To surge or not to surge?
posted at 10:41 pm on January 7, 2007 by Bryan
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
Like Hamlet, President Bush is wrestling in public with a question best handled in private. Hamlet had his suicide soliloquy center stage, and Bush has his big war speech in which he’ll tell the whole world (including our enemies) what he plans to do to win in Iraq.
It’s not his fault, really, or at least it’s not entirely his fault. This is just how we fight wars now. It’s stupid, unserious and silly to put our war strategy out in a big public address for all the world to see, digest and critique until we’re all tired of hearing about it, but politically he has to put it out there, so he will. This is what comes of decades of undeclared wars and putting our fealty to the UN and Bush’s personal wish to satisfy everyone above anachronisms like national security and fighting wars to win them, no matter what the hard left says about it.
So here’s what the data and the times are telling me. Unless I miss my guess, he’ll announce a surge. I don’t know how big, but it’ll be big enough to satisfy McCain and Lieberman and the few hawks that remain inside the beltway. It’ll begin right away. No waiting around for this surge.
It also won’t be long-term. He has Rep. Pelosi and Sen. Reid suggesting that he bug out of Iraq no matter what condition it’s in, and he has Pelosi and Levin threatening to cut off funding for the war even over his objection. Rather than fight them and humiliate them for the weaklings that they are and would make the US if they are heeded, Bush will try to satisfy them. So he has them on one side and the pro-surge forces on the other, with the generals either noncommittal or even opposed to a surge. He’ll surge to satisfy the hawks and then, once some benchmark has been met (maybe some number of militia and Qaeda fighters killed, or Sadr taken out along with a couple of provinces handed over to Iraqi Army control), he’ll declare the war won and begin the withdrawal. Iraq still won’t be perfectly pacified, but that’ll take decades anyway. We may even be leaving it in the throes of a simmering civil war. But we will have met the surge objective (an objective the president will lay out on Wednesday) and we’ll have a rationale for getting out with some dignity before the Democrat Congress starts defunding the effort and thereby humiliating the US further. We’ll keep a massive Air Force and Navy presence rotating in and out of the region for contingencies regarding Iran, but in this scenario I’ve laid out, we’re done in Iraq by the end of this year if not sooner. And by done, I mean the vast majority of our troops are out and the violence there has an entirely Iraqi face on it. On the upside, I doubt either Sunni or Shia Iraqis will linger over dealing with the al Qaeda remnants in their country. On the downside…well, this scenario has lots of downsides. Feel free to discuss them in comments.
So that’s my guess, and it’s no more than that really, as to what to expect on Wednesday. And now that I’ve written it down and published it, I more than half expect it to be wrong.
The real pity of all this if I’m right: The troops don’t want to surge and they don’t want to leave. They just want the politicians to stop bickering and stop forcing them to fight a politically correct war. They want to be allowed to win.
I agree with the troops on this one.
Update (AP): Here’s Pelosi on “Face the Nation” this morning hinting that unless Bush has a honey of a plan for what to do with the extra troops, she won’t fund a surge. Question: What if they’ve already started to deploy?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Nancy and The Crats will be for it, then against it, and continually lie about it
Big surprise
Janos Hunyadi on January 7, 2007 at 10:42 PM
No, he doesn’t. He’s just to much of a punk to do it the right way. Did you see the battle plans for Kosovo discussed in the press? Or was it all after the fact? Trust me, you didn’t and it was!
Soothsayer on January 7, 2007 at 10:55 PM
That triangle is in just the right spot!
Parley on January 7, 2007 at 10:58 PM
Forget the surge, just give our troops permission to take of the PC gloves and take the war to the enemy. In Iran.
bdfaith on January 7, 2007 at 10:59 PM
Surge or no surge, America has lost the will to fight this war. We’re just not getting hit at home, so what’s the point?
There’s movies to be made, 401k’s to be funded and hybrid Accords to buy. This Middle East stuff is just too unpleasant. Let the U.N. handle it.
spmat on January 7, 2007 at 11:08 PM
We need a surge ban.
normsrevenge on January 7, 2007 at 11:11 PM
All of my life (60 years) the political left has been making demands. In every case, it has been the right who gives up first, giving the left something, even if only symbolic, to buy peace.
When the right resists, the left always escalates.
The left always wins because they are willing to engage in violence, while the right will not.
If Bush insists on continuing the fight in Iraq, the Democrats will impeach. If you think they don’t have the votes, that may be true now, but when there are riots in the streets, they will have the votes.
The Democrat threats, currently, are veiled, and delivered in those oh so reasonable tones and demeanor, but they are threats none the less.
rockhauler on January 7, 2007 at 11:27 PM
We needed a surge pre-election to defeat this loon. I’ve broken off popcorn farts with more brains than this woman. And to top it off, I received the great honor of being named the number 1 asshole on HuffPo. I accepted the honor with class and dignity not befitting the post by telling everyone I was in good company. It’s a good thing HuffPo has a no-personal-attack policy in place or else I wouldn’t have received such a great honor……
ritethinker on January 7, 2007 at 11:28 PM
I wish more people would say this because it’s the bare naked truth.
SouthernGent on January 7, 2007 at 11:34 PM
Michelle reporting from Iraq should be very interesting. She’ll definitely run on FOX. I wonder what effect having the trops speak their mind will have on the debate? How will Dems react to troops saying “We know why we are here and we want to win” on national TV nightly? Methinks they have to be for the war even when they do not want to be. I’ll enjoy that.
Theworldisnotenough on January 7, 2007 at 11:46 PM
That about sums it up.
If only GWB had a set of Malkins. If he did, he’d tell Nancy if she tried to defund he’d expose her and her party for the p*ssies they are and make them explain to us how exactly leaving will make it better there.
Do any of our leaders have gumballs anymore?
BacaDog on January 8, 2007 at 12:00 AM
They will defund eventually. Our enemies know this. The dems will want to hide their heads in the sand and wish the global islamic threat to go away. Which it won’t. We’ll get hit again and it will start all over again. Only this time they will say they were against it before they were for it after they were for it and then against it. Or something like that.
Guardian on January 8, 2007 at 12:05 AM
Still have no idea how the Dems think they are going to survive a withdrawal, as if they are immune from reality’s violence. America has always gone to the fight, to not allow it to get into the country. It’s a wise strategy and has served our nation well over its history.
If we withdraw to our borders, the front line will no longer be eight thousand miles away, but right through our own cities.
This is the delusion that is so frightening, that our troubles just have to be wished away, not dealt with by brute force.
naliaka on January 8, 2007 at 12:22 AM
You cannot thank Pelosi enough. Anyone with any sense looked at this interview and saw someone who has ALL the answers. Knows ALL the questions. Has worked out ALL the solutions. And who has absolutely NO FAITH in anyone’s opinions other then her own. Thank you Nancy. You obviously are the best candidate that the Dem’s could put forward to advance the party. I would bed this woman. Oh yeah.
Limerick on January 8, 2007 at 12:28 AM
Amen! - You’ve said it all right there. Let our warfighters do what they need to do. Otherwise:
Emmett J. on January 8, 2007 at 12:32 AM
“The troops don’t want to surge and they don’t want to leave. They just want the politicians to stop bickering and stop forcing them to fight a politically correct war. They want to be allowed to win.”
Allah—you are so damn succicnt I couldn’t get any succincter.
In the words of Gen. Patton lets carry on making the other bastard die for his ‘county’.
auspatriotman on January 8, 2007 at 12:34 AM
jp on January 8, 2007 at 12:35 AM
‘Though I walk through the Valley of the Shadow ofDeath, I will never blink, hug a tree, and make universal heath care available to all the people we bombed.’ N.Pelousey
Limerick on January 8, 2007 at 12:38 AM
Bryan wrote that, not me.
Allahpundit on January 8, 2007 at 12:38 AM
The eerie calmness and assuredness of her way of speaking in this interview belies the threats that lie between every single word she speaks. She makes me sick.
Glynn on January 8, 2007 at 12:47 AM
It’s quite possible the anti-christ has arose to power.
If I hear one more of them say ‘the American people have spoken’ my head is going to explode.
Griz on January 8, 2007 at 12:52 AM
How ’bout a surge AND let them fight? More trigger pullers on the ground, less handcuffs for thek to wear. Let them kill bad guys!
Tony737 on January 8, 2007 at 12:52 AM
Rockhauler is correct here.
Had America gone into Iraq and said, “We respect Islam as a peaceful religion. However, any attack originating from any mosque, no matter how historic, will result in said mosque being reduced immediately to a smoking crater. Since Islam is the religion of peace, this should be a non-issue.” That didn’t happen because the Right were too afraid to hurt the Left’s feelings. We all know RoP is spread by the sword and therefore, they will shoot at us from the minarets of all the mosques. This way we could have put that face of “Christian charity” on it that Bush so desires to put forward.
Until the Right is willing to stand in the gap and call the Left on it’s sedition, this war will be for naught. Bryan is probably right when he says that we will surge troop strength, fight a few low US casualty, high visibility battles with the full inbedded media compliment who will declare, “This is shock and awe, shock and awe”, turn everything over to Iraqi forces as we declare victory, get out ASAP and which will cause regional instability and most assuredly eventual civil war, but it won’t be on our watch, so that’s OK. When Iran goes nuke and the rest of the region, read Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, escalates it’s desires to drive Israel into the sea, the inside the beltway crowd will be too afraid to stop them.
Then it’s only a short leap to see the Moorish invasion of the Iberian peninsula in 711 happen all over again, although it may well start this time in England and France and the Netherlands.
Sweaty Deacon on January 8, 2007 at 1:05 AM
Really good point! Get some Gumballs and tell all of us that you are the Commander In Chief, and it will be done your way, and the weak hearted better not interfere.
Maybe someone here can enlighten me. What power does the House have over the Senate? What power does either one have, without a 2/3 majority? What power does the Veto Pen have? And why does pelosi think she now runs things?
R D on January 8, 2007 at 1:21 AM
The American voters have spoken and the country and the world are scr–ed, in the short and long run. However, the conservatives in power and the voters had a big hand in the outcome.
I also believe that President Bush is getting bad advice and that some of the generals, and some in his circle, are two-faced, self-centered and political.
All parties involved, from the left/right are not putting country before self.
Appeasement at the expense of all other principles, and in the end at the expense of our life as we know it.
Entelechy on January 8, 2007 at 1:26 AM
No truer words were ever spoken. But I pray they don’t become true.
R D on January 8, 2007 at 1:32 AM
Entel, exactly right, and you know from experience while most if us can only read about in the history books.
Tony737 on January 8, 2007 at 1:51 AM
I’ve said it before, but the only reason troops and their seniors don’t want to consider a surge is that they know they will be hamstrung by viciously stringent ROEs, making it almost pointless.
As everyone else is saying in other words, cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war.
Freelancer on January 8, 2007 at 3:28 AM
Stretch and her (barely a majority) pals are gonna contradict and tax-hike themselves right out of office - and a shot at the White House ,come 08′.
So bring on more of those pricey galas and keep yappin’ dingbats!
Teddy on January 8, 2007 at 4:10 AM
No s**t! Wish I’d said that first because it is SOOO true. Amen.
P.C. is for losers. If you’re gonna fight a war, then declare war and fight it to win. Anything less is useless and self-defeating bullspit.
hillbillyjim on January 8, 2007 at 6:59 AM
Well everyone could look at it this way. We Won. We went in there, deposed Saddam, neutralized the threat of nukes, chem and bios, and helped them with their Constitution. We did what we originally intended to do.
So the rest of plan isn’t fitting into our utopia of victory. The gift of freedom has been offered. Dissent is no longer going to get them gassed. Yes they are going to have to step up and decide if freedom is worth fighting for but I see no other way that they will truly appreciate it.
Sending more troops over there is not going to make one bit of difference if they are not going to allow soldiers to do what soldiers do.
frreal on January 8, 2007 at 7:26 AM
rockhauler has called it.
We know what America’s left is.
Once again:
Sooner or later, the traitors among us (liberal Democrats, the Democratic Party leadership, leftists of all stripes, the Media, etc.) are going to have to be taken on and defeated. I don’t see any alternative because these assholes are blind to the danger we face from the Islamofascists.
georgej on January 8, 2007 at 7:32 AM
Having endured years of whining wimps compare the war in Iraq to VietNam it is time that someone give idiots like Pelosi a history lesson. Most Vets will say that the ONLY mistake of Viet Nam was letting politicians run a war. Our soldiers in Iraq now say the same thing. I would ask Pelosi to show me where on her effin Resume is their any indication that SHE or Grateful Dead Reid has any experience as a Warrior.
iam7545 on January 8, 2007 at 7:37 AM
The only mistake in Vietnam was listening to people like Pelosi, Reid and others of their ilk. The same breed of left wing politicians are about to cause another generation of our youth to have fought and died in vain. If this country doesn’t have the spine and the will to give its complete support to our soldiers in combat then they had better never again send them to die. Another sad day for the Republic.
rplat on January 8, 2007 at 8:49 AM
We NEED to declare war on seditious traitor democrats and their MSM allies. The Bush administration, from the start 2 or 3 years ago, should have bringing charges against these people when they gave “aid and comfort” to the enemies of the United States. By standing by and doing nothing, he allowed them to continue and to up the rhetoric eventually resulting in the GOP defeat in the last election. Bush has made his own bed by trying to be “nice” to liars and traitors to their Country. In my opinion of course.
NRA4Freedom on January 8, 2007 at 9:06 AM
Oh, Bryan, you just don’t know how right you are.
Hunky Husband was tired of his Marines being given “new directives” (it seemed) every other day in Iraq. It is insane how PC they are running this war.
If you tell me I have to suck an egg, just don’t tell me how to suck it.
seejanemom on January 8, 2007 at 9:14 AM
What specifically are the troops not doing that you would have them do? The key word here being specifically.
honora on January 8, 2007 at 9:34 AM
According to the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 7, clause 1), all Congressional appropriation bills must originate in the House of Representatives, consistent with the Westminster system requiring all money bills to originate in the lower house.
Because the Constitution grants the House the power of the purse they have the responsibility of regulating all federal funding, including military funding. This is why the House can cut off funding without a 2/3 majority; the President could veto any bill he wanted, but since the House is the only organ that can introduce spending bills there would still be no bill and hence no funding for the war. And I can’t speak for Pelosi, but I assume she thinks she can run things because the American people put the Democrats in power and the Democrats put her in power.
Feel enlightened?
JaHerer22 on January 8, 2007 at 9:46 AM
The smart thing for Bush to do is to start the surge now, before he announces it to the world.
As for Pelosi, does she really, really, really think that cutting off funding is the best thing to do???
pullingmyhairout on January 8, 2007 at 10:05 AM
As long as the Iran regime exists Iraq won’t ever be quiet. But Russia and China like the loonocracy in Tehran, which means taking it out is very problematic. Russia in particular will someday regret the little hairy viper it nourished, but that’s in the future. As for the USA, our interest is the mid east oil–whether the locals are free, or in a civil war, or dead doesn’t alter that reality.
dhimwit on January 8, 2007 at 10:10 AM
If history teaches anything, it teaches self-delusion in the face of unpleasant facts is folly.
~Ronald Reagan “Evil Empire” speech
jp on January 8, 2007 at 12:35 AM
There, I fixed it. You should have put it in bold!
What’s disconcerting is, if one went by the Dems and the smothering monopoly MSM, one would believe there wasn’t a single GOP left in Washington. It’s as if it doesn’t exist anymore. Do ya get that “I have a very bad feeling about this” sensation?
naliaka on January 8, 2007 at 10:13 AM
You know, the parts that you didn’t cut-and-paste from Wikipedia would look a lot smarter if you cited the parts that you did. Or did you steal the rest from somewhere else? I guess plagiarism, like pretty much everything else, is only wrong if Republicans do it.
ReubenJCogburn on January 8, 2007 at 10:23 AM
I’d like to go off in a bit of a different direction if I may….
First, this situation is so complex, no one person can keep all the facts straight. But let me try to list a few ideas that I have that I think weigh heavily on the reasons things are the way they are in Iraq.
1) We cannot fight this war in a conventional manner. The bad guys (meaning ANYONE who opposes the US there) fade into the civilian population. Conventional thinking does not apply.
2) We all knew that we would lose brave troops to achieve success. We want to minimize those casualties, but all plans take into account the cost of lives verses the gains achieved by them.
3) We appear to be doing the same thing we did in Vietnam. Specifically, taking over an area at great cost to our troops and then leaving just to have it re-occupied by the bad guys. I believe this is a tactic and I’ll explain why.
A) Repairing infastucture amd killing the bad guys are two parts of achieving success in Iraq.
B) Trying to find the bad guys is tough to do and we must draw them to where we are.
C) Once we repair infastructure, we don’t want to have to rebuild it over and over again.
As a result I believe we purposely leave areas open to the bad guys after taking them over to draw more bad guys into an area that is already decimated. We kill lots of baddies, then leave the area so more baddies will expose themselves by occupining that same (already destroyed) area. Yes, we lose troops retaking the same area over and over again, but those losses are a fact of war and I believe the military sees those losses as cost effective.
I believe this surge is a political move because it is the only direction that Bush can go in order to have the fast, feel good goal achievement the cowards of this country pine for. He cannot “stay the course” (because the cowards don’t see why we use the tactics we use in Iraq and foster more opposition to him and thereby endangering our troops even more) nor can he withdrawl(because that is not the best course of action for this country).
I do not believe this is an attempt to declare victory and leave. The left will not allow Bush to have the credit for a win in Iraq, and after we leave, they will point to all the left over problems as a failure of the Bush plan. We have already seen over the years that patriotism is not the lefts strong suit, so what is best for this country has always taken a back seat to what is best for the left. This surge is a 6 to 8 month window to buy time for the real tactics in Iraq to bear fruit by stabilizing Iraq and thereby giving Bush (and by default, the reps) a victory in Iraq that takes us into the 2008 presidential election.
I have an example of why I believe in my theory and will post it in another post.
Thanks for the time and I welcome any flaws in my rational.
csdeven on January 8, 2007 at 10:27 AM
I got this information not from Wikipedia, but from the American Government 101 textbook I still have from freshman year of college. This information is hardly copyrighted material and appears in every basic Government textbook and civics class taught in this country. Settle down, the last thing you need is another crusade to attempt to discredit someone that will inevitably end in humilation.
JaHerer22 on January 8, 2007 at 10:39 AM
So what do you think we should do? Stay the course? (I’m not being sarcastic, I think that’s what you’re saying)
I am not a military tactician so bear with me: if we now have 150,000 troops in Iraq and are loosing or not winning, is it reasonable to expect an addition of 20,000 to make a big difference, minus a significant shift in strategy? Of course we haven’t heard from Bush, but history suggests the leaks will prove accurate. What we have heard from those sources is that the added troops will be concentrated in Baghdad to secure that area. Isn’t this a repeat of the summer initiative?
honora on January 8, 2007 at 11:02 AM
The Dems will call it “FOX Propaganda”
JaHerer22, we’ll have to wait and see if Pelosi can get the house votes she’ll need to take away funding for the war. Nanc and Rahm’s convoluted winning strategy for the past election centered on running conservative Democrats. That extended list of new conservatives may not be in favor of the liberal policy of cutting and running.
Don’t count your chickens before they’re hatched.
fogw on January 8, 2007 at 11:12 AM
You “wrote”:
Wikipedia says:
The two passages are identical, so you might want to get down off your high horse. Maybe you did steal it from somewhere else, but bottom line, you copied someone else’s work and didn’t give them credit for it. Last time I checked, that’s plagiarism. So if you can’t even speak for yourself, why should we take anything you say seriously?
ReubenJCogburn on January 8, 2007 at 11:17 AM
Honora, I believe asked what should the troops be doing that they aren’t? The point that everyone is making is that it’s not the troops…it’s the lack of political will and the PC mentality that paralyzes the troops. The troops as always are serving honorably and admirably. As we speak, our troops must stay inside their “zones”. I understand the rationale of putting an Iraqi face on security. The problem I have is when our troops are attacked the ROE’s currently don’t allow us to find and kill those terrorists. We have had our hands tied. Look, Somalia is not perfect, they will continue to have problems with the jihadists, but Ethiopia showed how with persistence and an F’you to world opinion you can dismantle these cowards. There is also this little disturbing tid-bit the troops have to contend with..being prosecuted for fighting a war. No one advocates the mindless killing of women and children, but at the same time we’ve asked these guys to fight a war on our behalf. The same paralysis that has come over some law enforcement officers here in the states has no doubt infected some of our bravest and finest. Instead of pulling the trigger in reaction they hesitate and think of the legal ramifications in a possibly deadly inaction. Wars by definition kill people and destroy property, they leave destruction and despair in their wake, we should all know this. That is why it is the last option. However, the decision has been made in Iraq so the necessary steps must be taken to do it right and as quickly as possible. I will support the surge and hope to high heaven the ROE’s will reflect the mind-set of the surge which is to kick ass and take names in the sunni triangle. You know, half-ass in the real world sometimes works but not in wars. I’ve never seen a country half-ass kick ass. One specific thing I’d like to see is the militarization of the Syrian and Iranian borders. Not to the point where the terrorists crossing know, but with special forces and other elite groups. Iraq has become the barrel for the fish, let’s use this to our advantage and start shooting the fish in the barrel. Another specific, which sadly won’t happen, is the serious warning to Syria and Iran that any aid and comfort to the enemy will be dealt with. A surgical air-strike on a military site would do the trick. Will the UN be it’s typical bitchy self, and Europe? Of course, but here’s where the Ethiopia model comes into play. To Europe we respectfully say, screw you, you’ve no dog in this fight(exceptions to the UK, Poland and others helping). To the UN, we’ve been fighting your kind of PC-diplomatic, half-ass war now for 3 years without positive result. Go handle Darfur, no don’t, we don’t want anymore African women and children raped and molested by your so-called peace-keepers. Go feed some nation and leave the real work of peace up to those who can and will do it. Dreaming I know, but a guys gotta dream…..
ritethinker on January 8, 2007 at 11:19 AM
now I can officially agree with the retreatocrats. This is turning out just like Vietnam.
One Angry Christian on January 8, 2007 at 11:40 AM
Since the Vietnam references keep being made, I have a question. If this war is just sooo unpopular with the American people, and the people are just clamoring for the troops to come home, where are the throngs of millions marching in the streets of America? This is Vietnam Jr. right(there are similarities only so far as civilian handling goes)? Where are the massive campus protests and throngs in the streets? I have always suspected the main source of frustration with the war is the lack of power-flexing by the U.S…in other words people want us to WIN..not quit………..
ritethinker on January 8, 2007 at 12:12 PM
Surge? What we really need is to Purge, the Democrats from our House!
Viper1 on January 8, 2007 at 12:34 PM
I don’t understand why you equate the troops staying inside their “zones” with political correctness. I’ll take your word for it re this being part of the operative ROEs, but I believe the underlying reason for this is a strategic decision to force the Iraqis to take the lead in battling the insurgents.
I’m not saying this is a good idea at all; I just think it’s not logical to label it “PC”. Am I making sense?
honora on January 8, 2007 at 12:49 PM
I’ll handle this one: there’s no draft today. As someone in college during Vietnam, believe me, it’s a HUGE point of differentiation.
honora on January 8, 2007 at 12:51 PM
No
right2bright on January 8, 2007 at 1:27 PM
Honora asks some good questions.There have been some varied and thoughtful replies. If only there were so many questions and answers where there should be — namely the White House, and the floors of the House and Senate. Unfortunately, there is no in-depth or serious debate, because that would be too politically risky. Why do what’s right for the troops in the country, or put issues like national security first and foremost;after all, there’s an election in two years.
We’ve all discussed issues such as the rules of engagement, and taking the gloves off of the troops. But this upcoming speech Wednesday night, and all that follows after it, will be yet another exercise in futility without addressing certain issues. Such as what is the makeup of the force? How they be utilized? Will we be dealing with Sadr and other such militias with the necessary force to get them off the streets and eliminated as a factor in Iraqi political life? How will we deal with Iran and Syria ?Will we continue to look the other way and ignore the reality that they are at war with us and directly responsible for the deaths of US troops? Will we do whatever is necessary for however long it takes?
Unless these and other issues are acknowledged and dealt with directly by our so-called leadership, it doesn’t matter how many troops we have or don’t have in Iraq.
For starters, eliminate all miltias — violently if necessary — clear and hold key ground. Earn the trust of civilians by making it clear you’re serious and you are not going anywhere until this problem is dealt with satisfactorily, and permanently. Give them and any independent Iraqi government, whatever form it takes, and their armed forces, the time they need to get their act together by giving them legitimate security. Then we can talk about things like billions of dollars in aid to build economic and infrastructure.
Simultaneously, deal with the security situation on the borders of Iran and Syria, upfront and violently if necessary. This is done by aggressively going after any supply choke points on the border, even if it needs to be done by bombing bridges or key infrastructure and supply points across the border.
Everybody keeps talking about you’re with us or against us, the war on terror, blah blah blah.It’s time to actually get serious.
tomk59 on January 8, 2007 at 1:34 PM
By the way Honora,I was going to jump all over the question about why there isn’t that much in the way of protests on college campuses,but you beat me to the punch and hit the nail on the head. Watch how quickly the cockroaches and parasites come out of the woodwork if a draft is ever reinstated.
tomk59 on January 8, 2007 at 1:37 PM
Aren’t you the Mensa candidate who was commenting how glad you were the Dems weren’t in charge during WWII and who denied Reagan granted amnesty to illegals back in the 80s?
And I don’t make sense to you, huh. Well I can’t say I’m surprise.
honora on January 8, 2007 at 1:38 PM
If Dubya is Hamlet, and Claudius is Saddam and Horatio is Cheney….who are Rosencrantz and Guidenstern and are they dead???
honora on January 8, 2007 at 1:46 PM
Since when is NP the CiC?
Tell her to #$(*& off….
Tim Burton on January 8, 2007 at 1:56 PM
Exactly. Neither the power nor the responsibility not the credit/blame are hers.
(I find it interesting how much she is already being invoked and vilifies–geez, she’s been in power for how long? Quite a girl, that Nancy).
honora on January 8, 2007 at 2:06 PM
You seem to always want to support your argument with a cutting remark. That gives us an interesting insight.
Show me where Reagan used the words amnesty, or the bill ever used the words amnesty; that is what I was referring to. Read the bill, and point out where amnesty is stated. You may want to pick up an argument that is current, rather than waiting seveal days to debate. I will accept a simple apology.
What he proposed and signed was totally different from any bill now being batted around. Hardly any part of his bill would make it through your democratic partyline committees.
Aren’t you the one who said Churchill was not elected (after the war) because the Brits wanted central heating in their homes? Obviously you did not take my suggestion of reading the Last Lion by William Manchester.
And finally, yes, I am glad the dems, of now, were not in charge of WWII. The Democrats then, are not the same party as Post-Kennedy.
right2bright on January 8, 2007 at 2:12 PM
You are wrong on the amnesty/Reagan thing, as was pointed out to you by both myself and a couple of others on that thread. Read it.
Your statement re WWII and Democrats was not qualified as you are now (weakly!) doing.
I have read the Last Lion and much more about Churchill. I won’t bother to give you references. I doubt you would take advantage. Pearls to swine and all that.
honora on January 8, 2007 at 2:18 PM
You’re exactly right honora. If a draft were instituted tomorrow, the same whining, spineless liberals would be out there burning draft cards, throwing rocks at police and running off to the safety of Canada. They aren’t interested in serving their country, and trust me, today’s military doesn’t want them.
Damn Kennedy and Johnson, getting us into that quagmire.
fogw on January 8, 2007 at 2:21 PM
Just remember, it’s for the children…
E L Frederick (Sniper One) on January 8, 2007 at 2:34 PM
Oh, one more thing. When did the third volume of The Last Lion come out? I have read the first and second volumes (which as I’m sure you know, end in 1940). So obviously the Labor victory of ‘45 was not discussed.
???
honora on January 8, 2007 at 2:38 PM
Ever considered getting some new material?
So you are comparing Vietnam to Iraq…
honora on January 8, 2007 at 2:40 PM
I will try one more time. Where in the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 is the words amnesty. You pointing it out means nothing to me, show me where the words amnesty is in the Act and you will be known as correct and me a fool, if it is not there, you will be known for what you are; a poster who posts to make noise, with no substance.
However, a simple statement admitting that you are wrong and I am right will be sufficient.
http://www.oig.lsc.gov/legis/irca86.htm, here is the link.
(and while you are there, look it over and you may learn something)
The word amnesty, when applied to this act, is from lazy people and reporters who pidgeon hole ideas that do not understand.
I have no idea what your second paragraph means, it does not make sense.
Central heating defeated Churchill, oh my, how embarrassing.
right2bright on January 8, 2007 at 2:44 PM
Can’t get the link to work, so past this.
http://www.oig.lsc.gov/legis/irca86.htm
right2bright on January 8, 2007 at 2:48 PM
Your response makes zero, nada, no sense at all.
fogw on January 8, 2007 at 2:53 PM
She has too apologize to me, before she explains to you. She has a busy day ahead of her.
right2bright on January 8, 2007 at 3:25 PM
Last week on C-span, Duncan Hunter said that there were 27 Iraqi battlions, all in secure areas. He said to move them to Bagdad, no BS period from Malaki either.
bones47 on January 8, 2007 at 3:34 PM
fogw and right2bright, don’t hold your breath. By now you must know the tactic, the timing and the modus operandi.
honora, you crossed the line - not befitting HA, elitist and educated liberals and really, no one.
Entelechy on January 8, 2007 at 3:49 PM
The seething masses of irate humanity on the streets is the only element missing from the Left’s perfect retread of Vietnam. They miss being able to trash university offices, and distribute those soo soo ironic photos of hippies sticking flowers into the menancing rifle barrels of the National Guard. (Funny how the Boston Globe is flogging the very thing right now with a retrospective book - guess they felt they needed the images, even if they were the wrong war. Timing?) If Charles Rangel and Hillary Clinton get their way with HR 163, the proposed draft will be guaranteed to have even toddlers throwing rocks. They deliberately included women, not for any equal rights, but to make it hurt more, and to shut down America’s military efefctiveness.
naliaka on January 8, 2007 at 4:12 PM
I think we, the American public, should support Bush. Iraq is status quo right now. We are not losing and that is the reason to stay focused on completing the stated mission.
I believe the surge in troops (along with political discussion) will deal with the militias. I believe that will be the goal for escalating troop strength that Bush will set forth on Wednesday. Meanwhile the current troops will continue doing as they have been…..making the slow steady progress that the lefties and the MSM refuse to acknowledge.
Go here: http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/
and open up the link “success stories” for a pdf that enumerates much of the progress we have achieved in Iraq.
We do need to stay the course, but that course is defined as completing the mission to help establish an Iraq that can govern, sustain, and defend itself. And also be an ally in the war on terror. If you do have the curiosity to visit that site, you will see the progress we have made.
csdeven on January 8, 2007 at 4:14 PM
No honey, I didn’t. This not2bright person countered my comment that Churchill lost in 1945 by suggesting I read the Last Lion. An interesting suggestion in that the 2nd volume of the LL covers Churchill til 1940. (Manchester died before he got to volume 3).
So clearly this guy has never read the book he is preaching to me about. It’s pretty funny when you think about it.
honora on January 8, 2007 at 4:15 PM
Didn’t see your post:
Manchester died in 2004, he wrote about 250 pages of his third novel (can’t remember the title, kind of obscure), however his manuscript or notes were mostly complete. The two people that have been bantered about to finish his book is Edmund Morris (Teddy Rosevelt author) and Paul Reid, a journalist close friend that lived in Palm Beach near Manchester. Hoping to have it published this year by Reid. His manusript (finished and rough) has been around and some may be lucky to have a copy, though that would not sit well with the publisher. I would never say who has a copy, but I may have seen one pass by. I am certain that Manchester felt that Churchill was still living the war out in peace time. Calling some of his opponents Nazi’s, and stating that the socialist/labour party were only a stepping stone to communism, etc. The Country was war weary and wanted to rebuild homes, new jobs, social security, Churchill was pressing for food, jobs, and homes. The socialist party won well over 350 seats and devastated the conservatives (however he had formed his own party). The people could only view Churchill as some one on 10 Downing st. roof cursing at the Germans, they were tired of war. He felt the people had turned their back on him, the savior of Briton, and they had. The socialists/labour party were launching their campaign to win the election, while
BushChruchill was fighting a war to keep Britan free. Sometimes you look back to see the future.I am certain that there is no mention of central heating in Manchester’s last book.
right2bright on January 8, 2007 at 4:18 PM
My post is caught in a time warp because of it’s size.
right2bright on January 8, 2007 at 4:19 PM
Thanks, very interesting. I hope you are right. I fear you are not.
honora on January 8, 2007 at 4:20 PM
Not2bright has been used, I have not called you names. But if you continue, than the HA posts becomes a post of name calling.
BTW, how about the amnesty apology.
right2bright on January 8, 2007 at 4:23 PM
Just to follow up, Manchester related the emerging labor/socilist party in his second book. Churchill was busy winning a war, the labor party was not pressing for heating, but for social security and nationalization of unions and business. All the time undermining his war heroism. If you read book 2, you would have seen the emerging pattern.
right2bright on January 8, 2007 at 4:26 PM
I would add one additional event that the moonbats hope will make this the orgasimic revisiting of the heady days of 60’s/70’s activism. The prayer that somehow, somewhere, they can get a sacrifice on the “Kent State” alter. They hope an armed US military will turn their weapons on US citizens protesting the war.
Boy, that’ll sure show us conservatives!
csdeven on January 8, 2007 at 4:27 PM
Back it up honora. Amnesty where are you.
If you make an accusation, back it up.
right2bright on January 8, 2007 at 4:41 PM
Oh please, you got caught with your hand in the cookie jar. And I will not be going on a fool’s errand, as I told you before, link to Michelle’s site and get the full story of how Reagan offered amnesty in 1986. Afraid you’re going on the ignore list, life is way too.
honora on January 8, 2007 at 4:45 PM
Well, if you “didn’t”, and persist in not having…and on calling other intelligent commenters names, then the level of tolerance over there is incredible! Who can reach, or learn from, you? I’m reminded that you insisted repeatedly for civility in the past.
Entelechy on January 8, 2007 at 4:48 PM
Same place it is in the McCain Kennedy bill.
honora on January 8, 2007 at 4:57 PM
The word “amnesty” does NOT appear in the
It’s refered to as an amnesty but Mr. Reagan never lobbied for an amnesty, nor was it at the time labelled as such.
How hard is that to figure out, regardless of MM or others referencing it as ‘amnesty’, quite often?
Entelechy on January 8, 2007 at 5:04 PM
Ok, work with me here. The term “amnesty” does not appear in the McCain-Kennedy bill either. And the conclusion here would be:_______________________________________________.
honora on January 8, 2007 at 5:06 PM
Is this your apology?
Entelechy on January 8, 2007 at 5:08 PM
honora, repeat after me, someone who cares and learned the hard way “stubbornness.is.not.good”. Regards,
Entelechy on January 8, 2007 at 5:10 PM
You got caught in a lie. You have searched and cannot find amnesty in his program. And then you reach into a conservatives blog and try to use their words to defend your mistatements? How shameful.
Typical, rather than admitting that you have wrongly accused someone, you hide. You are describing today’s liberal, when caught they deny.
There is no honor in honora. Here is one from your game book; whornora?
right2bright on January 8, 2007 at 5:18 PM
Karl Rove is sitting up Pelosi and the surrendercrats for failure. The libs voted for the war, now want to “run” the war. It dont work like that constitusionally. The prez is Commander-in-Chief, not the congress. They (the demorats) have to put up or shut up (i.e., cut funding or get out of stragegy). If cutting funding brings ire upon them pre-08,
they lose congress and the White House and if dictating brings a Contitutional challenge to the Commander-in-Chief, they lose.
gary on January 8, 2007 at 7:06 PM
Are you familiar with the Center for Immigration Studies? They are a think tank dedicated to restricting immigration, pretty high profile, very tied in with the hard liners on immigration
Check out this link.
http://www.cis.org/aboutcis.html
Pay particular attention to this paragraph:
This was part of their research director’s testimony on the hill this summer re immigration.
I do apologize for being bitchy with you. But facts is facts!! Saying the opposite doesn’t change that.
honora on January 9, 2007 at 11:44 AM
I agree, sort of. But one part of me is starting to get this sneaking suspicion that if Bush insists on the surge and it fails and he still insists on stayint the course, you could start seeing not a Dem vs Rep move, but a legislative branch vs executive move.
Watching the news and news-ish last night. Amazing to see who is lining up against this–just about everyone except John McCain. How’s that for irony.
honora on January 9, 2007 at 11:47 AM
honora, no need to apologize to me, since my peeve was simply that you insulted right2bright, and I believe also fogw.
I get what you are referring to - still right2bright was always referring to the actual “Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986″ and we can just leave it at that.
Also, often you demand intellectual and ‘civilized’ exchanges, and then you tend to name-call…Both gents ran their own companies or had very responsible jobs and I’m sure you do too. It’s just not necessary and complicates the substance of the topics, as you and I learned early on this board. Sincerely,
Entelechy on January 9, 2007 at 2:19 PM