle between extremists and people who want to live in peace. And the -- the -- al Qaeda has made it clear that they want to team up with extremists inside of Iraq to drive us out of Iraq and the Middle East. We'd be disgraced. Our allies would no longer support us.
And when you throw in the mix Iran, which is very aggressive in the Middle East, you've got the ingredients for a very dangerous situation. And so whether it be a democracy succeeding in Lebanon or a democracy succeeding in the Palestinian Territories or the young democracy of Iraq succeeding, it's in our interest that we achieve that objective. And Mr. Gates understands that we're in an ideological struggle and that the United States must succeed in helping this young democracy govern, sustain and defend itself."
EXPANDED EXCERPT
HUME: The town is buzzing over the Rumsfeld memo that leaked to the "New York Times." How do you view that memo? Do you consider that a list of things that you might do? How do you view it in relation to the other advice documents you're getting and will be getting?
BUSH: Well one of the key points is that I'm getting a lot of advice documents and of course these documents were never intended to be read in the public. These are frank assessments by different members of my administration. We're going to be getting another advice document from the Baker/Hamilton Commission soon. My attitude is I ought to absorb and listen to everything that's being said, because I'm not satisfied with the progress being made in Iraq.
And the good news is neither is the Iraqi leadership. And so I'm listening to the Iraqis. I'm going to listen to members of Congress. I want to listen to, obviously, Baker/Hamilton. More importantly, when it comes to military matters, I want to listen to the military, to come up with a -- a way of achieving our objective quicker. And so this is an important period.
HUME: Speaking of objectives, what did you tell Bob Gates, when you chose him to succeed Donald Rumsfeld, was the objective in Iraq?
BUSH: A government that can sustain, govern and defend itself and is -- a free government that sustain, govern and defend itself and is an ally in the war on terror.
HUME That sounds very familiar, Mr. President. It sounds like you told him the same thing you've been telling everyone all along.
BUSH: Correct.
HUME: Your objective has not changed.
BUSH: My objective hasn't changed.
HUME: And did -- how did he respond to that? I mean, he did...
BUSH: He said, "I think we can achieve that objective."
HUME: And did he -- did you, in any sense, suggest to him that his mission was to get the United States out of there?
BUSH: No. My objective is to succeed, and I'll tell you why. Failure in Iraq would be a disaster for your grandchildren. And the reason why it'd be a disaster for your grandchildren is because we're now in an ideological struggle between extremists and people who want to live in peace. And the -- the -- al Qaeda has made it clear that they want to team up with extremists inside of Iraq to drive us out of Iraq and the Middle East. We'd be disgraced. Our allies would no longer support us.
And when you throw in the mix Iran, which is very aggressive in the Middle East, you've got the ingredients for a very dangerous situation. And so whether it be a democracy succeeding in Lebanon or a democracy succeeding in the Palestinian Territories or the young democracy of Iraq succeeding, it's in our interest that we achieve that objective. And Mr. Gates understands that we're in an ideological struggle and that the United States must succeed in helping this young democracy govern, sustain and defend itself.
HUME: When Donald Rumsfeld was first named, of course, that was pre- 9/11, you gave him the mission of the transformation of the shape of the United States military. Everything I've been told about what goes on over there is that project goes forward only when and if Donald Rumsfeld is there to shove it forward with his energy.
BUSH: Yes.
HUME: Do you anticipate that Bob Gates will be able to carry that on in the way that Rumsfeld did?
BUSH: I think that Don Rumsfeld has done remarkable work in transforming our military. I believe he has got the process far enough down the road that -- and Bob Gates will be able to continue that.
HUME: You do? You're still convinced of that?
BUSH: Because it's an objective of my administration. It's exactly what I told him when I talked to him about taking this job. I talked to him about two things: one, succeeding in the Middle East and secondly, transforming the military at the same time.
READ THE WHOLE THING
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,178760,00.html
READ WHAT BUSH'S SPOKESMAN SAID ABOUT WHAT THE MEDIA SAID ABOUT WHAT BUSH'S SOON TO BE EMPLOYEE SAID
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_con...
I truly worry what might happen to haystack and Neil if I were to be absent from these parts for more than 72 hours.
ps
The terms "winning" and "losing" are meaningless at any time before one side has actually lost or won, beacuse whoever actually wins, was at all times prior thereto "winning" for the word "winning" to have any meaning.
Hence, we didn't know if that football team that scored 200+ points last week was winning until the whistle blew. They were ahead until they won, but we didn't know if...
you get the point?
Levin was thrown a bone or two
Can we please space these defeatist fits further apart in time?
with love
GC
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
Love it. Your "winning/losing" analysis is spot on.
by virginiaDaring
That's the most logical thing i've read on this thread, thanks.
When men yield up the privilege of thinking, the last shadow of liberty quits the horizon.
— Thomas Paine
5- Great Response!
by streetwise
Bush is still president, and he isn't changing his objective. As for strategy, that is always up for grabs and should be.
Recommended, but...
by Mark I
I don't share in your sense of impending doom just yet. Call me what you like, but I still think the entire Rumsfeld/Gates affair is being done to buy time for a final push to control Baghdad, so we can leave on something of a a high note.
-----------------------
Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman
Exactly the problem here. Why are we leaving with the war not won in the first place?
God, this is going to make my job hard. I desperately hope my tour is over before the surrender becomes official...
"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal comfort... has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill
Five years from today...
by RBMN
Five years from today, or ten years from today, we'll still have bases and troops in Iraq, maybe 10- or 15-thousand strong, half Air Force. And the sporadic killing will continue just as it does in India. Life goes on.
Actually they weren't. Because for the term "losing" to have any meaning, they must actually lose. Because if they win, then they always in the process of winning all along.
Gamecock, Six years of not falling for MSM word games and fake reality, and counting...
Would all of you please join me in that and in also not declaring the US under a CINC that has never wavered unless and until he actually does? It must be sad to get rushes from being the purveyor of gloom and doom. (I mean except when one is speaking to an ex-wife about how decadent their life is compared to yours.) It really multiplies the feeling if it actually comes to pas, and it saps victory of its full joy if one proves to be wrong. Don't get invested more in one's cynical predictions and the preening displays thereof, than one invests in Hope.
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
And not to pick nits here...
by docj
But until about Christmas Eve 1776 Washington was, truth be told, getting his butt handed to him. Regularly. Or was Thomas "These are the times that try men's souls" Paine just making it up?
And for a fair amount of 1861-1863 Lincoln was, in fact, losing. Badly.
Just saying.
-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"
The product of ing
Milk-ing produces milk
weave-ing produces cloth
lose-ing produces loss
Washington won
The Nats were trailing the Braves 7-6 in the 7th...
your pick got nitted
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
Well, allrighty then.
by docj
Say "Hi" to Lt. Uhura for me when you get there...
-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"
True Enough
by Raven
The difference? Lincoln and Washington's political leadership was willing to do what needed be done on the homefront.
"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal comfort... has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill
Right on, Gamecock.
by Justin Case
There have been several on this board since the last election who are willing to throw in the towel.
May I interject something personal?
I was not a believer in the Vietnam War. I could not provide an adequate answer to the cute little chick who sat next to me on the flight to Oakland.
"Why are you going?" she asked.
Months later, there were guys arriving in-country saying how much worse public opinion had become regarding the validity of the war.
Alot of good that did me.
What really mattered back then, and I daresay it is seared, seared in my mind to this very day, was making it back alive in one piece - even though those in charge Nixon and Henry Kissinger proved to be the ultimate in C(ing)YA.
I still can't find the similarity between those two and George W. Bush.
Today, I see our troops having to deal with real doubts, and they are not the result of questions being asked by cute little hippy chicks.
Instead, the doubts are presented by those who once spoke in favor of the war in Iraq.
Indeed, a parallel with Vietnam.
The Biggest Problem
by Raven
Is that the government that is supposed to support those soldiers is not making any substantial response to all the attacks on the troops by the other side.
That is what has caused all the doubt and fear among those who support the war, including the troops.
"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal comfort... has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill
Would you mind pointing
by Justin Case
me in the direction to where troops serving in Iraq have doubt and fear about their mission? Are there some sources?
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
Me too.
by itrytobenice
(recommended for your comment). I watched a couple hours of the hearings today, then flipped on the local news at noon to see the weather and heard their AP summary. It was like they were talking about an entirely different hearing.
Don't believe one word that you hear from the media. Even if the words are correct, they take them out of context and remove their meaning. The MSM is an entirely untrustworthy place to get any information. You have to go to the source if you want to know anything.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
That was amply demonstrated when
by CJB68
That was amply demonstrated when I switched from the headline at NewsMax.com to the one on the Drudge Report. You can definitely say that there was some 10-second soundbiting going on. The tragedy is that there will be no sane people left when all the dust settles from this, because in the end, the threats will still be ignored once the Left has its way and we're going to be awakened one day by a thunderous boom and a burning light with no one to turn to but God himself. And it just might be that we won't know anything until He starts holding the Interviews...
--
"Straight Talk Express"? My bum feet! -- Me, on Senator McCain and other "moderates"
Er, what were we expecting him to say?
by ConservativeMutant
"We're winning, but the President felt I made a prettier face than Rumsfeld on TV?"?
I don't care what he does to butter up Levin if he'll go out and win.
That's perhaps fair, CM.
by docj
But you're aware of course that by merely mouthing these words - to be played to receptive MSM audiences around the world - Gates has basically thrown everyone who has been saying (with no small degree of truth) that 1) we're not getting the whole story out of Iraq and, 2) it's not nearly as bad as the MSM portrays it for the last 2-3 years under the bus, right?
Remember, this came from the mouth of the man George W Bush chose to run the Defense Department - and, by extension, the man who will be the day-to-day face of the Iraq war.
And he basically said, under oath, in front of a Senate Committee, that everything the President and his peeps have been saying about Iraq for, well, who knows how long is - how can I put this diplomatically... oh, I've got it! - no longer operative.
Super.
Just. Super.
-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"
baker tried his best to keep Reagan from saying the immortal:
"Mr. Gorbachev, Tear Down This Wall!"
At the time, all the buzz was how silly the old man was when contrasted with the urbane baker and co.
Now, whose words do me remember?
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
Uh, sure.
by docj
What precisely does this have to do with the price of eggs?
And are you seriously trying to say Bush 43 == Reagan?
-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
flyerhawk let me use it
by docj
And it's trademarked, not patented. But certainly I, a humble engineer, am not about to explain that you you, a jurist.
But hey, any time Mr. Bush wants to have his Brandenburg Gate moment is just fine by me.
I'll only suggest that he may, just may, be running out of time.
-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"
Bush seems to prefer chain link moments. Reagan's gate moment was in a year 7 after a Reykjavik. Aren't there enough defeatist dems calling Bush, the troops and this Country a loser everyday? Must Bush and Cheney work 12 hour shifts each day constantly repeating what Bush said Monday (see up-thread), the last few weeks (see link below), what Tony Snow said today (see up thread) and that he and Cheney and Rummy and Condi have been saying since the Axis of Evil Speech in 2001 and since the invasion of Iraq in 2003 to prevent even us from announcing defeat every time the MSM tells us we should?
I have chastised republican elected leaders of Congress for emboldening our enemies almost as much as the dems (see below on Graham) for playing armchair CINKs 24/7, and have looked at Redstate as a refuge from all that. Yet, I can't count (retainer not paid) all the diaries and comments I have felt moved to make to combat utter defeatism, HERE. ALL unjustified, given Bush's spine. Why don't we save up all the wicked rushes of pleasure from pronouncing bad news for when and IF it actually occurs. It is a bit pathological to exult in pronouncements of despair and defeat time and time again, especially when between such pronouncements the BOSS always reiterates his same determination to win in Iraq and against Iran.
I'm tired but not dead, and alert for the next pixel paroxysm. And look, I'm not mad at you or haystack. It is hard to stomach anything less than Churchillian total victory statements for me too, but we are surrounded by idiot liberals of no small portion of the population and Bush has to deal with them in an exalted state of power in Congress, but he will still lead us to victory. We can trust Bush on the war, just like on judges. I hope you have had a chance to hear Scalia, Roberts, Alito and even Kennedy in the racist school board case. They are going to overrule forced busing! This is huge. (and of course, I was all for the end of legal racial segregation and me and my parents were leaders in integrating the races in the south with the first integrated cib scouts, little league and paralegals) But it is also wrong to deny a child a place in their local school based on race, and I'm sure you agree. I digress
Bush Still Sane, Still President. Resists Baker Coup to Surrender to Iran in Iraq
WASHINGTON - Despite a growing and virtually universal consensus both in the US and abroad that the United States must engage Syria and Iran if it hopes to stabilize Iraq, US President George W Bush appears determined to ignore Baghdad's two key neighbors as long as possible.
That is increasingly the assessment of analysts who had been hopeful that the Democratic sweep of the mid-term congressional elections in November, as well as Bush's decision to replace Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld with former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) director Robert Gates, would incline the president toward a more accommodating stance.
In particular, it had been thought that those two developments would make the anticipated recommendation by the congressionally mandated, bipartisan Iraq Study Group (ISG) co-chaired by former secretary of state James Baker - that Washington actively promote and participate in regional negotiations on Iraq that would include Iran and Syria - politically irresistible. Its long-awaited report will be released next week.
But recent statements by Bush and other senior administration officials, as well as the departure of a key "realist" adviser to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, have fueled growing speculation that Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney hope they can still prevail in Iraq without having to sit down with the two "evil-doers".
Indeed, that appeared to be the message Bush wished to convey on Tuesday at a North Atlantic Treaty Organization summit in Riga where he recommitted the US to support for Iraq's "young democracy" and vowed not to withdraw US troops "until the mission is complete".
"He has no intention to change his policy in Iraq," Pat Lang, a former top Middle East analyst at the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency, concluded after reviewing Bush's remarks.
In the same appearance, Bush also seemed to rule out talks with Tehran and Damascus under present circumstances. "Iran knows how to get to the table with us. That is to verifiably suspend their [uranium] enrichment programs," he said, stressing, however, that he had no objection to direct talks between the Iraqi leaders, such as those carried out over the weekend in Tehran by President Jalal Talabani, and their counterparts in Iran and Syria.
read it all
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/gamecock/2006/nov/30/bush_still_sane_still...
http://gamecock.townhall.com/g/7fc74600-34eb-4a3c-86cd-0ef29f0dbc97
Sen. Graham Displays GOP Culpability for Tepid Public War Support in Radio Interview
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/gamecock/2006/nov/01/sen_graham_displays_g...
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
Must Bush and Cheney work 12 hour shifts each day constantly repeating what Bush said ...
Yep. It stinks, but there it is. The last thing we need is 535 CinC's, but there was a void - and lots and lots of TV time - that needed to be filled and plenty of wanna-be's (Biden, Hagel, etc.) ready and willing to fill the time.
But to be fair to us "defeatists", I don't think there are any of us who want that result. But I have to tell you, short of putting everything we have in country, kicking the mother-loving Shiite out of everything not wrapped in an American flag and singing "I'm a Yankee Doodle Dandy", while also opening up a Trident D-5 sized can of Whoop @ss on Iran I really, truly, honestly don't see anything that can be called "victory" out there to be had.
Maybe it's there.
But from here on out it's going to take more than "Because Bush Sez So" for me to believe it.
But I'm happy you're not mad a me and 'stacks - at the end of the day.
-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"
I know you guys don't want defeat and I know that Haystack is having a ball knowing that I kind of fell for the hyperbole about a statement in a confirmation hearing less than 72 hours after all the Left on Sunday went ape that Bush had reiterated his determination to win with Malacki after assuming that the Dem victory guaranteed defeat and less than 48 hours after a detailed renunciation of any notion of retreat or dialogue with Iran unless they become Connecticut.
I would suggest that we look back at Washington, Lincoln and FDR and assume that of course everyone had confidence in them that they would win even when they were at a much lower state that we are. We have lost less than 3000 and occupy 2 nations surrounding the main enemy while a bunch of fanatics kill each other.
Bush sees reality. We can and will win. Thank God that past leaders facing doubters didn't give up. I see that stuff in Bush.
I see well.
btw, my intials really are
MAD!have faith
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
And the kicker of all this...
by docj
... what do you want to bet Baker's ISG comes up with nothing better than "stay the course" and "they stand up, we stand down" - only wrapped in a pretty colored Blue bow and dressed in fancy paper?
Even money, no worse.
Tomorrow's going to be a fun day.
-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"
I said essentially that a week or so back:
Rumsfeld's Departure, the Baker Commission & The Decider
Sunday, November 12, 2006 6:27 PM
excerpt
I also suspect that most of the work in Iraq requiring over 100,000 troops is largely done but that Bush's main goal is to make sure that when they begin with withdrawal it not be seen as a defeat like the Dems have tried to ensure. I think the Baker Commission will be the cover. It will cite the sterling achievements. The Dems cynical timetable ala Murtha actually coincided with the Bush's plans all along. But the Dems goal is that America be humiliated in the world.
See also Fred Barnes' "There's Still Life in that Lame Duck":
excerpt:
"With Rumsfeld's resignation, Bush demonstrated his willingness to make major concessions. Rather than change the strategy in Iraq, he changed the strategist. This is not the first step in a disguised retreat from Iraq, Bush aides insist, nor does it represent a turnover of national security policy to the "realists," as opposed to an idealist like Bush, who ran foreign affairs under Bush's father. The president told Rumsfeld's successor, Bob Gates, the goal is still to create a stable democratic Iraq that can defend itself--in other words, victory."
read the whole thing
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/945gol...
And read Bush's comments on the war in his pre-election interview with conservatives in the Oval Office and I think we should conclude that Bush will never stop defending us and will not betray our purple-fingered allies in Iraq nor our troops:
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/baroneblog/archives/061025/an_inter...
How many times have we worried that Bush would waver and weaken on the war due to his silence or media spin and speculation? Yet he has never wavered. Never. And The Decider won't.
read the whole thing after war and peace!
http://gamecock.townhall.com/g/142f2838-652c-4c36-b702-f912aae36e52
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
"pathological"
by John E.
That's a good word gc, to describe those who want so badly to win, but are so frustrated by mistakes and setbacks that they throw in the towel. We may be contending with the defeatist on the other side of the isle. But on our side we are beset by the self-defeatist. I am so glad you have the energy to contiune to buck up. Right on bro!
John E.
George Bush, as recently as October 25, with regard to the war in Iraq: "Absolutely, we’re winning."
Robert Gates - George Bush's personal choice to head-up the DoD, yesterday, in response to a pretty damn simple question, "Do you believe that we are currently winning in Iraq?": "No, sir."
That is frustrating.
-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"
You don't have to tell me. I feel it too! I heard Gates in real time and had you been here you would only have had to look at me to understand my rant. I am very disappointed that Gates is not taking up the battle against the defeatist narrative of the Dems and the MSM. But as the recent election shows anyone who now contradicts the "failure" narrative is now pilloried by the thoughtless prejudice for that narrative. I realize Gates can't win that battle at the foot of the dais. What is ultimately important to me - far more important that the political gamesmanship - is that we win on the ground in Iraq. And if Gates is committed to that, I will forgive him for making the judgment that the best way to gain public support for his renewed victory effor
This would make me mad, but I already concluded this the day President Bush ditched Secretary Rumsefeld and make his speech capitulating to the Democrats.
So I already worked out that anger. At this point I'm just numb.
--
It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones. -- Calvin Coolidge