Video: Gates says the anti-surge resolution “emboldens the enemy”

posted at 3:25 pm on January 26, 2007 by Allahpundit

If you haven’t signed the pledge yet, now’s your chance.

Update: Mitch McConnell: “This is it.”

Update: CNN’s got a copy of the early draft of McCain’s resolution. Bet-hedging with an eye to 2008 or grudging compromise to draw support from the other resolutions?

While acknowledging that “past mistakes in U.S. strategy” have led to a “dire security situation in Iraq,” it presents 11 different “political, economic, and military benchmarks” the Iraqi government “must make visible, concrete progress toward meeting.”

The benchmarks include: taking over security in all provinces “in a timely manner;” “disarming militias and ensuring security forces are accountable to the central government;” distributing oil profits to all Iraqis “in an equitable manner;” “conducting provincial elections;” and ensuring that billions of dollars in reconstruction funds are distributed to Sunni neighborhoods in Baghdad and the largely Sunni Anbar Province.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

to the left, Gates = next Rumsfeld

jp on January 26, 2007 at 3:31 PM

But does it embiggen them?

frankj on January 26, 2007 at 3:34 PM

Falling into the “But we meant well” trap is not a good thing.
This country needs to get back to what the results will be, not the intent.

bbz123 on January 26, 2007 at 3:37 PM

Big Note: He didn’t question their patriotism and timing.

Entelechy on January 26, 2007 at 3:38 PM

It takes courage for Bill Gates to encourage people to stop using surge protectors. But he’s right – shielding our computer from electrical damage just confirms to Macintosh that we’re afraid. (I didn’t watch the video)

Savage on January 26, 2007 at 3:40 PM

…and one more thing – Mr. Biden said that the bill is not intended to embarrass the President.

Please note the humanity.

Entelechy on January 26, 2007 at 3:40 PM

Wait, is he saying that a symbolic resolution that does nothing other than send the signal that the U.S. Congress doesn’t intend to seriously combat jihadists is providing aid and comfort to the enemy?

Why does Robert Gates hate the First Amendment?

Enrique on January 26, 2007 at 3:48 PM

You always crack me up, Enrique.

NTWR on January 26, 2007 at 3:51 PM

Gates=The New Hitler

teh Icy Hot Stuntaz!

Max Power on January 26, 2007 at 3:53 PM

Come on, Enrique – that was a joke, right?

Editor on January 26, 2007 at 3:54 PM

send the signal that the U.S. Congress doesn’t intend to seriously combat jihadists

Enrique on January 26, 2007 at 3:48 PM

If you really meant to convey this, it’s really, really a big confirmation of what we knew all along.

Entelechy on January 26, 2007 at 3:54 PM

“Wait, is he saying that a symbolic resolution that does nothing other than send the signal that the U.S. Congress doesn’t intend to seriously combat jihadists is providing aid and comfort to the enemy?”

He’s saying a show of disunity just gives them hope that if they just keep doing what they’re doing we’ll eventually capitulate. I suppose you could call that giving them a warm fuzzy.

Democrat Party To Troops: Hang in there boys, you haven’t done anything right so far and we’ll make sure you don’t get the chance to.

darwin on January 26, 2007 at 3:55 PM

Spot on Darwin!

KelliD on January 26, 2007 at 3:59 PM

The sad part is that the Dhimmicrats already know this, yet they continue on with it anyway. But don’t you DARE question their patriotism! Dissent IS patriotic!

Tony737 on January 26, 2007 at 4:04 PM

“Dissent IS patriotic!”

Unless of course it’s Republicans doing the dissenting.

darwin on January 26, 2007 at 4:12 PM

“Dissent IS patriotic!”

Unless of course it’s Republicans doing the dissenting.

We’re not allowed to speak “truth to power” either.

KelliD on January 26, 2007 at 4:16 PM

Dissent is patriotic, unless of course it’s Republican’s doing the dissenting

We’re not allowed to speak “truth to power” either.

Can we at least question the timing?

Matticus Finch on January 26, 2007 at 4:19 PM

You know what probably emboldens the enemy more than any resolution Congress passes?

The fact the pretty much everything the Bush administration has done since the fall of Saddam has been an utter failure and worked to bolster the sectarian violence. Nearly every assumption (greeted as liberators, oil money will pay for the war, it’ll take less troops for the occupation than the war) was wrong and nearly every policy (purging the government of Baathists, dismantling the Army) has backfired.

If I was an insurgent or Al-Queda member I would be as emboldened as hell that Bush has a new plan. If history tells us anything it’s that this plan will somehow backfire and work to spread the chaos.

JaHerer22 on January 26, 2007 at 4:20 PM

Come on, Enrique – that was a joke, right?

Yes, it was a joke.

If I was an insurgent or Al-Queda member I would be as emboldened as hell that Bush has a new plan.

C’mon dude, I have a hard time believing that al-Qaeda and similar jihadi-types thrive on Bush’s relentless (if flawed and frequently incompetent) pursuit of their destruction. I have a much easier time believing that they are emboldened by these non-binding congressional resolutions.

In other words, I think the average jihadist considers Bush the enemy, and at the same time considers Nancy Pelosi to be an ally of convenience.

But I’m still with you on celebrating Western depravity. :)

Enrique on January 26, 2007 at 4:31 PM

Can we at least question the timing?

Matticus Finch on January 26, 2007 at 4:19 PM

I question the timing of your question.

lan astaslem on January 26, 2007 at 4:35 PM

One could also say that liberating almost 20 million people from a ruthless dictator was a good thing. Or point out that those freed Iraqis voted in far greater numbers than we do here in the USA. Or offer that Saddam Hussein was given, by most accounts, a fair trial in this fledgling democracy. Or point out that we’ve lost far fewer soldiers per day than in any extended war in the history of the United States. By those measurements, we’ve been pretty successful.

Then again, I’m a “glass is half full” kind of guy.

Matticus Finch on January 26, 2007 at 4:35 PM

By the way, that’s not to say that we haven’t made mistakes.

Matticus Finch on January 26, 2007 at 4:40 PM

JaHerer22 on January 26, 2007 at 4:20 PM

Darn, they just confirmed Mr. Gates when they could have had JaHerer.

Entelechy on January 26, 2007 at 4:47 PM

Enrique on January 26, 2007 at 4:31 PM

I wouldn’t say they are emboldened by his relentless pursuit of their destruction, but I do believe they are emboldened by the sloppy, incompetent handling of the war. How could they not be?

Think about it,we roll into Baghdad and conquer Iraq in mere days–they must be scared sh*tless, thinking they have no chance. Then day after day, mistake after mistake, the violence grows, tensions rise, and the country slides ever closer towards civil war. The insurgants who thought we were unstoppable see that’s not the case as we bumble in failed policy after failed policy. How is that not emboldening?

JaHerer22 on January 26, 2007 at 4:54 PM

Entelechy on January 26, 2007 at 4:47 PM

For real, man. I sent Bush my resume and everything. If Gates’ gets thrown under the bus though, I think I might be next in line.

JaHerer22 on January 26, 2007 at 4:57 PM

For real, man laday. I sent Bush my resume and everything. If Gates’ gets thrown under the bus though, I think I might be next in line.

JaHerer22 on January 26, 2007 at 4:57 PM

Good luck then :)

Entelechy on January 26, 2007 at 5:00 PM

Alas, s/b ‘lady’ :)

Entelechy on January 26, 2007 at 5:00 PM

JaHerer, why then did they want Mr. Kerry to win in Nov. ’04? And the dems in Nov. ’06?

We could argue in circles on this one and never agree; thus, futile. No war has ever been perfectly faught and won. Your lot must live on a different Earth/reality.

I agree with Enrique on January 26, 2007 at 4:31 PM, if our amigo wasn’t sarcastic.

Entelechy on January 26, 2007 at 5:05 PM

I wouldn’t say they are emboldened by his relentless pursuit of their destruction, but I do believe they are emboldened by the sloppy, incompetent handling of the war. How could they not be?

Really?

Think about it,we roll into Baghdad and conquer Iraq in mere days–they must be scared sh*tless, thinking they have no chance. Then day after day, mistake after mistake, the violence grows, tensions rise, and the country slides ever closer towards civil war. The insurgants who thought we were unstoppable see that’s not the case as we bumble in failed policy after failed policy. How is that not emboldening?

You have fallen victim to the moonbats vision of perfect war. You think you can plan a war and have the enemy help you wage it exactly to plan. War is a very fluid situation and each side adjusts to the tactics of the other.

Have their been mistakes? Yup.

Have there been successes?

Heck, why don’t YOU answer that one? I suggest you start by finding out how many bad guys we have sent to paradise. You can ask al-Zarqawi and Saddam to provide you with those numbers. You can also visit the usaid site and read about lots of successful policies in effect.

csdeven on January 26, 2007 at 5:28 PM

We’ve gotta start ignoring the trolls.

PRCalDude on January 26, 2007 at 5:41 PM

So Robert Gates demonstrated the ability to call a spade a spade. Good for him. Of course this “resolution” (you’d think that word would imply some sort of resolute quality, wouldn’t you?) emboldens the enemy. The Democrats have been undermining the war effort for political gain ever since the war started, and the media-savvy terrorists have been more than happy to exploit them as Useful Idiots. It wasn’t exactly difficult, considering that the Democrat “leadership” has been using rhetoric all along that sounds like it came from an Al-Zawahiri diatribe.

What I’d really like someone to explain to me, though, is how it is that every single thing the Democrats do just happens to be exactly what the terrorists want. How does that work? A few examples:

Iraq War: both against. Wiretapping of terrorist phone calls: both against. Tracking terrorist finances: both against. Leaking classified information that damages the war effort: both for. Manipulating public opinion by telling only bad news about Iraq, including fabricating entire stories: both for. Cutting and running: both for. Surge: both against. Coddling terrorists anywhere: both for. US defeat: both for.

I could do this all day. How the hell did we end up with a major political party that, given the choice, will always vote against American interests? Question their patriotism? How does one question what doesn’t exist?

ReubenJCogburn on January 26, 2007 at 5:42 PM

The two parties have sure come a long way since the days of JFK and Goldwater, especially the demRats .. altho the conduct of demRats then easily parallels today’s iteration ..

An enemy must defeat the spirit of fight in its opponent to win decisively… even using agents that work from within.

nothing new here, just history repeating itself.

Prayers for the troops and our leaders with a clue.

normsrevenge on January 26, 2007 at 5:49 PM

Al-sadr just agreed to disarm the militias and cooporate with the Iraqi army.

OH Puuulleeeeez be true!

csdeven on January 26, 2007 at 6:02 PM

I would suggest that if the MSM would report the war more accurately, we would see a much more optimistic outlook reported.

Are there problems? Sure. An awful lot of those problems, however, could arguably be stated to have been compounded by the AP and Reuters.

Natrium on January 26, 2007 at 6:05 PM

My older son is a US Army Lieutenant serving in Iraq. I know what a great job our militayr men and women are doing on a tough mission. So, I am furious about the anti-surge resolution, and I will never forget my anger. The Democrats (except for the likes of Joe Lieberman) and Chuck Hagel are low life scum who do not deserve to breathe the same air as our military men and women serving the nation in harm’s way.

For those of you who share my anger, this must be translated into results at the ballot box.

Phil Byler on January 26, 2007 at 6:52 PM

“Al-sadr just agreed to disarm the militias and cooporate with the Iraqi army.”

I wonder what they offered him besides a dental plan. As soon as the militia is disarmed and a little time passes, Al-sadr should be made to disappear never to be found.

darwin on January 26, 2007 at 6:53 PM

Gates says the anti-surge resolution “emboldens the enemy”

Oh, really? Ya think?

Professor Blather on January 26, 2007 at 7:12 PM

The only thing the insurgents and jihadists have at this point is the “will to suceed.” The US and Iraqi army out man them. We have military superiority to the nth degree. We have more money and resources. Yet, if we don’t have the will to use those advantages, they win.

The libs and Donks have lost the will to win and, thus, have lost. It is up to the rest of the country to press forward. It is up to the President to keep making the case that this is worth the fight and that as long as we perservere, we will win.

Mallard T. Drake on January 26, 2007 at 7:20 PM

Jaherer’s posts in this thread are more stunning evidence of just how out of touch with reality you have to be to be liberal.

Every creature on Earth with a brain knows the terrorists would vastly prefer Bill Clinton or Al Gore to be President. That statement is about as debatable as whether the sky is blue.

In case you can’t think for yourself (because, you know, you’re a liberal), the terrorists have been helpful enough to loudly, repeatedly, and publicly SAY SO.

But, nope. Jaherer knows the “real truth.”

Amazing.

Professor Blather on January 26, 2007 at 7:29 PM

The libs and Donks have lost the will to win

To be honest I don’t think they ever had the will to begin with. Supporting a Republican President as a democrat minority in their eyes would only lessen the chance of them retaking Congress or the White House. So they played “patriot” for a while, then, when their buddies at the MSM has sufficiently browbeat the American public with gloom and doom stories 24/7 … they flip flopped and moved in for the kill.

Nothing matters to the donks and libs except power and moola.

darwin on January 26, 2007 at 7:49 PM

Gates says the anti-surge resolution “emboldens the enemy”

Which is exactly why congress is proposing it.

CrazyFool on January 26, 2007 at 8:38 PM

they are stuck on stupid

tomas on January 26, 2007 at 8:47 PM

The libs and Donks have lost the will to win

To be honest I don’t think they ever had the will to begin with. Supporting a Republican President as a democrat minority in their eyes would only lessen the chance of them retaking Congress or the White House. So they played “patriot” for a while, then, when their buddies at the MSM has sufficiently browbeat the American public with gloom and doom stories 24/7 … they flip flopped and moved in for the kill.

Nothing matters to the donks and libs except power and moola.

darwin on January 26, 2007 at 7:49 PM

I agree completely. They couldn’t lose what they never had. And they “supported the troops”–right up to the point that any actual support of the troops was required–just to fake out the American public.

ReubenJCogburn on January 26, 2007 at 8:51 PM

Er, has MM signed the pledge?

Reaps on January 26, 2007 at 9:43 PM

The libs in this country are closer than they’ve ever been to ‘winning’, in their frame of reference. They and the MSM are pushing harder than ever, because they smell blood in the water and they’re hungry and eager for the kill.

I’m disgusted at their unchallenged open traitorism masquerading as ‘patriotism’. It is exactly the opposite.

I’m furious with leaders who should damn well know better. They’re betraying our Country, and they’re betraying our Military.

Where is the backbone in America? Masood had it right. “Are their any men in America?” I wonder that myself.

techno_barbarian on January 26, 2007 at 10:18 PM

Welcome to the machine! I think I finally have the Democrats figured out. For the life of me I could’t come up with a reason why the Democrats are at war with the war in Iraq. I looked for the political angle Republicans vs Democrats. I looked at the personal angle were the Dems just plain jealous of the Republicans ? I mean the Democrats and the MSM are the ones spreading misinformation and propaganda, thats dividing the country. The fact they have no plan is another thing that seems out of place. I now suspect the plain and simple truth is the Democrats are not for liberating anyone, they are about controling and dominating people. If the Presidents plan in Iraq were allowed to take its natural progression with the full support of the country Disney would be buying property in Tikrit by now. The big but here is the Democrats cannot let the Republican vision for Iraq mature to fuition, because it would prove wrong every theory and hypothisis that are the cornerstones of the Marxist experiment they are drooling to implement here in the US. To achieve this goal,they are willing to tear down everything and everyone in their path. Welcome to the machine!

sonnyspats1 on January 26, 2007 at 10:21 PM

sonnyspats1 on January 26, 2007 at 10:21 PM

The left has gone so far left they have come all the way around to being hitlerish.

csdeven on January 26, 2007 at 10:49 PM

csdeven on January 26, 2007 at 10:49 PM

Yeah, and I used to hope for a 180, not a 360

sonnyspats1 on January 26, 2007 at 11:07 PM

sorta OT: The photos of the ‘Senators’ walking around Baghdad in their SUITS cracked me up.

Limerick on January 27, 2007 at 2:50 AM

Phil Byler writes:

My older son is a US Army Lieutenant serving in Iraq. I know what a great job our militayr men and women are doing on a tough mission. So, I am furious about the anti-surge resolution, and I will never forget my anger. The Democrats (except for the likes of Joe Lieberman) and Chuck Hagel are low life scum who do not deserve to breathe the same air as our military men and women serving the nation in harm’s way.

For those of you who share my anger, this must be translated into results at the ballot box.

Phil, I agree with you. My son is a US Marine and I am angry at the Democrats,too. I consider the Democrat leadership in Congress to be traitors because their actions (1) give aid and comfort to our enemies, (2) and are designed to sabotage the war effort and convert military victory into defeat.

Undercutting the war, sabotaging the war is the worst form of treason that I can imagine.

Liberals and Democrats (i.e., the Left) are America’s Traitor Class. They have turned an honorable pro-America, pro-national defense party into th Traitor Party.

We have until November 2008 to expose, fix in place, and defeat the political party that lost Vietnam and resulted in the genocide of millions BEFORE they do it again in Iraq.

georgej on January 27, 2007 at 4:03 AM

I just finished reading Orson Scott Card’s latest novel, Empire, a novel of a second American Civil War.

Card is a moderate registered Democrat who supports the war, whose novel opens with the assassination of both the President (unnamed but presumed to be George W. Bush) and the Vice President (presumably Cheney) by terrorists. This assassination is a pretext for LIBERALS to begin an armed take over in the blue counties and cities (a “putsch”) declaring the administration to be illegal and unconstitutionally in power because they stole the 2000 election.

I won’t spoil the story by identifying the principle villain, be we all know who his real-life counterpart is. And I won’t disclose the ending either.

However, Card’s afterword is an important read. He discusses the polarization we all see today. He’s nonjudgmental and sees fatal flaws on both the Right and the Left, in terms of the inability of Right and Left to continue a dialog.

I agree with much of what he says, but I point out that comity (which when practiced among people means “civility”) was destroyed in 1994, by the Democrats, when they called Republicans proto-murderers for wanting to reform welfare. If you supported welfare reform (as I did), you also wanted to murder the elderly and all the poor “Cheeeldrine.”

In other words, I know how this started and, more importantly, WHO started it: You Democrats and liberals. I think that knowing this is important because how we got where we are is important to knowing how close we are to the precipice.

It was the Democrats who called the “Contract with America” the “Contract ON America.”

After the Republicans took over Congress, it got worse. Gone were the days when Conservative Republican Everett Dirkson worked with moderate Democrats to get the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed, over the filibuster efforts of DEMOCRATS (BTW). Gone were the days when the minority was loyal, even in opposition, and cooperated with the majority to pass important opposition. The actions of Ted Kennedy first in “Borking” Bork and then Justice Thomas, when Regan and then Bush 41 were President, were only the prelude for liberals to work to sabotage the MAJORITY Party’s agenda, at every level, after 1994.

But the worst was the absolute refusal of the Democrats to deal with Clinton for committing felony perjury — by their absolute and complete and total support for him — in the face of clear evidence of a “high crime and misdemeanor.” This led me to believe that the Democrats were willing to put PARTY above the national interest.

Yes, the impeachment was a “donkey show,” run by the Republicans. And yes, the Republicans wrapped themselves in their “off white” gowns of self-righteous hypocrisy. But, the Democrats, instead of shaming both Bill and his enabler, Hillary, allowed themselves to go to the wall all the while professing a belief that it was all a “vast right wing conspiracy,” even though they knew all the time that Bill put his dick in Monica’s mouth willingly and knowing that he was wrong in doing so, especially when he lied under oath about it. And, yes, they *ALL* knew that Bill LIED under oath about it, but pretended that it “was all about sex.” It was a case of “Das Party Uber Alles,” and nothing else.

By the 2000 election, comity was completely destroyed. The bile from Democrats who were upset that the Gore lost the election (and he DID lose it in Florida, all the recounts showed that to be the case), their deliberate attempts to throw out votes from the military, especially in Florida, and their decision to WIN AT ALL COSTS and refuse to accept the result, resulted in a continuing and concerted effort by DEMOCRATS and LIBERALS to destroy the Bush Presidency by any means necessary.

I didn’t vote for either Carter or Clinton, but I accepted the fact that both were President. America’s Democrats and liberals STILL refuse to accept the George W. Bush is the President, and in their derangement, they invent all sorts of reasons to demand his impeachment. Why? Because they hate him. All their professed reasons are pure window dressing and false justification. They simply hate the man that they believe “screwed” them out of power in 2000.

Well, as someone who is a conservative; who has watched what has happened in the last dozen years; who has watched the polarization in America DRIVEN BY THE DEMOCRATS AND THE LIBERALS, to the point of near civil war, I know where most (but not all) of the blame lies.

And yes, I *DO* blame the Republicans for their gross incompetence in all sorts of legislation and behavior. I think they were pretty stupid the last 2 years. I think they had a serious case of rectal-cranial inversion on all sorts of issues. They have NOT been “good stewards” of America’s government.

But the Democrats are worse. Much worse. They politicized the judicial appointment confirmation process, with Chuck Schumer openly saying that no judge will be confirmed unless they pass the liberal’s litmus test.

Jay Rockefeller, Dick Durbin, and others OPENLY conspired to sabotage the war in order to get control of Congress in 2006. Durbin even went so far as to call the military “Nazi Death-camp Guards,” “Soviet Gulag Guards,” and associates with Pol Pot. DEMOCRATS have sabotaged critical intelligence gathering programs by leaking national security secrets to the NY Times and the Washington Post. Why? To bring down BUSH and to sabotage the war.

My son is a US Marine. Durbin SLIMED him and every other serving member of the military. Why? To “Get BOOSH!” The actions of Durbin, Rockefeller, Kennedy, et. al., put his life (and every other soldier and marine) in danger. Their actions in sabotaging this war has put EACH AND EVERY ONE of us in danger.

Card in his afterword writes:

That we are generally olivious to the excesses of our own side merely demostrates how close we already are to a paroxysm of self-destruction.

We are waiting for Fort Sumter.

I hope it never comes.

I hope it never comes, either.

I am aware of the excesses of the Conservatives and the Republicans. Believe me, I am.

But….. With exception of Olympia Snow, Lincoln Chafee, and Chuck Hagel, MY SIDE hasn’t committed treason by openly siding with our enemies and sabotaging the war. MY side hasn’t been openly aiding the enemy by giving them cash, and arguing their case on the floor of both Houses of Congress, either.

That is EXACTLY what the Democrats are doing. Robert Gates is exactly right when he says that the resolutions are exactly what Al Qaeda wants to hear.

As to Mr. Card’s concerns, I simply cannot conceive of REPUBLICANS and Conservatives organizing a civil war. Why? Because you liberals and Democrats HATE US much more than we hate you. And you Democrats are willing and capable of taking to the streets to obtain what you want.

When was the last time REPUBLICANS and conservatives organized street demonstrations? The Republicans have never tried to storm a Democratic National Convention. Not so the Democrats. The Republicans have never SPIT on the flag and the color guard at a state convention. Not so the Democrats. The Republicans have NEVER, EVER, booed an Eagle Scout color guard at their national convention. NOT SO THE DEMOCRATS.

I differ from Mr. Card in that the militancy ORIGINATED from the Democrats and the libeals. And that the liberals and Democrats have, and are continuing, to escalate it now, at a time when the nation is fighting a war against Islamist fascists.

I now await, in my asbestos underwear, the obligatory hate-screed from you liberals and Democrats. Knock your socks off…..

georgej on January 27, 2007 at 5:18 AM

“This is it.”

Nouri al-Maliki has been playing us like a Saudi prince.

Valiant on January 27, 2007 at 7:47 AM

How cozy. Talk about hedging your bets. “We think this is going to work, but if it doesn’t it’s the Congress’ fault”.

Such courage. Fortunately, the country sees through this and is done with Bush et al manipulating their natural sense of patriotism. Fool me once…uh, well you know the rest….

honora on January 27, 2007 at 10:20 AM

I was watching Fox and Friends this morning. (It’s my guilty pleasure–like to see how many mistakes they make: this morning’s was particularly droll: talking about railroads; weather guy says he grew up in the west where railroad travel (passenger) is not common; dopey but pretty girl chimes in: “what do you mean? How did people get out to the CA gold rush?” Fair, Balanced and Uneducated)

Anyway, this comes under the heading of “getting desperate”. They interviewed some guy who just wrote a book (as who has not it seems..) about why radical Islamists hate us and why moderate Muslims ain’t real crazy about us either. Guess!! Well because all they see of the US is the “blue state” part–Hollywood, drugs, depravity, gay marriage yada, yada, yada. They don’t see the “real” (read “red”) American.

This buffoon then continued on that Europeans on the other hand, only see “the red state” part–upstanding citizens, church-goin’ people, and Bush–and react badly to that, what with them being, you know, European and all.

Suggesting some sort of filter at work that mysteriously transmit only a red signal to Europe and a blue signal to Muslims.

Makes sense to me…

honora on January 27, 2007 at 10:29 AM

The Blunders under Gates are even getting worse, this guy seems clueless..

retired on January 27, 2007 at 1:40 PM

Gates says the anti-surge resolution “emboldens the enemy”

Duh.

aero on January 27, 2007 at 1:48 PM

I was watching Fox and Friends this morning. (It’s my guilty pleasure–like to see how many mistakes they make: this morning’s was particularly droll: talking about railroads; weather guy says he grew up in the west where railroad travel (passenger) is not common; dopey but pretty girl chimes in: “what do you mean? How did people get out to the CA gold rush?” Fair, Balanced and Uneducated)

Anyway, this comes under the heading of “getting desperate”. They interviewed some guy who just wrote a book (as who has not it seems..) about why radical Islamists hate us and why moderate Muslims ain’t real crazy about us either. Guess!! Well because all they see of the US is the “blue state” part–Hollywood, drugs, depravity, gay marriage yada, yada, yada. They don’t see the “real” (read “red”) American.

This buffoon then continued on that Europeans on the other hand, only see “the red state” part–upstanding citizens, church-goin’ people, and Bush–and react badly to that, what with them being, you know, European and all.

Suggesting some sort of filter at work that mysteriously transmit only a red signal to Europe and a blue signal to Muslims.

Makes sense to me…

honora on January 27, 2007 at 10:29 AM

Try that in different places in the world that the media do filter with their own in-built biases. That’s just human nature – we do it, they do it.

If there were truly fair, balanced, and informative, people around the world would perhaps actually have a better understanding of the other and perhaps our leaders would be the ones that have to fight and die instead of sending others to fight as their proxies for that in which most have little or no interest.

But, that would be bad for business interests and so we have what we have.

Emmett J. on January 27, 2007 at 2:54 PM

Kerry criticized what he called the “unfortunate habit” of Americans to see the world “exclusively through an American lens.” Anyway, this comes under the heading of “getting desperate”. They interviewed some guy who just wrote a book (as who has not it seems..) about why radical Islamists hate us and why moderate Muslims ain’t real crazy about us either. Guess!! Well because all they see of the US is the “blue state” part–Hollywood, drugs, depravity, gay marriage yada, yada, yada. They don’t see the “real” (read “red”) American.

This buffoon then continued on that Europeans on the other hand, only see “the red state” part–upstanding citizens, church-goin’ people, and Bush–and react badly to that, what with them being, you know, European and all.

Suggesting some sort of filter at work that mysteriously transmit only a red signal to Europe and a blue signal to Muslims.

Makes sense to me…

honora on January 27, 2007 at 10:29 AM

sonnyspats1 on January 27, 2007 at 5:08 PM

I think free speech is the sign of a healthy democracy and god bless america. It is WHAT SCARES THEM. Free speech and lively debate is what they hate and what makes the rest of the world appreciate and be in awe. It is the LIGHT and they, the radical religious zealots, jihadist live in the dark or fear and terror. Why are republican/conservatives so afraid of debate. Why all the rhetoric, propaganda and name calling (cut-n-runners, surrender monkeys). Reality bites sometimes and cheerleading, one for the gipper in the 4th quarter is for football, not life. I think there is a balance, we have Fox News, NY post, Washington Post/Times, Bloggs like hot air. We can’t will it to be so.

The problem is we have a pattern. Bush ignoring all advice and every step being wrong. The SURGE is no different, same thing. I guess it could work, but all the experts, in the military and government past and present are saying probably not. The civil war and insurgency is as bold as ever and I don’t think my words or debate changes that. The whole idea that you can win stable strong pro-america democracy in Iraq by giving Bush a positive approval is a type of quantum physics black-hole I’m not aware of. A lot of things have to change to make it happen and they likely will not happen with 22,000 troops.

I know if we start up with Iran the people will go nuts. I’m all for shutting down Iran, but 22,000 is not enough. Iraq is NOT a failure/loss or success/win, it is somewhere in the middle. Lets declare victory, try to stabilize as best possible and shore the thing up and “redeploy”. This is not a loss, just one battle in a LONG war on terror.

We did not lose the battle either, we did everything we can do with the military. Job well done, we owe everyone of the soldiers a debt of gratitude.

gmcjetpilot on January 28, 2007 at 1:45 AM

For those who think if we run away we will not be followed home and attacked (wasn’t there an assault inside America a few years ago by some terrorists who thought we were too weak to respond?) these kind of “resolutions” are the hookah of the unhistorical.

Intolerant Islamic Imperialism is merely seeing a resurgence of its age-old military and ideological thrust toward a planetary theocratic tyranny.

Dormant for several centuries, after the rise of Western technological / military advances, which held its Koranically-mandated ambitions in check, it is now regrouping, and wherever it raises its despotic head, it needs to be crushed.

Those who fight the last war will always lose the current one.

There is no “war in Iraq”, there is only another battlefront against the overall Jihad. And abandoning any front in this War would simply demonstrate a craveness and stupidity that will be answered by increased terror from the enemy.

Those in the West who refuse to fight this misogynistic, homophobic, anti-intellectual, and anti-freedom “religious” militancy now will only have to fight it that much harder, and bloodier, later.

What part of “Die infidel dogs!” do the cowering politicos and the delusional (It’s Gonna Be Viet Nam Forever!) “anti-war” folks NOT understand?

The Jihadists declared war on us.

How do you withdraw from it unilaterally?

Except by surrender?

profitsbeard on January 28, 2007 at 4:28 PM