Redstate

and out comes the "New Tone" again. UGH.

___________________________________
The CIA has better politicians than it has spies - Fred Thompson

Dems oppose, it's our claiming victory.

During the Vietnam war an otherwise obscure Republican backbencher named Sen George Aiken suggested that the solution was "Declare victory and get out."

Today's Democrats have a different version regarding the Iraq war: "Admit defeat and stay."

GWB will not stand and fight on issues that matter to American security and sovereignty. Only on issues important to Mexico and Teddy the Hutt.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

I have to arrest myself from the very human response of "Oh, no, they are abandoning us... again." If this is true, it would be a vindication of an main tactic of the Left.

That is to whine, attack, moan, etc. until the opposition gives in. People only have so much stamina, and the Left tends to have more vocal supporters especially in the media (I did not say more supporters), so the 'R's tend to back down before the Left gives up.

Sadly, I read something the other day in a similar vein about Guantanamo Bay. Now, granted, it was on CNN.com, so you have to take it from that point of view, but there was a quote by an official The administration is not 'nearing a decision' on changing our long-held policy to shut down Gitmo in a responsible way. I was thinking. What?! I haven't heard anything about caving on Gitmo.

However, everything that happens on some issues is not bad, and we should not immediately assume that it is bad until we hear the details. I'm not saying, don't take action and contact representatives to fight for the War on Terror in Iraq, just don't assume the worst without more evidence. President Bush has a history of reviewing issues in a conciliatory gesture. Up through now, if there is anything that he has stood strong on it is the War on Terror.

Peter R - Praetorium.org

Marines are serving two and three tours in Iraq and Bush is tired?

I am beginning to regret every ounce of energy I have ever spent defending Republicans, and Bush in particular.

Maybe he should ask his old man about how that "no new taxes" thing got played by the Dems.

I was always under the impression that Bush was adamantly opposed to the partition idea. I could be wrong, but I don't see him caving that far. If anything, I can see him offering tougher benchmarks or some such thing - which I don't necessarily have a problem with so long as it doesn't hamstring our commanders.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

Bush should just continue to play chicken with the Democratic Congress until his term expires. It's a win-win for Bush and the Republicans. The Democrats won't have the guts to cut off our troops, they know it would be a political disaster for them to end Iraq this way, it would alienate moderate and independent voters. Consequently, this will only further irritate the far left, anti-war movement who could take their votes to the Green Party or sit out an election to teach the Democrats a lesson.

If the Democrats are able to defund the war, and America leaves and a humanitarian disaster ensues, the Republicans can leave that on the Democrat's doorstep. Troops that aren't given supplies like body armor and food, and an immediate evacuation of our forces will haunt the Democratic Party for a generation. They will never be trusted on National Security ever again.

Bush needs to take the gloves off and focus on wrapping up Iraq. That should be his only goal while he is still in office. His presidency, legacy, and unfortunately the Republican party's future is riding on Iraq. He needs to do whatever it takes to crush this insurgency and get out. He has taken too long in fighting this war, and was a fool to think the American people would have infinite patience in fighting a pre-emptive war like this.

"Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich. "

William F. Buckley, Jr.

When did the White House START fighting?

Did I miss it?

then shame and fie on them.

If this report is accurate, explain to me why this WH CANNOT fight the Dems for the rest of its term? All eighteen months of it?

I have to think there's more to this story. Perhaps the WH fears that our military simply cannot sustain this fight much longer. Perhaps our Army and Marine Corps are showing so much strain that we'll have to draw our forces down sooner rather than later.

I am waiting for a very good WH explanation of this.

"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)

Can anyone here refer me to a position paper by Senator Brownback where I can read more of his partition plan?

Brownback has won my admiration on a number of issues so I am inclined to listen to him.

Then GWB is not the man a lot of us thought he was.
I doubt the stary, frankly.
I think GWB, with all of his warts, is a better man than this.
He has beaten the dhimies well and hard.
To give in now would be folly that will cost all of us greatly.

For an administration that's already alienated a large segment of its supporters on immigration, it risks doing even more damage by changing gears to appease Democrats with its Iraq policy. Let's hope the White House doesn't leave its most loyal supporters hanging out to dry.

in East/West Germany and North/South Korea. No suffering, just liberal blis for all..
====
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." -- James Madison

... that being the LA Times - aka Pravda on the Left Coast - there's probably reason to be skeptical.

That said, I have to admit I fall in the same camp as my good friend becker.

Bush 43 is starting to look more and more like his old man every day. And no, that's not meant to be a compliment.

-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?

George Bush made the error of his presidency in attacking Iraq. We won the war in the first couple of months if one uses any sensible definition of victory. We had all of Iraq under our control. We could have enslaved or killed their population and taken their resources to our own use.

I am not suggesting that we should ever do that. Rather, I am suggesting that the war was won militarily a long time ago. Bush--if we are to believe his public statements--naively thought that the Iraq population would transform and be friendly to our occupation. This was stupendously stupid and ignorant. It has wasted too many lives of our boys and girls. It has depleted the strength of our military. It has wasted our hard earned treasure. For what?

Bush's war has no goal that I can see. Bush's war has made a mess out of Iraq, and Bush has made our country and the world a more dangerous place for Americans. We need a president who has some modicum of vision and competency. With Bush we do not have that.

Now that Bush has placed America in this terrible predicament we need to decide what is the best course of action. Blindly getting behind your party or your president is not good for America. Suggestions that the blame for this disaster can be good for Republicans (by politically manuevering the Dems into looking bad when we do end up having to withdraw) is putting a short sighted political agenda above the America.

Americans know that Bush has created a catastrophe in Iraq. It is time that we all admit that. Now is the time to figure out what is best to do for America.

Granted, the Dems are primarily interested in political gain rather than the best interest of the nation. The same could be said about most politicians of either party. My only hope is that the folks in D.C. do the right thing for the wrong reasons.

Unfortunately, any "compromise" (if one is reached) will likely be driven largely by politics -- and the political CALENDAR (re: 2008 elections), and I was appalled by reports a few weeks ago that Republican Senators (and/or Congressmen) emphasized to Bush the need to change policy at some point if it threatens Republicans in the 2008 elections.

The Dems say we should leave without considering the consequences, and some fabricate the convenient notion that a plan to leave by a date certain would actually be more conducive to political reconciliation and other progress by Iraqis, which is absurd for reasons I explain in my link below, but which is also expressed eloquently in today's Washington Post by Pete Hegseth, a first lieutenant in the Army National Guard who served in Iraq with the 101st Airborne Division from September 2005 to July 2006, participating in combat operations and political reconciliation efforts. Writes Hegseth:

"Most recently I was bothered by statements from Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), who cited three common antiwar arguments in his June 21 op-ed, " Lincoln's Example for Iraq," all of which run counter to realities on the ground in Iraq."

"[Levin says] A deadline for withdrawal is an incentive for Iraqi political compromise. Levin thinks we ought to pressure Iraq's government with a warning tantamount to saying: "You better fix the situation before we leave and your country descends into chaos." He should consider the more likely result: an American exit date crushing any incentive for Iraqi leaders to cooperate and instead prompting rival factions to position themselves to capitalize on the looming power void."

"My experience in Iraq bore this out. Only after my unit established a meaningful relationship with the president of the Samarra city council -- built on tangible security improvements and a commitment to cooperation -- did political progress occur. Our relationship fostered unforeseen political opportunities and encouraged leaders, even ones from rival tribes, to side with American and Iraqi forces against local insurgents and foreign fighters."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/24/AR200706...

Bush and the Republicans, on the other hand, want to continue an unconditional full commitment without forcing the Iraqis (mainly the Shiites) to make progress toward the political reconciliation that everyone agrees is necessary if we are to prevent -- rather than just delay -- a full-scale civil war and all the accompanying consequences. The Shiites are showing very little interest in making the necessary compromises thus far. If their obstinance continues, there are only two possibilities: (1) Maintain our presence and role there indifinately at current or increased force levels (not politically feasible, even if it were desirable), or (2) Continue there only to eventually leave without mitigating the ultimate disaster, and after many more casualties.

As I wrote back in April (see link), the most sensible solution is to pledge continued full commitment if the Iraqis start and continue to make progress toward reconciliation benchmarks, but to make such full commitment contingent upon such progress, making it clear that without such progress, we will pursue narrower goals of combating al Qaeda and deterring regional war, but not policing and controlling civil war per se. Our primary source of leverage with Iraqi leaders is that we are keeping a lid on the civil war. We should use that leverage to force a change that is (a) necessary to achieve our goals and (b) apparently not forthcoming without using that leverage by threatening to reduce our role. I also believe that the federalist "soft partition" advocated by Gelb appears to be the best of bad options despite its drawbacks. Please see my post at link below for elaboration of all of the above. http://www.redstate.com/blogs/brooksrob/2007/apr/29/iraq_strategy_a_sens...

That works for Bush, that is what Bush does when confronting the Democrats ... either that or goes to his goto guy Kennedy for help, as in no child left behind and AMNESTY. I guess he thinks it endears him to the Democrats. It's worked so far, right?

New tone, more like tone deaf. Where is the news here?

This war should have been fought with overwhelming non-politically-correct force, not like a bunch of sissies tiptoeing through the tulips. We used to think Bush was tough, but he's only tough on working, taxpaying Americans whose purpose in life is to finance the excesses of government and to provide the great things of life to the Mexican invaders.

Bush is SCAT!

so because ONE news article proclaims what the President is going to do based on secret sources- some of you are regretting voting for him?!!

Are you too dense to realize that the liberal media actually WANTS the GOP to splinter over this- and you pavlovians do exactly that. How about you use rationality rather than emotion for a change?

United States Air Force
http://airforcepundit.blogspot.com