Video: Sen. Inhofe on “If we leave now…”

posted at 6:58 pm on July 30, 2007 by Bryan

Just released. The senator makes a great deal of sense.

I’ll quibble with one thing, though: I expected more casualties in Iraq than we’ve suffered by now. Far more. Most people expected heavy casualties in the early going, but not a simmering war/insurgency lasting for years after the invasion.

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

This is well said. Nicely done Senator.

Let me rephrase it for your quibbles sake, Bryan. We didn’t expect to be suffering casualties for this length of time.

Spirit of 1776 on July 30, 2007 at 7:03 PM

Fair enough.

Bryan on July 30, 2007 at 7:04 PM

I think I see what the MSM and the Dems have up their sleeve as to the NYT article about our possibly winning. They will claim that their bickering made Bush change direction and that is why we are succeeding now. I truly don’s see any of them having courage or truth on thier side, they are opportunists of the worst kind.

bbz123 on July 30, 2007 at 7:09 PM

OFF TOPIC. The Feds are searching Ted Stevens House???? Chief Justice Roberts had a seizure????? WTF!?! HotAir we need information.

D0WNT0WN on July 30, 2007 at 7:09 PM

We didn’t expect to be suffering casualties for this length of time.

Spirit of 1776 on July 30, 2007 at 7:03 PM

Fair enough.

Bryan on July 30, 2007 at 7:04 PM

Sure. If by “we” you mean coalition forces entering Iraq in March of 2003.

But if you open up the definition of “we” to Western Civilization, then the struggle gos back to (at least) Charles the Great and the Holy Roman Empire in the 8th century. Pre-dominantly Christian countries have been at war with Muslims for over 1200 years now. The more amazing thing is, why DIDN’T we expect to be suffering casualties for this length of time, and even MUCH longer than this?

CyberCipher on July 30, 2007 at 7:12 PM

About time someone has the guts to stand up to the defeatists>

allrsn on July 30, 2007 at 7:14 PM

Excellent point, CyberCipher. There have been lulls but thanks to the tech of the West finding oil in their lands they came back strong. They have made it very clear that they intend to keep fighting forever.

bbz123 on July 30, 2007 at 7:17 PM

I’ll quibble with one thing, though: I expected more casualties in Iraq than we’ve suffered by now.

Yep ! ! And they didn’t get off one, not one Scud missle
or get to use any of their nasty stuff.

Texyank on July 30, 2007 at 7:18 PM

I found this on drudge:

WASHINGTON (AP) – Chief Justice John Roberts suffered a seizure at his summer home in Maine on Monday, causing a fall that resulted in minor scrapes, Supreme Court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg said.
He will remain in a hospital in Maine overnight.

Roberts, 52, was taken by ambulance to the Penobscot Bay Medical Center, where he underwent a “thorough neurological evaluation, which revealed no cause for concern,” Arberg said in a statement.

allrsn on July 30, 2007 at 7:20 PM

Regarding the Ted Stevens thing:

It says they’re investigating possible connections to a wealthy contractor. I assume a probe into Feinstein is next, correct?

amerpundit on July 30, 2007 at 7:36 PM

We expected a war with Saddam and Iraq. We won that.

Al Queda has turned it into a war with Islam.

No one can say that Al Queda or anyone is in Iraq to restore the Baathists. Al Queda wants a Sunni Islamic State and Iran wants a Shiia one.

We are fighting Iran by proxy and most other Sunni Muslims states like Syria and Saudi arabia.

The mistake from the start was to think that Al Queda was all about Afganistan and Iraq was all about Saddam. Neither has been true.

William Amos on July 30, 2007 at 7:54 PM

This is well said. Nicely done Senator.

Let me rephrase it for your quibbles sake, Bryan. We didn’t expect to be suffering casualties for this length of time.

Spirit of 1776 on July 30, 2007 at 7:03 PM

Just out of curiosity, what sort of length of time did you expect and why did you expect it?

F15Mech on July 30, 2007 at 7:58 PM

Sen. Inhofe is one of the very few true conservatives in the Senate. He’s an honest and courageous fellow. He’s got it right on global warming…. THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING ! And he’s got it right on the war in Iraq! Why can’t we have a man of his stature as candidate for the Presidency ? I would RUN to the polls to vote for Inhofe !

If Inhofe was running, I’d forget I had ever heard of Fred.

Maxx on July 30, 2007 at 8:06 PM

It’s like standing at the water’s edge, watching the tide ‘turn’

two or three weeks ago, I wrote in this blog that the war in Iraq was already in the process of Changing Significantly for the Better. I’m not psychic, but I ain’t stoopid.

Those of you who also Believed should be proud and relieved at being vindicated; the rest of you should stop reading the Time and Newsweek and watching CNN, NBC, yada yada yada

Janos Hunyadi on July 30, 2007 at 8:25 PM

Just out of curiosity, what sort of length of time did you expect and why did you expect it?
F15Mech on July 30, 2007 at 7:58 PM

Hm, in my statement, I was projecting – putting myself in the position of government for the purpose of rephrasing. I don’t think they collectively expected the situation we are in; I don’t mean to disparage but they would have had a better plan as Cheney said the other day. And the left has made all kinds of hay with the ‘Mission Accomplished’ Banner, which did indicate the belief of a concluded achievement.

But to answer your question, personally, I’m not sure what I expected. That’s a hard question because I didn’t quite get the message on why we went into Iraq (not criticizing it, just saying seemed a conglomerate of reasons, not 1 clear decisive one).

When the talk turned to democracy, I thought Iraq would be the great experiment. But I wasn’t optimistic. All governments exist by consent of the governed, and we never seemed to acknowledge that. And without that acknowledge, I don’t know how we keep from treading water. The projection of our consent/standards on to others is tricky – not necessarily impossible, but tricky at least. We were, after all, greeted as liberators no matter what NYT says now, but what has that translated to…

So from that standpoint, I never really knew what to expect. And also of course, the apparent disparity between staying in a place to provide the necessary security and (vs) the changed military structure under Rumsfeld to a more agile force is a juxtaposition that also fed static into my calculations.

And I also didn’t expect that Iran and other various parties would ship weapons and men into Iraq and us not be extremely forceful in response. In short, my personal expectations never came to clear conclusions and that is essentially the same place I am now – there are so many moving pieces on the board, I don’t know which possibility will be the final outcome.

Spirit of 1776 on July 30, 2007 at 8:54 PM

F15Mech on July 30, 2007 at 7:58 PM

It’s fair to say that like everyone else, I expected an entirely different war. I expected mass casualties in the 6-month timeframe and especially in the first couple of weeks, then the Iraqi government would gradually stand up and we would have been out in 18-24 months. Given the size of Iraq’s military prior to the invasion and the facts that a) Saddam knew that this one was for keeps and b) we all expected him to have and use NBC weapons while fighting a conventional ground war, 10k casualties wasn’t unthinkable.

So we’ve had far fewer casualties than I expected, but a much messier war.

Bryan on July 30, 2007 at 9:15 PM

Inhofe is also the bulwark against GWH*. I got an email from his staff today that links to their blog on the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. The lead article on the Dem/Nitwit side is the stunning news that there is a glacier “melting” in Greenland. On the GOP side is an article citing the same scientists who have concluded that the glacier has been melting since 1905, and that average temperatures in Greenland have been cooler in the last 50 years than in the previous 50 years.

Clearly this GW thing is worse than we thought! It’s been going on for 100 years!

(*Global Warming Hysteria)

Jaibones on July 30, 2007 at 9:16 PM

If Inhofe was running, I’d forget I had ever heard of Fred.

Maxx on July 30, 2007 at 8:06 PM

Inhofe/DeMint

Jaibones on July 30, 2007 at 9:17 PM

The senator talks about victory, but like everybody else who uses that word, he fails to define it. They fail to define it because they know victory was already achieved when Saddam was removed from power. That is military victory, the only victory troops can ever provide.

What the Senator is referring to is some type of geo-political victory. But any policy to remake an arab land, an arab land of waring tribes and clans, pieced together artificially in the 20th century from the lands of the Ottoman empire, into some type of self-sustaining liberal democracy is a fool’s errand without end. No muslim nation on earth, much less an arab muslim nation, has ever been, or if I may be so bold, ever will be, a stable democracy, much less a stable liberal democracy. Islam forbids democracy, forbids freedom, forbids equality.

Military force, the type of force the Senator wishes to stay in Iraq, can not achieve that type of victory without, of course, killing everyone and starting over from scratch, something our society, and our political leadership, refuses to do, or even consider. So talk of holding out for victory in Iraq is quaint jingoism.

jihadwatcher on July 30, 2007 at 9:37 PM

3 casualties a day fighting 1.2 billion people.

Not bad at all.

profitsbeard on July 30, 2007 at 9:37 PM

I won’t quibble, I wish things had gone better in the war.
Less casualties = longer stay? More casualties = shorter stay?

At any rate, he’s one of the few Senators I admire.

Kini on July 30, 2007 at 9:42 PM

I agree with Brian, we all expected a much deadlier initial invation followed by a much smoother transition. Like Spirit of 1776, though, we didn’t expect all the foreign involvement in the insurgency, much less under Bush’s blind eye.
I think it was Victor Hansen who pointed out that when it came to Iraq, there were simply no good options on the table. Everybody believed that Saddam had WMDs (including possibly Saddam himself), he had used them, he was supporting terrorists, he had commited multiple acts of war against the US (multiple attempts to shoot down our aircraft, the assassination attempt against retired President Bush 41, etc.), and the UN sanctions had become a joke, with the French et al not only violating the sanctions regularly but also having sold their vetoes to Saddam (with money scammed from Oil for Food) to ensure that no further actions would be taken against Iraq. In fact, if it were not for the US and UK vetoes, the sanctions would have long since been eased if not ended entirely.
Given this scenario, and the post-9/11 low threshold for tolerating threats to our security, I really do not see what else we could have done. The attempt to give them democracy was badly bungled, and it is possible that the Middle East Muslim world is not yet ready for democracy, but the experiment had to be tried.

One thing that concerns me is what happens next time. Thanks to Iraq, republic-building is permanently off our list of strategies for dealing with the Middle East. What do we do in the event a future administration decides that the government or Iran or maybe Saudi Arabia have become too great a threat to be allowed to continue? How do we react if, for instance, Iran-backed Hezbollah slips an Iranian nuke aboard a feighter ship bound for New York harbor? Even if the USAF neutralizes Iran’s nuclear arsenal, what do we do then? Bomb them into the stone age and let the place implode a la Iraq without the US presence? I have no idea, and frankly I am afraid neither does Uncle Sam.

Lancer on July 30, 2007 at 9:59 PM

Common Sense This is what Sen Inhofe has and he tells it like he sees it. Now I know some people can’t handle him being so upfront about issues but I love his candor and down right plain talk and common sense. It sure isn’t common to have any sense in DC lately, just look at all the BS. Real role models for our country huh? They wonder why the Iraq officals took the month off, they have been watching how our congress has been acting for years and they see it pays off.

bones47 on July 30, 2007 at 10:01 PM

profitsbeard on July 30, 2007 at 9:37 PM

Yeah.

Given this scenario, and the post-9/11 low threshold for tolerating threats to our security, I really do not see what else we could have done.
Lancer on July 30, 2007 at 9:59 PM

I agree. And I wish we knew the answers to your questions.

Common Sense This is what Sen Inhofe has and he tells it like he sees it.
bones47 on July 30, 2007 at 10:01 PM

I’ve really come to like him!

Spirit of 1776 on July 30, 2007 at 10:11 PM

Maybe I am missing something here. But Bryan, your “quibbling” quote doesn’t include anything Senator Inhofe said in his video.
Please enlighten me. I might be light years behind the new “internet speak”.

RMR on July 30, 2007 at 11:07 PM

Please enlighten me. I might be light years behind the new “internet speak”.

RMR on July 30, 2007 at 11:07 PM

Don’t fret.

The people who are really light years behind this new “internet speak” are the Dimocrats and Libidos.

They have absolutely underestimated the power of new media:
Inhofe on YouTube spotlighted by HA and then the world.

It is really comical to know the news highlighted by MSM two days before they spotlight it.
I smile every time and note to myself, “The times, my how they are a’changing!!

Mcguyver on July 31, 2007 at 12:01 AM

Face it! If you want to surrender, you are either:
A. A complete moron
B. An America hater
C. Both A and B

And that is the way it is!

TheSitRep on July 31, 2007 at 7:17 AM

I must say that, having met and talked to Senator Inhofe several times, he is truly an amazing person. He talks with us when he comes home to Oklahoma. He answers e-mail. He listens to us. He makes time for us. He answers questions directly, rather than trying to evade them.

I know that I will continue to vote for him for as long as he continues to run. I don’t see him running for President, unfortunately. He has always stated that he loves doing what he’s doing, representing us, giving us a voice in Congress. I would hope that he would be willing to run for President, but I don’t see him doing so–at least, not anytime in the near future…

jedijson on July 31, 2007 at 10:25 AM