Redstate

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

to Kill for your beliefs?

haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).

And kindly answer the next time.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

But sadly, things are too dangerous in the world to let them keep running the show. Pork and illegal immigration is bad, but sitting out to prove a point only keeps Reid and Pelosi in power and able to ruin things.

I cite a segment from "The Great One", Mark Levin, on his show last night when he said Reid has "blood on his hands" over his behavior the past week. Well, I fear that those who all but vote for them (which is what sitting out will do), and thus enable Reid to stay in power, also have blood on their hands.

Our guys are fools right now, but the stakes are too high to join them in abandoning the field of fire.

haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).

Otherwise someone might have to accept responsibility for the mess the Commander in Chief has made even thought he got everything he wanted for this war.

So, let's see, you are right when you say that Bush got approval to take preemptive action against Iraq. But, from almost the moment we set foot on the ground, the same people who had voted for it started complaining about it. But, I guess that's about what you can expect from a party who thought we were bogged down in Afghanistan about one week into the thing. It must have shocked them about three weeks later when the Taliban was gone.

Basically, to wrap it up and put a pretty little bow on it for you, the left is bold and ready to go up until the point at which they feel a slight breeze. Then they're ready to fold, and they'll be good and darned if they're not going to take everyone else down with them.

Fides non in bonus intentions , tamen in bonus factum

For more common sense conservatism, visit the Show Me Conservatism blog.

but a lot of "The left" did not see the necessity of invading and occupying Iraq and did not approve. I was not alone when I marched in the streets against the war. The craven Democratic party DID approve, but they hardly stand for all of "The left". Some people protested from the very start, but it did not stop GWB from starting this war. The amount of people protesting and complaining has increased steadily as the incompetence has become more obvious, but up until now, he has gotten every dollar, every soldier, and every bullet he asked for. In hindsight, it is obvious that he did not ask for enough, but you can hardly blame that on the evil left. He is not trusted by anyone but the "true believers, and even Redstaters have serious doubts about him now. He brought his problems on himself, and he is just now beginning to be held accountable. Part of the accountabilty is that the Democrats, craven as they may be, now have a much bigger voice in foreign policy. You can thank GWB directly for that.

Thanks for the bow. I'll send it to Mom.

has accepted responsibility for the war in Iraq. It will be seen in the form of a veto next week.

The large majority of Republicans and a few Democrats are also taking responsibility for the war-as shown by their votes against the Spinach Pork Appropriations Surrender bill.

It is the Democrats and Republicans like Chuck Hagel who once voted for the war-and now want to change their votes who do not want to accept responsibility for their actions.

Further upthread you stated that you marched in protest of the the war. It's a free country. The reality is that had you gotten your way and were able to influence Bush to not invade Iraq, Saddam Hussein and his lunatic family would still be raping, maiming and butchering Iraqis.

The other reality is that if we are forced to surrender-as the Democrats are intent on seeing us do-the bloodbath will be immense. Al-Qaida will have gotten its way. Their encouragement was provided by weak-kneed Democrats and leftists who have the freedom to march in protest.

You're absolutely right. He will veto. And his dumbshit war will continue. Unless you haven't noticed, Al-Qaeda is already getting it's way. The bloodbath is currently taking place. Every single reason for this war has been debunked.

On the home front, our Attorney General is FUBAR. Corruption and incompetence are running rampant. What's it take for you to unthink this debacle? Defending this scenario might be OK if the people running the show were honest and forthright. But they're not. They're not.

Bush will continue this war until his term expires. Then you can happily blame who's left to shovel the shit he and his extremist brethren buried us in.

A minimal Congressional majority procured by the fraud of running Ds who ran to the right of their R opposition, hardly constitutes "most." The unrelenting propaganda spewed by the Left and their media lackeys has the People frustrated and disappointed in the conduct of the war, but only on college campi and the Blue cesspools in the NE and Left Coast would you find any substantial support for the ignominious surrender espoused by Reid/Pelosi.

In Vino Veritas

.

soli Deo gloria

"the only reason Iraq is 'such a mess' is because nobody on your side of the argument was willing to give the plan a chance". Let's face it..anyone who disagreed with the Presidents plan just got rolled over. What did he NOT get in the way of men or material that he demanded over the first 4 years of this war? He got everything he asked for, and the fact that his project of pre-emptive war has resulted in the current mess can not be laid at the feet of the people who point out the truth about the mess. People who opposed the war have been absolutely shut out of the decision making process until now. And of course, NOW we have opportunistic hacks like Reid and Pelosi jumping on the anti-war bandwagon.
Look-I don't know what to do about the FUBAR situation in Iraq. I do not want to just up and leave, because I do believe that there will be even more bloodshed. I just think that to somehow blame "The left" for the mess in Iraq is the ultimate dodge of accountability. YOu seem to believe that if "The left" would have just held GWB's hand and said "Thats ok George-you just keep on spending money and lives and American reputation until you finally get it right" then everything would have been fine. That is..lets see...what is the right way to put it....let's try.."A load of self serving crap." Yeah-that's about right.

And, I can see where my comment may not have been detailed enough. Let's try again.

Twelve hours into the Afghanistan campaign, the MSM, lib politicians and the anti-war crowd were already starting with the Vietnam analogies. Twelve hours into Iraq, the focus suddenly shifted, and even the anti-war crowd was saying that we should be fighting in Afghanistan, and Iraq was now "Bush's Vietnam-style quagmire". Putting aside the inconsistencies of the anti-war crowd telling anyone where the USA should be fighting, doesn't it seem like "self-serving crap" to change one's tune to fit the argument of the moment?

The point of this is that, if there hadn't been the instant, and constant, carping from the left since the moment we went in, this battlefront might have been secured by now. Or is it just impossible for you to understand that the enemy is watching our internal debate?

Glad you responded. Know what? I agree that there are opportunists with an agenda on both sides who change their argument with every shift in the wind. It WAS amazing to see how many "anti-war" people suddenly were okay with going into Afghanistan AFTER Iraq was the new front. Where you and I part ways though, Seattle-ite, is in the effect that anti-war critics from the MSM and the general population had on the success of this war. I do not believe that the criticism in the beginning contributed to the initial failures. (The looting, the lack of real re-construction, Abu Grahab(sp??). These failures were due to a lack of planning, and a shocking tendency to replace hard analysis with wishful thinking. If there had been a larger force with a better plan, there would not have been the momentum for the steadily growing criticism. The incompetence of the war execution has led to a situation where NOW there is so much internal debate that it may well be encouraging the violence from all sides in Iraq. I continue to maintain that GWB needs to aknowlege that he screwed this up big time, and in doing so he opened the door to Ried, Pelose, etc. I just don't see how you can blame the left for the initial critical failures.

...can you see that any argument that begins with "Bush needs to...", is an automatic non-starter, when folks with an historic memory analyze the coverage? I lived through the Vietnam era; I recognize the mistakes that were made by the administrations (Dem and Rep alike). I know it wasn't just the hippy-dippy crowd with their signs and mantras that caused our problems in SE Asia. But it wasn't only Nixon and his policies, either. Conveniently enough, Nixon was starting a reduction, when Watergate broke out. Kennedy got us in there, LBJ escalated, but Nixon takes all the heat for 'Nam, because the lefties say so. Complete hypocrisy, IMHO.

Mistakes are going to be made in war; it's the nature of the beast. Not everything is the President's fault, and the Dems should own up to their responsibility in getting us involved in Iraq, instead of hiding behind the "Bush Lied To Us" garbage.

Either way, the Dems should really look in the mirror, before calling anyone else "unreasonable". If a withdrawal timetable is such a wonderful idea, it should pass on its own; not as part of the supplemental. This is not the President politicizing troop support, but the Dem Leadership. They've already said, they're trying to make a point. Trouble is, we know what their point is already; been hearing it for the last four years straight. Meanwhile, good people are being killed and wounded, as the modern day Nero's play the violin.

I'm not trying to change your mind, here. You're entitled to your opinion, same as me. But, in arguing that 'we' shouldn't use a blanket condemnation toward the Left, you have inadvertently gone to the other extreme, making the case that Pres. Bush should be blamed for everything under the sun. It's a bit more complicated than that, and too many folks want the quick-fix in the GWOT. If it ain't over in a week, blame the GOP and lose the battle.

Our President has asked for patience and support. What he's getting is the same pathetic, feel-good garbage Nixon got during the 'Nam.

You say.."But, in arguing that 'we' shouldn't use a blanket condemnation toward the Left, you have inadvertently gone to the other extreme, making the case that Pres. Bush should be blamed for everything under the sun. It's a bit more complicated than that.."

I had been responding to your statement upthread, which read:
"
"Teemn, the only reason Iraq is 'such a mess' is because nobody on your side of the argument was willing to give the plan a chance."

You and I agree then, it is much more complicated that saying that the only reason Iraq is such a mess is because of resistance from the left. It is a lot more complicated than that.

*About standing on common ground with me. I am pleased to come here and exchange ideas with you, but you might not want many people around here see you standing with me. Especially MBecker. I bet he is on his fourth cup of coffee by now....

I'm one of those rare individuals who like to think through a problem, with all available info, and come to my own conclusion. Therefore, with my memory of the worlds' problems over the last 40+ years, and a basic grasp of history, I tend to see the current problems in Iraq through a decidedly non-ideological prism.

But what really chaps my cheeks is the tendency for otherwise intelligent and thoughtful people, to devolve the argument as to whom is most at fault. Did the Bush administration make mistakes? Duh. Is the anti-war crowd causing more problems than they're solving? Again; Duh. Let us all quit finger pointing at each other, and get on with fighting the terrorists.

Otherwise, we'll all still be carping at each other while al Qaeda sets off a nuke.

nt

I believe that mbecker and I simply get grumpy when folks use ad hominem attacks on the Pres. I have issues with the administration, but the larger vision for the GWOT ain't one of 'em.

grumpy when people want to abandon a nation - or an entire region - to terrorists when they have no alternative or constructive plan of action.

At this point, I'm pretty comfortable with adhom attacks on POTUS or the Republicans in Congress. For the most part, they've earn 'em. I am, OTOH, old enough to have very vivid memories of the consequences of the Democrats and the Left pulling the plug on Vietnam. It was an absolute blood bath - makes Rwanda and Darfur look like a church picnic - that they just turned their backs on and tut-tuted. I don't want that to happen again.

Frankly, were it up to me, I would require every politician who favors cutting and running from Iraq to be in either Baghdad or Ramadi when the US forces pull out. They could work with the Iraqi government, giving them the benefit of their vast, superior knowledge of governance. It would be fitting to see Murtha, Reid and Pelosi starring on al Jazeera.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

Hard to stand and type at the same time. Didn't mean to speak for you, but trying to explain that the coffee wasn't the culprit.

You've now been exposed to half the Cantonese I know. Means "no problem". The other half is "dimentai". Means "BIG problem".

I learned just enough Cantonese to build two factories in the PRC a long time ago. Worked like a charm.

And you were right. It wasn't the coffee.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

Teemn,

Seattle-ite is correct about not starting out in blaming President Bush for everything that went wrong. The 4th Div not being allowed to come through Turkey really hurt. One of our best, if not best, divisions didn't get into play until way late in the game. This caused personnel issues and made it difficult to deal with the amount of POWs and in IMO contributed to the lack of ability to properly pacify, police or deal with re-construction in a timely manner. This in turn contributed to stress in a whole lot of other areas.

I agree that the plans for working with the population didn't work the way the administration thought it would. That isn't an excuse for giving up and quitting.

Incompetence?! Name me a war that didn't have set backs. Every war and battle has its problems. The side that recovers and adapts first almost always win. President Bush has acknowledged screw ups, hence SecDef Rumsfeld leaving. We have a new SecDef, new general, who was unanimously accepted, and a new battle plan. Will you only be satisfied if he falls on his sword even though his/our troops are actually winning?

There is blame to spread around and everyone if very good at spreading it. How about some solutions that don't involve losing? Do you have anything to offer other then complaining?

Look-I don't know what to do about the FUBAR situation in Iraq.

Obviously, no. Just like Harry and friends.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

The fact is, I don't have a good answer for Iraq. I don't believe President Bush does. I don't believe the Democrats do. From a simplistic point of view, it seems to me that we want to pacify Iraq to a reasonable point, stabilize some semblance of democracy, and maintain some form of military strength in the region to protect our interest in oil.

The problem is that the situation has deteriorated so badly that in order to accomplish these goals, we will have to send a LOT more troops and money over there. The confidence in the judgement of the Bush administration has been shaken to the point where a large number of people don't trust them any more. The President reads the mood of the country and realizes that he cannot ask for everything that might be necessary, because that means a much larger commitment to a cause that people no longer want to pursue. I just don't see where we find the troops and national will to really achieve our goals

Sure, some of that lack of trust is due to the left wing MSM outlets, but a lot of it is very justifiable. Just look at the mess that is Iraq right now. As I said upthread, GWB got every dollar, every soldier, and every bullet he asked for. We see the results, and they are not good. The surge seems like we will just play better game of whack a mole with a bigger hammer, but I don't see a temporary increase of 20,000 troops or so making a long term solution.

He led us down this path, he was continually disingenious about the reasons for war and repeatedly gave overly optimistic assessments of the situation. That is why many people don't trust him to lead anymore. That is wny you have panicky people following the "Lets just get out" argument. I just don't see where we find the troops and national will to get there.

Oddly enough, I find myself agreeing with Pat Buchanan (now THERE is a sentence I never thought I would write..) that
We did not think hard enough about getting into Iraq, so we better think hard about how we get out"

...that the Dems who pushed for regime change prior to 2003, were also disingenuous? If not, your argument loses focus.

What is truly sad about this theater of operations is that, with the knowledge the world had at the time, pre-emption was our only option, if we were to continue chasing the terrorists. Bush explained that, though not as often, nor as well as he could. Some chose not to listen, and others chose to ignore the message. Add to that, the constant analogies to Vietnam, and the reportage of distressing news ad nauseum, throw in some very vocal (and mostly uninformed) protestors, you get the quagmire that everyone was clamoring about.

"United States" my great-aunt Tillie. We haven't been united for decades.

You are right that President Bush got what he asked for, but that doesn't get to the truth of the matter. The Administration committed what I believe to be the cardinal sin of governing in today's hyper-partisan world; it bargained with itself. Cognizant of a narrow victory, narrow majority, and the enmity of the Left, the Administration bargained itself down to a strategy that it thought would minimize domestic opposition: no increases in the size of the military, minimal increases in the overall budget, no restraint on domestic spending to finance the war, lots of happy talk, etc.

GWB joins an increasingly long line of Republican officeholders who have had to learn the hard way that you cannot compromise with the Left; they only see it as a sign of weakness and pile on. He compromised by limiting his own strategy as a means to pre-empt their opposition and perhaps co-opt them; predictably, it didn't work. Now he finds himself embroiled in a difficult reconstruction of Iraq with inadequate resources and an overtly hostile Congress. The moral of this story is that whenever you reach out to Democrats, you get your hand bitten.

In Vino Veritas

but both the ones you've done today are outstanding.

" The moral of this story is that whenever you reach out to Democrats, you get your hand bitten."

Your point has been proven over and over. The thing I don't understand is how the Democrats and the unions can treat America like they do; and still have voters who actually vote for them.

a lawyer can get 12 morons with drivers' licenses to give somebody $200 million because the coffee was hot. Our education system is so bad that a huge percentage of our population simply is incapable of self-governance. At minimum, we ought to give the test we give to new citizens as a requirment for voter registration. Instead, we fight over whether we should require ID.

Thanks for the kind words.

In Vino Veritas

Because, if there's one thing that's been missing from the arguments emanating from the Left, it's respect. Going back to the '60's.

The opportunistic hacks in the '70's passed legislation that ultimately saw nearly five million people butchered Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia while they whistled in the wind. Then Frank Church did his level best, with the help of Party regulars, to destroy the CIA.

Now your opportunistic hacks are ready to let terrorists run rampant with no accountability.

If Harry and Nancy and Jack get their way you'll have the blood of several million in the middle east, possibly the State of Israel and God knows how many in Europe on your hands. Not that any of you would either notice or give a damn.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

Theres a lot of steps between criticizing the conduct of the war and having the blood of millions on my hands.

If you stand with Harry, you stand with genocide.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

"If Harry and Nancy and Jack get their way you'll have the blood of several million in the middle east, possibly the State of Israel and God knows how many in Europe on your hands. Not that any of you would either notice or give a damn."

Right. It'll be all our fault. Especially the Dems. Never mind the angry Muslims. They have nothing to do with it. It's all Harry and Nancy and Jack. Never mind the false claims, the bungled war, the complete and total failure of the Republicans. It been the Dems all along.

mbecker908 reminds us of the crap that's been forced down our throats all these many years. There's blood on someone's hands now, mbecker908. Yours.

that the constant drumbeat of support for the terrorists by the American leftist terrorist supporters is the one and only reason for the continuation of the Iraq War. The terrorists know they are not going to beat the US military. They leave it to their US leftists supporters to destroy, the reputation of the
US military, to destroy the effectiveness of the US government with their endless, meaningless investigations, and to destroy any vestige of Christian influence anywhere in the world.

I submit that every single death of an American serviceman in
Iraq and Afghanistan is the result of the American left assuring terrorists;

Just hang on, we'll get control of America and then you and your supporters will be safe.

How could the terrorists possibly fail, with the support of the American left?

Don't you think the commander in chief should have also known? I mean, if the terrorists were able to assess the situation in our own country regarding war, don't you think that the president should also have considered the limited appetite our country has for war? Part of planning for war means making a realistic assessment of your own strengths and weaknesses.
By your logic, the terrorists knew of this American weakness, but the president apparently did not. Another example of bad war planning, only this was on the domestic side, unlike the other bad judgements made upthread.

Sad, that.

on this blog here:
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/pilgrim/2007/apr/28/harry_and_nancys_are_t...

It is in farsi and it trumpets news that US Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says war is lost.

You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance