We can not negotiate with tribes of fatalistic, 7th century goat-herders any more than we can with the leftists. Both are so blinded by either ideology or hatred (or both), reason is lost on them.
Texas Nick 77 on September 1, 2007 at 9:46 AM

The leftists and the terrorists are not just philosophically similar; they are STRATEGICALLY IDENTICAL.

They both want the same things:

1. For the US to leave Iraq and stop trying to “impose democracy” on the Middle East;

2. For the US to stop supporting, defending, and supplying arms to Israel;

3. For the US to “support our troops” – by taking them out of harm’’s way;

4. A constant stream of front-page stories in the media about “atrocities” committed by US soldiers;

5. Constant claims that the US “can’’t win” against terrorists;

6. News reports portraying terrorists as unstoppable supervillans: sort of like Lex Luthor only a little smarter and a lot more pious;

7. More dialogue between elected western officials and self-proclaimed terrorist “leaders;”

8. No action taken to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons;

9. George Bush out of office;

10. Worldwide unity.

There are only tactical differences between terrorists and liberals – in terms of their methodology. The first group plants the bombs, and the second helps spread the propaganda. But they are inextricably linked.

So, it is impossible to “compromise” with the liberals without at the same time appeasing terrorists. Because the two acts are the SAME THING.

DrSteve on August 31, 2007 at 9:02 PM

The nutroots aren’t on our side and we do not want them to be on our side. What we want is to allow Democrats that know being anti-Iraq after s omuch progress has been made is political suicide. The nutroots won’t go there they’ll whine and scratch and claw till the bitter end. That is the goal.

Imagine a Henry Cuellar and Ned Lamont situation happening nationwide. We can do that if we give the Democrats with some sense a way to save face when they support Iraq.

It’s Noonan in America.

LOL!

I’ll bet she wishes she’d said that.

I am more surprised at the hateful back biting critical comments about her writing and her character arrogance…
AprilOrit on September 1, 2007 at 2:49 AM

Sorry, I had to fix that for you.
I have seen you level accusations on commentators in here that had no basis reality since you couldn’t know and it was simply not cool.
I think you know what I mean. All I ask is that you never do it again.

But here is the thing, we are simply pointing out where Peggy is wrong and you call it hateful?
That’s what you did to those commentators in an earlier post. So of course since you practice it you would know?
No, you just throw it at people who criticize Peggy whom you apparently identify with.

You also didn’t like Karl Rove calling out the elitist among us.
So in the true nature of Karl Rove I have flagged you as a biased elitist.

(Bonus points if you are a tall redhead) ;)

President Bush can make a lot of improvements in his Iraq war strategy, but reaching out to the left is not one of them. The only thing I have to extend to the anti war left is my middle finger.

austinnelly on September 1, 2007 at 9:24 AM

Very well put. We can not negotiate with tribes of fatalistic, 7th century goat-herders any more than we can with the leftists. Both are so blinded by either ideology or hatred (or both), reason is lost on them.

Mistakes HAVE been made

tgillian on September 1, 2007 at 8:14 AM

I don’t think anyone ever said mistakes haven’t been made. Nobody ever said the prosecution of the war was perfect. We got our a**es kicked in WWII a couple of times too. The difference was, we didn’t have a large part of the population or the opposition party telling us we needed to pull out, start talking to Hitler, and impeach Roosevelt because he masterminded Pearl Harbor. I’ve believed in the war from the beginning and have despaired at all the missteps we have made. I’ve almost wanted to give up just because of all the politics we’ve injected into it, making our troops suffer because of the indecisive spinelessness of our political leadership. But, I don’t see anything, not one g**damn thing that the anti war left has been correct about. Give peace a chance with a bunch of headchoppers? Retreat from a bunch of 3rd rate cavemen with roadside bombs? Retreat worked real well for us back in 1993 during the Blackhawk down incident, didn’t it? The only reason the left is against this war is because they hate GWB and are indifferent to America. If BJ Clinton had fought it, they would be marginalized and largely silent. President Bush can make a lot of improvements in his Iraq war strategy, but reaching out to the left is not one of them. The only thing I have to extend to the anti war left is my middle finger.

stop acting like he’s right on everything!

Strawmen that large usual are found at Burning Man, aren’t they? NOBODY on this site thinks the President is right on everything, and have quite a few problems with his administration vis a vis immigration, spending, not prosecuting the war hard enough, etc.

Ms. Noonan is suggesting that the one thing he is strongest on, is that which he should cave in and abandon. She has been sighing and affecting a tone of weary ennui since 2004. Why listen to her now if she has been silly for over three years now?

I am more surprisewd at the hateful back biting comments about her and her character…

AprilOrit on September 1, 2007 at 2:49 AM

Gee, april, why could that be? Could it be because of lines she penned, such as:

…
What we often see instead, lately, is the last refuge of the adolescent: defiance
…
They have been called thuggish. Is this wholly unfair?
…
What is needed is simple maturity
…
It would certainly require the mature ability to come to agreement with those you otherwise hate, and the guts to summon the help of, and admit you need the help of, the other side.
…
I think they understand him to be saying, I got you into this, I reaped the early rewards, I rubbed your noses in it, and now you have to save the situation.
…
Would it help if he credited those who opposed him with not only good motives but actual wisdom?
…
I don’t see how the president’s supporters can summon grace from others when they so rarely show it themselves.

No one was worse to her than she was to many.

Wow. I’m surprised at all the anti-Peggy sentiment

.

I am more surprisewd at the hateful back biting comments about her and her character…

Again, it’s sounding more like one of those “lib sites” you all condemn….

Friday, August 31, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

saying: (italics mine)

Would it help if he (Bush) credited those who opposed him with not only good motives but actual wisdom?

Now President Bush had no time to do any of the butt kissing she suggested, but here comes Harry Reid later in the day, conceding:

“I don’t think we have to think that our way is the only way,” Reid said of specific dates during an interview in his office here.

So to the panderers……

Theworldisnotenough on August 31, 2007 at 8:30 PM
Giving the Democrats room to track right and support the war makes them all the more likely to do so.

……just how did that happen?

Maybe the brainy metro sexuals such as the Bradkys of the world could explain that?

Bradsky-slammed-moronic-tools like me are inquiring (”I have marked you as a moronic tool”).

We either fight the fundamentalist Muslims over there or here. Sorry Peg but you’re wrong on this one.

Wow. I’m surprised at all the anti-Peggy sentiment.

Allahpundit on August 31, 2007 at 1:56 PM

Ms. Noonan lost me forever when she whined about being “tired” because of all the drama and history occurring…this in 2004. While I was many months into my OEF V tour. I came back from an 11 hour foot patrol, one where I got stuck on a #$%&*ing cliffside at Ashrafkhel that was full of mines. I read her snivelling the next #$%& day and about threw the computer across the room. Poor tired baby…

And WE can admit to errors the President’s made because WE are offering the criticisms in good faith; something notably absent from the howling noise machine he’s faced since before he ever took office.

Ms. Noonan’s not thought this through. She really hasn’t come to grips with what Bush would get from making such a set of concessions, and why any of his opponents would be satisfied by them. Why act conciliatory when you’ve made the man so radioactive you can’t be in the same room with him? There’s no climbing down for the other side, so the bargaining range is degenerate.

Peggy is right on as usual. Are the conservatives in this thread going to ignore Bushs enormous errors over the past 5 years? Well if you can admit them to yourself why shouldn’t the President admit them?

What America wants is progress in Iraq, no matter what Frank Luntz tells you. Now that we are making progress the Democrats are in a precarious position. Do they A) Stick their fingers in their ears screaming “liar, liar liar!” or B) Do they nuance their position to now support the war and finish building Iraq? The latter being the sane choice, the choice Blue Dogs absolutely want to make and the choice that a great many other Democrats want to make. Bush can allow them to more easily make that choice by admitting his own glaring mistakes. That is the smart thing to do. It is common sense. No one and I mean no one admires or roots for the person that is too rpoud to admit they were wrong. We know this in our personal lives what makes anyone think it would be any different on a national scale?

Giving the Democrats room to track right and support the war makes them all the more likely to do so. Isn’t that what you want? Or are we a bunch of vindictive children? We can take the high road to piercing the heart of those we like least… progressives. The sweet, sweet sound of the code pink anguish as the political clout they thought they had dries up like a raisin in the sun. The marginalization of the liberal left is at hand!

Another benefit to conservatives is that we get to run against Democrats with their own rhetoric. How effective a campaign can they run when they spend most of their time trying to nuance their votes and comments about Iraq? Nevada is not as liberal as harry Reid is, remember he got ambushed by some vets? Nancy Pelosi in a head scarf makes for good campaign ads. Conservatives could make Nancy Pelosi such a black eye to the party she might not run for reelection, no way a Republican can win that seat.

Someone’s rumored campaign theme features unity.

Pearl Harbor . . . Wasn’t that just a movie ! ! !

Peggy. . . . Peggy.

Writing a few decent speeches for the Great Communicator two decades ago obviously does not make one knowledgable about anything other than stringing a few words together. liberator9 on August 31, 2007 at 3:21 PM

I’m sure Peggy Noonan drafted well; just like I’m sure that Reagan’s tailer was highly skilled at his job…

And the two of them had just about the same say in deciding Ronald Reagan’s policies.

Propaganda works. People on both sides of the isle have been influenced by the infinitely repeated “fact” that Ronald Reagan was an empty suit mindlessly repeating whatever any speechwriter happened to hand him from one moment to the next. And, like most propaganda, absolutely nothing could be further from the truth.

But, all that fluff doesn’t detract from the fact that she’s wrong on this issue. Period.

John from OPFOR on August 31, 2007 at 2:01 PM

Yes, Sir! I’ve always liked her writing style, while not having agreed entirely with her topics, though more in agreement than disagreement. Today she confirmed more than usual her pretty zany side. Perhaps out of idealism…It’s sad when such assumed tough souls go mooshy, for whatever reason.

I like to think I have a pretty good memory for these things, but Hot Air commenter GeorgeJ reached way down the memory hole and pulled out a memo from 2003. It’s by a Democratic staffer in the Senate Intelligence……

Initially they did…for COMBAT (as expected). What wasn’t factored in was Iraq’s Sunni population suddenly devoid of their “status” as ruling party.

What Bush needs to say is that he should have taken the reccomendations of an actual Army General over those of a suit and tie. An Army General who knew that COMBAT is not the only phase of a war.

Then he needs to tell the nation that although it will be difficult on the American citizen, he is going to implement the previously ignored information and put 300,000-500,000 boots on the ground.

Why? The BORDERS. I mean absolutely no disrespect to our Army and Marines, but they are being directed to do the impossible. 1) with limited troops, they are told to stop the flow of “adverse materials” into Iraq. 2) they are severly handcuffed in rules of engagement when they are in the middle of door to door fighting.

To address 1), you simply need people. Lots more. At LEAST double the current forces with the surge included. If you cannot physically establish a real front line, the contraband will get through with “acceptable losses” to those providing the materials. Look at the US “War on Drugs.” We have no front line. We have patrols. Nothing more than an annoyance to the Cartels. Occasionally, we score big, but multiply by at least 100 the stuff that gets through.

To address 2) anyone holding a weapon is dead meat while our boys are clearing house to house. No demands to drop the weapon, no holding off on pulling the trigger to let them fire a couple of rounds and then toss down the weapon to spare their own worthless life. The demands to drop weapons come before busting down the door. If no compliance, anyone inside is a target.

Would a rules of engagement change like that be an outrage to anti-military folks? You bet. However, it is necessary. Our faithful Soldiers and Marines and Navy corpsman and Air Force forward observers cannot be expected to enter into urban combat on a daily basis and give the enemy “the benefit of the doubt.” Unless, of course, they “deserve” to be killed because they volunteered.

This country needs to wake up. Since the War of 1812, this nation has had little trouble crushing it’s enemies in direct combat. Our military power hasn’t been in dispute for quite some time. What has been is our willingness to do the right thing to see a war through to it’s end. Iraq, currently, is indeed an extension of Korea and Vietnam just as the Gulf War was…the troops perform brilliantly and are are leashed by politics. When will it end?

Of course domestically:

• The MSM would portray the glass half full rather than bone dry empty;
• Republicans wouldn’t be encouraging the enemy by using cut and run politics;
• Abu Graib would have been dismissed as juvenile pranks and hazing;
• The terrorist wiretapping and financial programs would still be secret;
• Gitmo would be far better treatment than terrorist captives have any right to;
• Valerie Plame would be as secret and covert as she ever was.

There is/was no way for this administration to “force” fairness from the MSM or dimorats’ craven vote for war then backstab for politics. Blame the victim is just another way to “seem” moderate and sophisticated.

When running for president Bush made no pretense about his partisanship or lack thereof. Remember “New Tone”. Remember “Compassionate Conservative”. Remember “No Chile Left Behind”. Remember in Texas he won them over.

Shoulda Coulda Woulda been a Tough Guy? Hit’em Hard, Play the Politics of Destruction? That’s some other fella.

If this war fails and genocidal terrorism ensues it will not be because Bush didn’t win over the craven vandals, it will be because we didn’t stand up to them. Frankly if all you can do is crybaby over blaming Bush, IMO you’re no better than them.

When America needed to be united, so-called “leaders” of the Democratic Party in the Senate worked to sabotage the war effort for political gain.

Four years ago, Fox News put Jay Rockefeller’s memo online. Here it is.

We have carefully reviewed our options under the rules and believe we have identified the best approach. Our plan is as follows:

1) Pull the majority along as far as we can on issues that may lead to major new disclosures regarding improper or questionable conduct by administration officials. We are having some success in that regard. For example, in addition to the president’s State of the Union speech, the chairman has agreed to look at the activities of the Office of the Secretary of Defense as well as Secretary Bolton’s office at the State Department. The fact that the chairman supports our investigations into these offices and co-signs our requests for information is helpful and potentially crucial. We don’t know what we will find but our prospects for getting the access we seek is far greater when we have the backing of the majority. (Note: we can verbally mention some of the intriguing leads we are pursuing.)

2) Assiduously prepare Democratic “additional views” to attach to any interim or final reports the committee may release. Committee rules provide this opportunity and we intend to take full advantage of it. In that regard, we have already compiled all the public statements on Iraq made by senior administration officials. We will identify the most exaggerated claims and contrast them with the intelligence estimates that have since been declassified. Our additional views will also, among other things, castigate the majority for seeking to limit the scope of the inquiry. The Democrats will then be in a strong position to reopen the question of establishing an independent commission (i.e. the Corzine amendment).

3) Prepare to launch an independent investigation when it becomes clear we have exhausted the opportunity to usefully collaborate with the majority. We can pull the trigger on an independent investigation at any time– but we can only do so once. The best time to do so will probably be next year either:

A) After we have already released our additional views on an interim report — thereby providing as many as three opportunities to make our case to the public: 1) additional views on the interim report; 2) announcement of our independent investigation; and 3) additional views on the final investigation; or

B) Once we identify solid leads the majority does not want to pursue. We could attract more coverage and have greater credibility in that context than one in which we simply launch an independent investigation based on principled but vague notions regarding the “use” of intelligence.

In the meantime, even without a specifically authorized independent investigation, we continue to act independently when we encounter foot-dragging on the part of the majority. For example, the FBI Niger investigation was done solely at the request of the vice chairman; we have independently submitted written questions to DoD; and we are preparing further independent requests for information.

Summary

Intelligence issues are clearly secondary to the public’s concern regarding the insurgency in Iraq. Yet, we have an important role to play in the revealing the misleading — if not flagrantly dishonest methods and motives — of the senior administration officials who made the case for a unilateral, preemptive war. The approach outline above seems to offer the best prospect for exposing the administration’s dubious motives and methods.

Former Senator Zell Miller, himself a Democrat, called this treason or it’s first cousin.

Noonan can go screw herself.

Well, here it is:

Americans have always been somewhat romantic about the meaning of our country, and the beacon it can be for the world, and what the Founders did. But they like the president to be the cool-eyed realist, the tough customer who understands harsh realities.

With Mr. Bush it is the people who are forced to be cool-eyed and realistic. He’s the one who goes off on the toots. This is extremely irritating, and also unnatural. Actually it’s weird. …

Americans can’t fire the president right now, so they’re waiting it out. They can tell a pollster how they feel, and they do, and they can tell friends, and they do that too. They also watch the news conference, and grit their teeth a bit.

This isn’t a one-off column. She’s got one leg over the fence.

Who can say for sure that the Rumsfeld/small foot strategy was the wrong one? Sure, the surge is working now, but would it have worked in 2003? Maybe the surge is working precisely because the Sunnis spent a couple years with AQ as neighbors/overlords and didn’t like the results.

Who can say for sure that disbanding the Iraqi army was a mistake? Would the mainstream Shi’ites have stayed on board if the new Iraqi army was the old Iraqi army that had gassed them, but with new uniforms?

Same goes for De-Baathification, elections, government organization, etc etc. Sure, some things did not go well at all, but that doesn’t mean the alternative would have been any better.