Nancy Boyda Won't Want to Read USA Today
Good News in Iraq Is Bad News for Democrats
By Bluey Posted in War — Comments (8) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Freshman Rep. Nancy Boyda (D.-Kan.), one of the GOP's top targets in 2008, couldn't stomach hearing about progress in Iraq during House Armed Services Committee testimony last month. Frustrated and agitated by the remarks of retired Gen. Jack Keane, Boyda walked out of the hearing room only to return 10 minutes later to ridicule the architect of the surge strategy.
Judging from Boyda's behavior at last month's hearing, she just might blow a gasket today if she reads the article in USA Today about the 50% decline in major attacks since the troop surge strategy began. (Linked by Pejman Yousefzadeh earlier this afternoon.)
Keane, the man Boyda berated in July, is quoted in the article, saying that U.S. forces have gained momentum from the enemy. Yet don't expect Boyda to acknowledge the progress. Her spokeswoman said last month after the fiasco that she's "frustrated with how the administration is handling the war."
I suspect the real reason you won't hear Democrats acknowledge progress in Iraq is that any good news is bad news for them. Their political success at home depends on failure in Iraq. That's why Boyda didn't want to hear about it in July and why she probably won't acknowledge it now.
« We need more COIN in the Afghan realm — Comments (0) | Are Things Changing For The Better In Iraq? — Comments (34) »
Nancy Boyda Won't Want to Read USA Today 8 Comments (0 topical, 8 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Is StayRedKansas on top of this? I hope Nancy is a one and done - what an incompentent loser.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
I'm glad that the violence has gone down, but I don't see how this represents "progress" in any but the most superficial of ways. We put more troops in Iraq, and now the violence has gone down - all well and good, but what now? Do we start seeing the violence increase again as we draw down to previous levels? Or do we keep those troops there indefinitely?
Security for the people must come first. Political progress will only come about once this is done. There is reason to be cautiously optimistic.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
clear, build and hold. This is typical moving the goal posts. Before the surge started most nay sayers said extra troops meant extra targets. Then, Harry Reid said the surge is lost. Now, suddenly its of course it is working we have more troops there.
Well, we don't just have more troops there but a new counter insurgency strategy that is clear, build and hold. We are in the middle of the first phase, clearing, that means we go neighborhood to neighborhood clearing each of the bad guys.
After that we establish a presence in each neighborhood, which is the hold part of the strategy.
The last part is the economic part that comes in. At that point our troops can leave.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
I'm glad that the violence has gone down ...
Somehow I get the impression that a lot of your Lefty compadres are not that happy about it.
... but I don't see how this represents "progress" in any but the most superficial of ways.
The violence being so high was a major celebratory talking point for the Left just a week ago, why is it insignificant (or "superficial") now?
We put more troops in Iraq, and now the violence has gone down ...
I could have sworn the Left's leading lights and dims were so certain that the opposite would happen. One of them I believe has already declared failure on the floor of the Senate.
Do we start seeing the violence increase again as we draw down to previous levels? Or do we keep those troops there indefinitely?
Why don't we wait and see? Maybe, just maybe, Petraeus has given it some thought.
Either way, I'm sure there are a lot of people keeping their fingers crossed ... one way or another.
George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.
....an interesting description of the French political state immediately prior to the German breakthrough from the Ardennes Forest on May 10,1940. "The French Communists were more interested in pursuing rogues in high places" than in shoring up the nation's defenses against the impending German attack.
The result was a French Commanding General ensconced in a remote castle with no radio, telephone, or teletype communications with French forces on the borders, capable only of sending messages by runner every hour.
Those old French Communist's present day descendants on the Left in this country are faithfully trying to follow their historical predecessors' battle plans to the letter. We could very easily end up with the same results here as well. Can anyone draw a picture of Roman Emperor Nero fiddling while Rome burns?
"Those who can't learn from history's mistakes are condemned to repeat them."
Rooting for failure in Iraq to gain political power is just sick. Republicans should be framing this for all to see at every opportunity.