Bush’s surge speech; Update: Hillary opposes surge; Update: House Dems scramble to block surge funds

posted at 8:17 pm on January 10, 2007 by Allahpundit

Here are the highlights. “It is fair to hold our views up to scrutiny. And all involved have a responsibility to explain how the path they propose would be more likely to succeed.”

The reference to the carnage ahead “this year” is provocative, too. I took it as a hint that that’s how much longer he’s willing to commit, and how much longer he’s expecting us to give him.


Durbin’s rebuttal was more of the same pitiful tough-love garbage about Iraqis needing to “step up,” as if the problems in the country were due to laziness or too much happy-go-luckiness. They sound like a woman telling her unemployed college-dropout son to get a job.

Meanwhile, unabashed editorializing from the AP.

***

We’ll have video highlights right here as soon as it’s over. In the meantime, consider this an open thread. I’ve got links coming, but start with this post by surge skeptic Noah Schachtman at Defense Tech. Apparently, not even the surge’s strongest supporters think 21,500 is enough. Or, to quote one critic, “This is not like a Hail Mary pass on the part of the President. This is like calling a draw play when you’re down big in the 4th quarter.”

Update: Drudge has posted the text of the speech. There’s not much “new” to the new strategy. The perfunctory warning to Iran which they know we won’t act on:

Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity – and stabilizing the region in the face of the extremist challenge. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.

We are also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region.

Unless I missed something, there’s only one American politician mentioned by name in the speech. McCain? Not quite.

lieberman-thumbs-up.jpg

Update: Another shrewd quote by Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute via a worthy post by Donald Sensing: “The controversy over what to do about Iraq has congealed into two camps: supporters of the President who lack a clear plan for achieving victory, and critics of the President who have a detailed plan for America’s defeat.”

Update: Ninety advance troops from the 82nd Airborne have already landed in Baghdad. Maliki has, allegedly, given al-Sadr and the Mahdi army formal notice that they should disarm or else.

Update: Mistakes in bullet-point format from the National Security Council’s Iraq strategy review.

iraq.png

And here’s the White House fact sheet on the new strategy, also in bullet-point.

Update: Weekly Standard contributer Max Boot utters a welcome heresy in an op-ed for the L.A. Times: the media is not to blame for America’s failure.

If you wanted to figure out what was happening over the last four years, you would have been infinitely better off paying attention to their writing than to what the president or his top generals were saying. If we fail to achieve our goals in Iraq — which the administration defines as a “unified, stable, democratic and secure nation” — it won’t be the fault of the ink-stained wretches or even their blow-dried TV counterparts. To argue otherwise deflects blame from those who deserve it, in the upper echelons of the administration and the armed forces. Perhaps that’s the point.

Meanwhile, Iraqpundit catch Al Jazeera lying nakedly about U.S./Iraqi operations during the siege on Haifa Street two days ago.

Update: The funniest left-wing theory yet for why Democrats are afraid to put ‘em on the glass: it’s not that they’re cowards trying to walk a line between their hardcore nut base and the rest of the American, it’s that they’re suffering from the political version of battered-woman syndrome.

Expect it to continue, says Time:

[P]rivately top Democratic Senators, aides and advisers say the political calculation has not changed since before the election. While Bush and his policies are unpopular in the extreme, Americans still support a strong hand at the White House when it comes to national security matters. From the Democrats’ perspective, that means plenty of willingness to criticize Bush on all fronts when it comes to his handling of national security and even the use of his war powers — but, at least for now, no overt efforts to curtail them.

Update: No mention of Saddam in the speech, unsurprisingly.

Update: I’m going to take unilateral action here and suspend our anti-profanity policy to highlight this paragraph from Gutfeld. It deserves to be read unredacted.

But is it a victory if Seery dies? I think so. I mean, it makes me feel better. And, you know, at least I’m honest about it. See, assholes like Seery, and the people who agree with him – pretend to feel bad about the death of our troops. But they don’t give a fuck. No. They need people to die to make their point. It makes them feel smart, and makes their political enemies feel bad. But by saying troop deaths bother them personally – well, that’s just a lie. Seery wants as many troops to die as possible. Because without it, what does he have? Cleary, it’s not grace.

But if Seery died tomorrow, I would only laugh. For me, it would be like the Daily Show, but you know, funny.

Update: While Bush doubles down, Blair quietly cuts his losses. 3,000 is almost half the force still in country.

Update: Outflanked on her left by Edwards, Gore, and Obama, Hillary opts for a tactical retreat.

Update: Pelosi and the House leadership have apparently decided to put ‘em on the glass.

The striking new approach took shape yesterday morning during a closed-door meeting of the House Democratic Caucus, where Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), invoked Martin Luther King Jr. as she urged her members against timidity, members who were there said. House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), a quiet, hawkish supporter of the war, stunned many of his colleagues when he came out strenuously against Bush’s proposal and suggested the war is no longer militarily winnable.

Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee on defense and the party’s leading voice for withdrawing troops, is to report back to Appropriations Committee members today on hearings and legislative language that could stop an escalation of troops, said Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.), a member of Murtha’s subcommittee.

Those plans could attach so many conditions and benchmarks to the funds that it would be all but impossible to spend the money without running afoul of the Congress. “Twenty-one thousand five hundred troops ought to have 21,500 strings attached to them,” said House Majority Whip James E. Clyburn (D-S.C.)


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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

Comment pages: 1 2

The dems will try to block funds and watch jerks like Brownback to go along with them.

bopbottle on January 11, 2007 at 11:40 AM

I’m going to take unilateral action here and suspend our anti-profanity policy to highlight this paragraph from Gutfeld. It deserves to be read unredacted.

Huff-Po – Po is short for Popo (or Arsch, or ars). It would make more sense to rename it to Huff-Poo.

While Bush doubles down, Blair quietly cuts his losses. 3,000 is almost half the force still in country.

What did Mark Steyn write? “America Alone” – Got to love hate us!

Entelechy on January 11, 2007 at 12:06 PM

JaHeyDere,

Actually, I’m feeling quite chipper, thanks. You seem in good spirits, too.

Jaibones on January 11, 2007 at 12:07 PM

Was that a straightjacket Madame Pelosi was wearing yesterday?

bloviator on January 11, 2007 at 12:07 PM

I think it’s lose-lose for them. If they manage to force a pull-out by withholding funding, and 1 million Iraqis are subsequently slaughtered, then who’s responsible? smellthecoffee on January 11, 2007 at 11:21 AM

I would agree with your lose-lose description if I thought the press would really report the slaughter you mention. Do you think it would really get reported by MSM?

Bradky on January 11, 2007 at 12:08 PM

Everyone seems especially angry today.

JaHerer22 on January 11, 2007 at 9:50 AM

Jaibones, ignore this…

JaMann, go back to Voltaire. He explains brilliantly who’s always happy and content.

Entelechy on January 11, 2007 at 12:09 PM

Was that a straightjacket Madame Pelosi was wearing yesterday?

bloviator on January 11, 2007 at 12:07 PM

No, she was little red robin hood…Mr. Steny Hoyer the wolf is lurking…

Entelechy on January 11, 2007 at 12:14 PM

About a week ago, on the History channel, a program aired on the fall of Berlin at the end of World War II.
Some of the details, as I remember them, are:
1. There were 430,000 German troops in or around Berlin. Some were old men, some were young men. Civilians were conscripted to build defense positions that were incomplete when the Russian forces arrived.
2. The Russians sent in tanks, the Germans destroyed them using the WWII version of a Rocket Propelled Grenade. The Russians sent in more tanks. The Russians sent in soldiers, the Germans killed them. The Russians sent in more soldiers.
3. The Germans, and Russian forces fought over every square inch of Berlin. Street by street, building by building, room by room, eye to eye, face to face, hand to hand.
4. In the end, every building in Berlin was destroyed. In the end, every square inch of Berlin had a Russian boot standing on it. In the end, every German still alive was staring down the barrel of a Russian machine gun.

Since the Korean war, military experts have said that we don’t fight wars like that anymore. We don’t fight over territory, we fight over ideology or religion. I believe that conclusion was never correct. Wars have always been fought over territory, because when you control territory, you control everything; who lives, who dies, who comes, who goes, what the people do, how they do it, when and where.

We lost the war in Vietnam for two reasons; we didn’t fight for territory, and we lost the war inside the United States.

Colonel Oliver North had an opinion piece in the Washington Times that concluded, more troops isn’t the solution.

On CNBC TV were two commentators who pointed out that currently we are spending 4% of GDP on the military, compared to 8% while fighting in Vietnam, and 30% during WWII. Also mentioned were the cuts in military spending by President Clinton. I suspect the Democrats will block any increase in military spending.

The real message out of the President’s speech wasn’t made by President Bush, it was made by the Democrats and was addressed to the militant jihadists. That message is, “if you can just keep up the fight for another six months, the Democrat party in the US will force Bush to give up the fight”.

Hidden in the President’s speech was a covert threat to Iran and Syria. Following up that threat was the capture of Iranian agents in Northern Iraq. If military actions are effective at closing the borders between Iraq and its neighbors is successful, this may provoke Iran to make an aggressive response, perhaps an overt attack on the US. Any belligerence from Iran may be the excuse the US needs to take the fight to Iran.

In the end, I cling to my conclusion, despite Col. North’s expert opinion
—————————————————–Redacted————————————

rockhauler on January 11, 2007 at 12:53 PM

Bush’s key failure will not be anything in Iraq, but will be that he conceded the field at home and let his enemies make the rules. He allowed internal discussion about an American war to be held in the most inappropriate venue imaginable: in front of the entire planet.

He allowed himself to be baited by a hostile media and vocal enemies in the legislature into discussing White House policy before the eyes of the world, thus exposing such policies to all kinds of ignorant and inappropriate criticism. Once Congress declared war, it was within the President’s authority to conduct the war in whatever manner he so chose and on whatever timeline he so chose. By letting all creation see what that manner and timeline was, he exposed a war to undue external pressure by revealing the future to his enemies abroad, his government and media detractors at home, and a large block of ignorant weather-vane citizens easily swayed by herd mentality doom mongering in the media.

He never should have made the speech he made last night. He is Commander in Chief… he should have done whatever he wanted, moved in troops under the radar, and made speeches about it later. This business of conducting a War Room debate out in the public eye is nothing but nonsense on stilts.

Lehosh on January 11, 2007 at 12:56 PM

rockhauler, you’re on to something. Iran is being prepped more than we should know. Iran and Syria are unhappy about the increase, quelle surprise!

Plus, other Mideast skeptics…grand surprise again.

Entelechy on January 11, 2007 at 1:05 PM

Here’s a question.

WHY IS THE PREZ PLEDGING PATRIOT MISSILE BATTERIES?!?!

Wtf? Does AQ and the sunni/shia militias now have an air force? I mean… it’s kinda out of left field. It’s like saying he’s deploying stealth bombers and fighters to support our operations in Iraq.

It’s a bit… O_O

We are also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region. We will expand intelligence sharing — and deploy Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies.

Kai on January 11, 2007 at 1:25 PM

Oh and it makes my pants swell a little. :D

Kai on January 11, 2007 at 1:27 PM

I would agree with your lose-lose description if I thought the press would really report the slaughter you mention. Do you think it would really get reported by MSM?

Bradky: There’s a big difference between now and the days of Vietnam, though, where the anti-war Dems, and their New Left allies got off scot-free. Remember Rather-gate? That never would have seen the light of day before. There would be such a sh*t-storm in the blogosphere, if a slaughter began to occur, that eventually it would break through the MSM’s anti-truth force field.

smellthecoffee on January 11, 2007 at 1:53 PM

“Twenty-one thousand five hundred troops ought to have 21,500 strings attached to them,” said House Majority Whip James E. Clyburn (D-S.C.)

Am I the only one who wants to throw up?

The Dems have no idea what this country is up against or what is going on in the world. It is only consolidation of power, nothing more, oh…… defeat Bush, humiliate Bush, impeach Bush! Translated as defeat the United States, humiliate the United States, discrace the United States!

PinkyBigglesworth on January 11, 2007 at 2:05 PM

Am I the only one who wants to throw up?

PinkyBigglesworth on January 11, 2007 at 2:05 PM

No. No you are not. Playing shameless politics with troop funding is playing with soldiers’ lives. That’s absolutely intolerable. Not to mention the effect this kind of sh*t has on morale–as if it wasn’t bad enough the way the November elections hung the troops out to dry. Now they have to worry about terrorists in front of them and “Lose At All Cost!” Democrats behind them.

ReubenJCogburn on January 11, 2007 at 2:35 PM

There would be such a sh*t-storm in the blogosphere, if a slaughter began to occur, that eventually it would break through the MSM’s anti-truth force field.

smellthecoffee on January 11, 2007 at 1:53 PM

I agree about the blogosphere having more influence now but it is not nearly organized to a point where it would make more than a moderate impact.
My opinion is that the blogosphere is divided along pretty partisan/ideological lines. Those who want to ignore it will not see it, those who want to have it broadcast, will see the independent news. I think you must consider the demographics as well – a heavy number of baby boomers don’t rely on the internet nearly as much as the under 40 crowd. Twenty years from now that will reverse but it is a natural progression, not one that can be easily forced.

I think at some point the blogosphere will have truly unbiased sources that will report and let the readers decide.

One additional observation – the MSM has been this way for decades and decades. McCarthyism, isolationist sentiment in pre WWII, etc. It is the nature of journalism that more liberal thinkers have chosen this occupation. The internet and blogs may alter this noticeably but IMHO not just yet.

Bradky on January 11, 2007 at 3:48 PM

More than anything, the document released called the “National Security Council’s Iraq strategy review” shows BUSH and his cronies for what they really are, INCOMPETANT IDIOTS! Screw what they “ASSUME” now! Look at what they “ASSUMED” THEN!!

1. Primary challenge is a Sunni based insurgency.

Well, you’d have to be an idiot to think this. Even Republicans were warning about what might happen after Saddam was removed or more importantly, how would the PREVIOUSLY OPPRESSED SHIITES, respond without a brutal dictator to keep them in check? In fact THIS ARTICLE on FOXNEWS from 2003 Talks about the trouble that could arise from the SHIITE COMMUNITY, further making Bush, who thought that the beef was SOLELY from the SUNNIS look like A BUFFOON. Now this article is definitely attempting to soft sell any problems after Saddam but they do at least admit the POSSIBLITY of problems from non Sunni sources. Here’s a snippet…

Q: Would Shiite dominance of Iraq produce a Sunni backlash?

A: Possibly. Sunni political dominance stretches back to the birth of Iraq as a state after World War I. Sunnis have dominated education, the army and the economy, using military force to repress rivals. They are unlikely to surrender influence easily.

So the first ASSUMPTION on Bushs’ list makes him look like an idiot since CONSERVATIVE news sources seem to have been on the ball about where problems were likely to arise, when Bush WASN’T.

2. Political Progress will help defuse the insurgency and dampen levels of violence.

Well isn’t this one a GEM? While this can be debated several ways there can be no doubt of Bush’s stupidity and the stupidity of those around him given their RESPONSE TO their previously incorrect, “ASSUMPTIONS”. Look in the “NOW” column to see why the NO LONGER think that “Political Progress will help defuse the insurgency and dampen levels of violence” ! Here’s the relevant portion…

Political and Economic progress are unlikely absent a basic level of security!

BIG FREAKING DUH! Hundreds of people had to DIE before these NINCOMPOOPS realized THIS? That you can’t open a market if someones outside with a rocket launcher? That you can’t have an “economy” if theres ANARCHY? Please someone tell me how this NAIVETE and UTTER STUPIDITY doesn’t damn Bush and those around him?

4. Majority of Iraqis will support the Coalition and Iraqi efforts build a democratic state.

They NOW say, “Iraqis increasingly disillusioned with Coalition efforts” WELL LAH DEE FREAKIN’ “DAH’. What on earth could have led them to believe that the “MAJORITY OF IRAQIS WILL SUPPORT THE COALITION”? Was it because after the SANCTIONS failed, we supported grass roots Anti-Saddam rebels with financing, causing them to achieve heroic status within the underbelly of Iraq? And THEN and ONLY THEN did we ANNOUNCE TO THE WORLD, that we had given Saddam enough time and that we posted the resolutions he violated on the internet for the curious but that the ATTACK ON IRAQ had ALREADY COMMENCED and we’re telling the stupid American Media about it after the fact so as to PREVENT SADDAM FROM MOVING THE WEAPONS?

Oh wait. That’s not what we did. We broadcast our intentions to go to war with Iraq, FOURTEEN MONTHS BEFORE GOING IN. And we DIDN’T start a revolution in Iraq or fund any “ANTI-SADDAM” dissidents because WE DIDN’T KNOW ANY. And we had NO F__KING reason to believe that these people, whose only meaningful uprising against Saddam was a couple of hundred Kurds, would love us at all. And if you added up all of the people kissing soldiers and posing for pics with us after Saddam fell, IT’S A PITTANCE. And my father would tell you that the GERMAN CHICKS who bent over for choclates and other commodities after WW2, weren’t really in love with us either. We were the victors and some people just go along to get along. BUSH HAD TO BE AN IDIOT TO ENTERTAIN THIS KEY “ASSUMPTION”!

REGION has a strategic interest in the stabilization of Iraq

HUH? Whaaaat? The “region”? Like who, IRAN? IRAN SURE DOES have a “strategic interest in the “stabilization” of Iraq” but UNDER WHOSE RULE? OURS ??? HELL NO! They have absolutely ZERO interest in seeing an IRAQ that we put together thrive! That’s insane. See the BUSH IDIOTS thought this because IRAN like IRAQ has a SHIITE dominant population and they figured on some kind of what? Solidarity? Never thinking that IRAN whose SHIITES were at WAR with the SHIITES in IRAQ for years, despite their “solidarity”, would see this as a good opportunity for shall we say, “land acquisiton”? Wow. This “Key Assumption” is stunning. And further proof that BUSH IS AN IDIOT.

MAJORITY of Iraqis and Iraqi leaders see their interests as best advanced by a unified Iraq

You mean the “IRAQIS” who were violently oppressing other “IRAQIS” for years because they were on Saddams “Friends” list? Or perhaps they refer to the Iraqis that put all those other IRAQIS in those oft mentioned “MASS GRAVES”, to hear these buffoons talk, you’d think Saddam did all that killing stuff with
his kids and his brothers!

6. “DIALOGUE” with INSURGENT GROUPS will HELP REDUCE VIOLENCE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha a ha ha haha ha ha ha aha ha h,,…choke spit ….giggle, …….sorry, I’m okay now.

BUSH SHOULD BE IMPEACHED FOR THIS ONE BEING A KEY DUMB ASS ASSUMPTION! The only thing I can think of with this one is the “ODD COUPLE” routine where FELIX UNGER laboriously points out that “WHEN YOU ASSUME, YOU MAKE AN “ASS” out of “U” and “ME”! And that’s exactly what this retard had done to us.

The others are pretty innocuous but the ones I’ve pointed out show Bush’s dereliction of duty through utter and complete STUPIDITY and political correctness, “Dialogue” with the insurgents…my God.

Soothsayer on January 11, 2007 at 6:33 PM

I hope to god the next atack on this country is right in these scumbads laps…GRRRREEEEEEEEE

davy on January 11, 2007 at 7:59 PM

Screw what they “ASSUME” now! Look at what they “ASSUMED” THEN!!
Soothsayer on January 11, 2007 at 6:33 PM

Your name implies you have some kind of exclusive foresight into the future. Your narration of the already stated facts only prove you like President Bush and “His People”, cannot forsee the perils of war. Hind sight is 20/20.

sonnyspats1 on January 11, 2007 at 8:50 PM

Continually referring to the Commander-in-Chief as a “moron” and a “buffoon” is offensive to me, as is punctuating it with cap locked-exclamations and written maniacal laughter.
Can’t you make your point without sounding like a moron and buffoon yourself, Soothsayer?
Personally, I find it highly offensive, if not bordering on treasonous, to go at the President’s judgement and knowledge in wartime, interspersed with calls for his impeachment, in such an inflammatory way.
But maybe that’s just me.

Jen the Neocon on January 11, 2007 at 9:59 PM

Soothsayer, did you take English comp at the Kos Kollege of Rhetorical Excess? Btw, so you don’t embarrass yourself, watch the caps, it’s like someone is standing next to you and shouting, oh, and watch the laughter schtik, it’s like you have spittle forming at the corners of your mouth. That’s as much help as I’m going to give to someone so obnoxious.

Hind sight is 20/20.

Amen, sonnyspats.

smellthecoffee on January 11, 2007 at 10:40 PM

Oh, and Soothsayer (at the risk of sounding like Columbo), just one more thing. Keep it short and sweet. That way, if it wasn’t sweet, at least it was short.

smellthecoffee on January 11, 2007 at 10:46 PM

Your name implies you have some kind of exclusive foresight into the future. Your narration of the already stated facts only prove you like President Bush and “His People”, cannot forsee the perils of war. Hind sight is 20/20.

sonnyspats1 on January 11, 2007 at 8:50 PM

KOOL AID DRINKER ALERT **** Obviously you drunk the Kool Aid. My NAME in no way implies “exclusivity” that’s what a dummy would say. Who’s to say there aren’t many people who think Bush is an idiot? I think there are. If you were to check you would find out that although I supported the war.. I did so only on the conditions that we get “fly over and refueling rights” AND on the condition that the “Oil would pay for the war”, these were the first things BUSH took off the table! I also AT THE TIME told anyone who would listen that Rumsfelds idea of a “smaller sleeker fighting force” was B.S. as I have stated on this site MANY times. I’m not using “hindsight” numbnuts, I was using FORESIGHT!

Continually referring to the Commander-in-Chief as a “moron” and a “buffoon” is offensive to me, as is punctuating it with cap locked-exclamations and written maniacal laughter.

WHo cares what you find offensive? Bush is a moron and so are ANY who support his illegal alien loving ass.

Soothsayer on January 11, 2007 at 11:37 PM

Oh, and Soothsayer (at the risk of sounding like Columbo), just one more thing. Keep it short and sweet. That way, if it wasn’t sweet, at least it was short.

smellthecoffee on January 11, 2007 at 10:46 PM

If you don’t like it don’t f-ing read it. BUt do not presume to tell me how to do anything you Bush supporting idiot.

Soothsayer on January 11, 2007 at 11:39 PM

Was that pithy enough? I notice none of you numbskulls debated the content of the post, merely the “tone”. Just like the liberals do when they run out of ideas.

Soothsayer on January 11, 2007 at 11:40 PM

AND if the line about DIALOG WITH THE INSURGENTS wasn’t Hysterical to you, then you’re an idiot or a wimp who thinks that people who want you dead, give a f-ck what you have to “Dialog” about.

Soothsayer on January 11, 2007 at 11:42 PM

A godammned pity it took this Adminsitration 3 years to figure out how to take the gloves off, -if they are coming off.

That’s the only question.
Will we fight for our lives and our Civilization’s survival against resurgent intolerant Islamic Imperialism, wherever it rears it maniacal snout, or not?

Otherwise, what is our absolutely overwhelming military power for?

Either go in to win, or don’t go in.

We’re in. Now win.

profitsbeard on January 11, 2007 at 11:44 PM

Was that pithy enough? I notice none of you numbskulls debated the content of the post, merely the “tone”. Just like the liberals do when they run out of ideas.

Soothsayer on January 11, 2007 at 11:40 PM

AND if the line about DIALOG WITH THE INSURGENTS wasn’t Hysterical to you, then you’re an idiot or a wimp who thinks that people who want you dead, give a f-ck what you have to “Dialog” about.

Soothsayer on January 11, 2007 at 11:42 PM

I didn’t hear the President talk about “dialog[sic] with the insurgents” last night.
And I don’t care if that’s pithy enough for you or not.
The only dialogue with the jihadis I heard discussed was the talking end of an M-16 held by a US or an Iraqi soldier.
When “liberals” run out of ideas, they blame Bush–You wouldn’t happen to be a liberal, would you, Soothsayer?
That’s about as much of the “content” of your posts as this Conservative cares to debate.

Jen the Neocon on January 11, 2007 at 11:55 PM

Take a valium Soothsayer, for heaven’s sake. If you’re indicative of the tone where you usually post, I can see why you left and graced us with your presence. Yeah, yeah, go with the ad hominem, I’m a this, I’m a that, blah, blah, blah.

smellthecoffee on January 12, 2007 at 12:14 AM

numbnuts,

Danny Devito??

Rick on January 12, 2007 at 12:20 AM

Bush tells us that this conflict/war/civil war/whatever is the central front in the war on terror and that our security as a nation depends on a win.

Bush then tells us the new plan; it’s clear that the plan pivots on the Iraqis doing what they need to do. If the Iraqis don’t deliver, it’s curtains.

1) At what point did it become okay for the United States to hand over its’ security to another party?

2) How certain are we that Maliki will, in the end, show his allegiance to a new Iraq, versus the Shiites?

3) If the Iraqis don’t perform as needed, what’s the backup plan?

honora on January 12, 2007 at 11:21 AM

3) If the Iraqis don’t perform as needed, what’s the backup plan?

honora on January 12, 2007 at 11:21 AM

Uh. . . give up?

(short, sweet, pithy)

rockhauler on January 12, 2007 at 11:55 AM

Uh. . . give up?

(short, sweet, pithy)

rockhauler on January 12, 2007 at 11:55 AM

Great. I am more and more inclined to consider the Biden (and others, can’t recall who) idea of supporting a loose federation with partitioned areas and have our troops guard the borders. Containment. Isn’t that a bitter irony?

honora on January 12, 2007 at 12:04 PM

Otherwise, what is our absolutely overwhelming military power for?

profitsbeard on January 11, 2007 at 11:44 PM

Military power is a blunt instrument, good for large scale endeavors. Going door to door in Baghdad? Don’t see how tanks or missiles or carriers really bring much to that, do you?

We need to re-adjust our thinking. Terror is a tactic, not an enemy that you can meet on a battlefield or bomb. It’s frustrating, but there it is. This is one of those times where brains trump brawn.

honora on January 12, 2007 at 12:09 PM

Terror is a tactic, not an enemy that you can meet on a battlefield or bomb.

Sophistry

There is an enemy who is engaged in terror as a tactic, and we can and will kill him whenever he does it.

Going door to door in Baghdad? Don’t see how tanks or missiles or carriers really bring much to that, do you?

Take a tank with you when you go door to door? Try going without one. (Mogadisu)

Seriously, Honora, I thought you were smarter than that.
You have no idea what your comments reveal.

rockhauler on January 12, 2007 at 2:29 PM

Comment pages: 1 2