Boehner: Democrats “in denial” about Iraq
posted at 6:00 pm on February 10, 2008 by Bryan
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Both House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Minority Leader John Boehner appeared on CNN’s Late Edition today. Pelosi went out of her way yet again to downplay success in Iraq since the surge:
BLITZER: The president says, quote, “The surge is working. I know some don’t want to admit that and I understand, but the terrorists understand the surge is working.”
Is the surge working?
PELOSI: The president is wrong in several respects. First of all, the military aspect of the surge is working. And God bless our troops. They’ve performed excellently. And any time they engage in battle, we want them to succeed. The president knows that. He shouldn’t say we don’t want admit that that military aspect of the surge is working.
PELOSI: But the purpose of the surge was to create a secure time for the government of Iraq to make the political change to bring reconciliation to Iraq. They have not done that.
BLITZER: But they’ve taken some steps…
(CROSSTALK)
BLITZER: … on the Baathists being allowed to come back…
PELOSI: … baby steps, very late — to the point that the generals in Iraq — and I think we had this conversation before — have said the biggest obstacle to reconciliation in Iraq is not the Iranian militias or the Sunni militias or the Al Qaida terrorists. It is the government of Iraq. Because they have not acted.
BLITZER: I spoke with General David Petraeus, the U.S. military commander in Iraq. And he pointed to all the statistics showing that casualties are down; stability is coming to the Al Anbar province, elsewhere.
And the increased troops that they sent over for the surge — they’ll be back out by July or so. But he then said this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEN. DAVID PETRAEUS, COMMANDER, MULTINATIONAL FORCES, IRAQ: We will, though, need to have some time to let things settle a bit, if you will, after we complete the withdrawal. We think it would be prudent to do some period of assessment, then, to make decisions.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: He’s basically suggesting there should be a pause, this summer, to assess where it stands, so that all of the gains will not have been lost, squandered. Are you open to that?
PELOSI: We will be entering the sixth year of this war in about another month, March 19. It will be five years that we’ve been in this war, over a year and a half longer than we were in World War II.
We all know the history, the mistakes, the bad judgment, and the rest. I believe that stability will come to the region and that stability can only begin when we begin the redeployment of our troops out of Iraq. That’s what the generals tell us, the retired generals.
Certainly, we have to leave a few people there to protect our embassy, for force protection, to fight the terrorists and that.
BLITZER: Are you not worried, though, that all the gains that have been achieved over the past year might be lost?
PELOSI: There haven’t been gains, Wolf. The gains have not produced the desired effect, which is the reconciliation of Iraq. This is a failure. This is a failure.
Am I the only one who finds it odd that Democrats keep referring to “retired generals” to back up their case, when the general who is actually in command probably knows a bit more about what’s going on in Iraq? That would be Gen. Petraeus, whom the Democrats’ MoveOn masters smeared as “General Betray Us.”
As for the military surge creating the time window in which the Iraqi government could get on with reconciliation, aren’t we in that time window now? Does the Democrat noise to pull troops out help our hurt the environment?
House Minority Leader John Boehner appeared on the show after Pelosi, and said that she and the other Democrats are “in denial.”
Boehner has the better argument. The Democrats almost to a man opposed the surge and have actively fought it for a year now. Harry Reid declared the war “lost” before all the surge troops were even in place, while the Democrats have all along insisted that the idea that the surge was working was a fantasy. Reid also said that no matter what Gen. Petraeus said during his testimony last fall, it wouldn’t matter. Sen. Hillary Clinton concurred.
But now that even Pelosi has to recognize that the surge has worked militarily, the Democrats are shifting to accelerating pulling out because the Iraqi government hasn’t met each and every benchmark of success yet. Pelosi and her ilk are dangerously irresponsible and in denial of the fact that they have been dead wrong about the surge for a year and that their unnamed retired generals are wrong now. These people have never wanted to give either the surge or the Iraqi government one of the most important things that both needed to be able to reach success: Time.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
About Iraq–and a thousand other things.
davidk on February 10, 2008 at 6:07 PM
Less likely it’s denial and more likely it’s political cya (as best you can) and hope the press aids and abets.
BobH on February 10, 2008 at 6:08 PM
Blitzer: The President said the surge-
Pelosi: (fingers in her ears) LALALALALALALALALALA!
Blitzer: -has worked, Gen. Petraeus says-
Pelosi: (fingers in her ears) LALALALALALALALALALA!
ThePrez on February 10, 2008 at 6:13 PM
the larger problem isn’t pelosi and reid so much as the base of the party they are pandering to who are hopeless, if not pathetic group of people. and the fact that they are so partisian they know that admitting victory in Iraq hurts them and helps Bush/GOP….its disgusting to say the least
jp on February 10, 2008 at 6:14 PM
I think the Democrat narrative will evolve from saying that the war is “lost” into saying that it just isn’t worth the sacrifice anymore. They will agree the surge is a success and say we should now leave Iraq while we are on the upswing and let them take over their own country. If the Iraqi’s can’t maintain order without us, oh well.
Unfortunately the war is still not popular and this line of thinking might resonate. McCain’s remark about staying in Iraq for “100 years” will be used against him in the general. That was a dumb mistake on his part, giving a sound bite to the other side. His little song about bombing Iran won’t help either.
echosyst on February 10, 2008 at 6:15 PM
Here’s the memo by Manuel Miranda regarding the inability of state department officials to handle the executive tasks required of them in Iraq.
Romney has shown himself capable of fixing the biggest messes ever made, he should take over executive leadership in Iraq. He’s the Patreus of leadership.
Read the memo, then ask yourself: who else could fix this mess? Maybe the fates worked it out so that he would be available to serve in this way. By the way, if he does fix this, he’s a lock for POTUS 2012.
He should call Condi and remind her that there’s only a few months left of the Bush administration, and no one could fix this mess in just the few short months left, but if PUT ON THE RIGHT TRACK, the new POTUS would allow him to continue, and maybe, just maybe, we could get this thing fixed.
JustTruth101 on February 10, 2008 at 6:19 PM
Dat be true.
Always Right on February 10, 2008 at 6:21 PM
We have had 50 years of welfare and Big Society programs and there is still poverty will liberals admit they are failures ?
William Amos on February 10, 2008 at 6:24 PM
Sorry meant Great Society dont want to sell it short on failure
William Amos on February 10, 2008 at 6:25 PM
I didn’t have the opportunity to see the whole interview.
Did Boehner cry…again?
sandman on February 10, 2008 at 6:26 PM
Those retired generals are from the era of large standing armies made up mostly of canon fodder infantrymen. That was fine for their day, but this is a new day of smaller, more mobile units of highly trained soldiers/sailors/marines. More emphasis on special forces/seal teams, etc. They are last century. They are also green-eyed with envy at their younger counterparts, who have moved on to the new day with success.
What I don’t get is Jim Webb. He was one of the first I ever heard talk about what would be needed for the Navy of the future and that was well over 20 years ago. He was the one claiming that we needed smaller very mobile forces placed in key locations around the world that could be quick response teams. Now that he has been proved right, he seems to have reverted to the old, out-of-date thinking.
Pal2Pal on February 10, 2008 at 6:26 PM
Of course these armchair retired generals were the ones that couldn’t get the job done in the first place, right? Which is why they are Retired…
What the democrats are not in denial about is loosing the war.
They want to lose. Badly.
Kini on February 10, 2008 at 6:31 PM
The Democrats can’t be trusted to run a bake sale, never mind foreign policy. I almost understand those who hope a Democrat wins the White House in November just so that the voters will see how craven and inept they are, but the consequences of that will be catastrophic.
flipflop on February 10, 2008 at 6:42 PM
Both the Democrats and Republicans are in denial about Iraq.
2Brave2Bscared on February 10, 2008 at 6:45 PM
Pelosi is an absolute disgrace. They know things are improving, but they are going to play the failure card all the way until November. Then if the Dem candidate gets elected, watch how their tone will change…
WisCon on February 10, 2008 at 6:45 PM
My greater fear is that they won’t change their tone and will “redeploy” the troops letting Iraq fall into sectarian carnage and allowing AQI to move back in. It’ll be another post-Soviet Afghanistan.
flipflop on February 10, 2008 at 6:52 PM
Pelosi is a real house leader, so we got Joan Rivers to deliver her press conference.
2Tru2Tru on February 10, 2008 at 6:54 PM
Clearly, Pelosi is not serious about Iraq. She just says whatever she thinks will produce the desired effect.
petefrt on February 10, 2008 at 6:57 PM
Is AP at the Pro Bowl today?
The Blogger Pro Bowl, where they have their annual banquet alfresco at Nathan’s?
jaime on February 10, 2008 at 7:05 PM
Iraq is why the Republicans can win in November. Just keep pushing Iraq, Iraq, Iraq, down the throats of the media with speeches, TV ads, radio ads, Internet ads, and talking points. The words “We’re winning in Iraq and the Republicans support victory,” should be the first thing out of every conservative mouth who is interviewed about the election. Keep pushing it in their face over and over. I guarantee victory in the presidential election and solid pick-ups in Congress if this is done. The polls will swing to the GOP as Americans hear the truth. Secondly, make this issue about the Truth. The Democrats don’t want the American people to learn the truth. The Iraq issue will override everything else for conservative and independent voters.
indythinker on February 10, 2008 at 7:07 PM
echosyst:
But if you’re right, isn’t that a tacit admission that we’re engaged in nation-building? And isn’t that hugely expensive?
We’re now reduced to arguing that if American troops leave Iraq, chaos will follow. But that’s far afield from the reason we originally went in. We invaded Iraq believing, in good faith, that Saddam was still and yet in possession of weapons of mass destruction, which he might hand off to terrorists for use against us or our allies. We did not invade to build roads, schools and hospitals for Iraqis, or to oversee the deliberations of a foreign parliament.
Maintaining civil order in Iraq may justify our continued presence there. But if so, we should admit that this new goal is only an attenuated version of our original mission.
Bryan himself acknowledges that the Iraqis have failed to meet at least some of the political benchmarks set for them. What’s the purpose of setting benchmarks if we remain whether the Iraqis meet them or not?
The military surge has worked, as even Pelosi admits. We’ve reduced the violence against our troops and the Iraqi people. But if Iraq’s domestic tranquility requires our indefinite, large-scale and costly presence, what, exactly, have we “won”?
paul006 on February 10, 2008 at 7:13 PM
What I find amazing over the last several years is how Pelosi and Reid have been aiding and abetting the enemy and that their followers (Da Dems) allow this to continue. Pelosi and Reid should be sent into exile in Iran and indictments should be handed down to all the corrupt members of the Mainstream Media (MSM). If the Dems win in November, they will be rewarded for their disgusting behavior in a time of war. And the Dems have also been aided and abetted by the corrupt media who have done nothing but dumb down the American people with their American idol mentality. Disgusting.
Travis1 on February 10, 2008 at 7:19 PM
The more I think about it, the more I don’t think they will. They periodically talk like Pelosi today to satiate the moonbats, but are they really willing to throw away all the sacrifices our troops have made? Unless our efforts there fall apart, I bet they say they will “change the strategy” or something and play up the humanitarian aspect so they can take credit for it. There’s no question that Iraq will become a terrorist haven if we allow it fail…do the Dems want to be in charge when that happens?
WisCon on February 10, 2008 at 7:23 PM
The final verdict on Iraq will come from the American people. It won’t be a question of whether we can win it or not because we have and we can. The question becomes at what cost? I supported the war and I want to finish the job but I am becoming concerned about the cost in human terms and real dollars.
For most people, the case for war in Iraq as part of the GWOT was too abstract. Yes it would be better if we had a stable, somewhat democratic Iraq that is an ally but do we believe that Al Qaeda could still not find another 20 people to launch another attack inside the US? Is this the best use of our time and resources? Our internal enforcement in our own country still sucks and that will continue under McCain.
At this point a win in Iraq is a moral and propaganda victory for the US which is important but can we sustain it for another 10 years in terms of cost? Hopefully we can draw down there and work on doing a better job domestically. I think most in this country could rally around that. The question we have to ask ourselves is would we want to send our own sons to Iraq, knowing what we know today?
The sad fact is there are dozens of other third world shitholes that radical Muslims can use to train and plan to attack us. Iraq is a great long term play because it can be a beacon of hope and an example for Muslims but we must remember a representative government will not necessarily produce a moderate one.
echosyst on February 10, 2008 at 7:31 PM
Really, Nancy? She couldn’t possible have said this with a straight face.
SouthernGent on February 10, 2008 at 7:34 PM
But Nancy honey, we only had to fight the real enemy in WWII and not most of our elected
fools, ertoolser…government and their media lackeys. We also didn’t have to fight it with both our hands tied behind our backs and blindfolded. Take the PC out of war, let the military fight and see what happens. Loved the headscarf babe.Oldnuke on February 10, 2008 at 7:37 PM
Botox has made it possible for Nancy to say anything with a straight face.
Oldnuke on February 10, 2008 at 7:40 PM
Is the idea of “Bush’s War” being successful or at least improving so traumatic to the Dems that they continue to go out of their way to suggest things haven’t at least improved?
Unfortunately, it seems so.
Yakko77 on February 10, 2008 at 7:41 PM
Aengus: The Iraqi people are incapable of establishing a sustainable, functioning liberal democracy with or without US military support. This is due to the fundamental thinking in Islam.
ThePrez: (fingers in his ears) LALALALALALALALALALA!
aengus on February 10, 2008 at 7:42 PM
Or they could train in Michigan or Minneapolis. Or Chicago. Or Texas. We’re fighting them over there so… (Oh, wait)
aengus on February 10, 2008 at 7:48 PM
Touche’!
SouthernGent on February 10, 2008 at 8:01 PM
Pelosi might have in mind retired generals like Michael McConnell, whose report last week to congress did not paint a hopeful picture of our war of terror, with al Qaeda still posing significant threats to the United States at home and abroad. Iraq might show some (temporary) progress (I guess you can buy anyone — even an Iraqi insurgent — if the price is right), but the hatred of America on the ground in the average Iraqi village appears to be almost irreversible.
Drum on February 10, 2008 at 8:02 PM
That’s a good point, and I can see the Dems continuing the present course and couching it in terms of cleaning up the mess from the previous administration.
flipflop on February 10, 2008 at 8:06 PM
There is no more Democratic Party. The moment people like Pelosi and Reid started taking their marching orders from Moveon.org and DailyKoz, what was once the Democratic Party vanished at that point and was replaced by what we could best call the New Order Of Soros, as in George Soros, who pretty much funds both outfits and who has people like Pelosi and Reid so deep in his pockets that he can pretty much do whatever he likes and have these people say whatever he wants them to say. It has now gotten to the place that I am wondering why the former Democratic Party is even having primaries this year. Soros pretty much already knows who he wants as the candidate, so why not just name them and completely avoid the waste of time that a convention would be at this point. Or maybe he is just playing this whole thing out for his own amusement, being the Master Puppeteer that he is.
pilamaye on February 10, 2008 at 8:12 PM
Pelosi and Reid should consider themselves lucky that Congress hasn’t been held to benchmarks, or we’d be kicking their butts out of Washington.
ctmom on February 10, 2008 at 8:22 PM
If the Dem’s think the good news out of Iraq is bad they should love this
http://www.nypost.com/seven/02102008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/winning_afghanistan_282753.htm
Anyone else noticing a pattern? Where the US military is in charge of a area things get better. Where the Europeans are in charge things tend to fall apart. We won’t even go into what happens when the UN takes charge of a area.
warren on February 10, 2008 at 8:29 PM
I think Polesi is on crack again,heres how it looks.
1-She’s trying to fire up the Anti-War moonbats,
with Code Pinko’s esteemed leader Medea Benjamin
again.Trying to get the moonbats in a twizzy to
take the focus off the infighting between Barrack
and ConHillary or;
2-Pelosi is coming out of the fog from the “State of the
Union Address” and is still in denial about how effective
the surge really worked,And is still stuck on stupid
repeating the same montra!
canopfor on February 10, 2008 at 8:31 PM
Naahh, she’s just trying to get them out of her front yard.
Oldnuke on February 10, 2008 at 8:50 PM
Just today another 33 Iraqis were wiped out (another 45 were injured) in a car bomb attack. Who exactly is in denial about the “success” of the surge?
factoid on February 10, 2008 at 9:08 PM
How much more time do we give the Iraqi government? Another 5 years? I have a nephew who’s going to be deployed, again, to Afghanistan and another nephew in basic right now at Ft. Bennig. Do I tell my 7 year-old son to “get ready” because he’ll probably have to go when he’s 18 to fight a war that was started when he was 2????
I’m REALLY pro military, and I’ve been REALLY patient, but sheesh. How much longer do we keep this up before we bankrupt our country?
pullingmyhairout on February 10, 2008 at 9:19 PM
Drinking the MSM kool-aid are we?
Try reading Yon, Totten or Sanchez instead of LAT, NYT, or WaPo.
Kowboy on February 10, 2008 at 9:25 PM
I sure hope the Iraq governmet make some more gains that can use by November
KBird on February 10, 2008 at 9:28 PM
Naahh,she’s just trying to get them out of her front yard.
Oldnuke on February 10,2008 at 8:50PM.
Oldnuke: Hehe,I wish;Like daddilions on the lawn,
Moonbats in her front yard as far as the
eyes can see!
canopfor on February 10, 2008 at 9:43 PM
Backatcha: try reading something other than Yon and Michael Totten.
Drum on February 10, 2008 at 10:01 PM
They are dead wrong.
Pelosi is dead wrong. She knows it.
It’s all about misdirection, the deceit and the Dems inability to get anything done worth a damn.
This whole never ending bit is a planned DISTRACTION to keep any and all questions from being asked about the promises made by the Dems in ‘06.
The first 100 days, integrity, honor, etc.( not good suits for the left anyway)
Can you imagine if Peloser and the Dems didn’t have Iraq or the Surge to fall back on, to hide behind?
The press might ask them:
” What the heck have YOU been doing for the last year?”
Pelosi’s rhetoric reminds me of the 2nd grade bickering ‘I know you are but what am I?’ It’s about as valuable too.
shooter on February 10, 2008 at 10:02 PM
What are you some kind of leftist? Paultard? Read Michael Yon for christ’s sake!
Seriously, your guess is as good as mine and if John McCain has his way, we will be there for decades and they’ll be plenty more wars to disrupt the lives of millions.
This, my friend, is conservatism.
Drum on February 10, 2008 at 10:03 PM
Do I tell my 7 year old son to “get ready” because he’ll
probably have to go when he’s 18 to fight a war that was
started when he was 2????.
pullingmyhairout on February 10,2008 at 9:19PM.
Pullingmyhairout:Seriously thank-you for your families
Military service,and absolutely no
disrespect to you,but the truth be told if this war was
faught as do or die World War Two,this would of been over
a while ago.And the other problem is these Islamicfachists
have been at war for over 2000 years,the United States
certainly didn’t go over and poke a stick in theirs eyes
to start this up,but hopefully,unlike McCains 100 year
comment the United States Military can speed up the union
and an unholy union at that of Jihads meets virgins!
canopfor on February 10, 2008 at 10:05 PM
Dude, it is a mess. The people of Iraq are not in denial and they want us out of there.
Interesting that the reasons for staying used to be to set up some sort of democratic regime. When that didn’t work out (because we really don’t believe in democracy so long as it turns out to be a regime that we won’t abide), our reason for staying was to ensure stability and avoid bloodbath. Now that that hasn’t worked, even Pelosi confesses that our reason for staying is to protect our embassy, which of course means that we are never leaving. She knows it and Boehner knows it. This is all a sideshow.
Drum on February 10, 2008 at 10:11 PM
Dear Osama Bin Laden & posse,
Sit tight my terrorist brothers. In less than a year Hillary, Harry and I will begin removing those pesky American troops who have made you turn tail and run from Iraq. Pay no attention to that General who has been kicking your a$$ for the last nine months. There is no need to spill the blood of another jihadist. Be patient. Your time will come again, and when it does the Democrats will be in control here in America, so you need not fear any military reprisals.
I know when you get this message and you hear the good news, you will really, really like us again. And that’s all that matters.
Your pal,
Nancy
fogw on February 10, 2008 at 10:12 PM
Here is Totten: “It is, of course, possible that I’ve met someone who would kidnap me if I didn’t have the Marines as my bodyguards, but the overwhelming majority of Fallujans wouldn’t hurt me even if they do hate my guts for being American.”
This is pathetic. “Marines as my bodyguards.” Why don’t you try reading an unembedded reporter whose only defense are the cab drivers and interpreters he pays 25 dollars a day to take him around to meet people on their terms, not the occupation’s terms.
Drum on February 10, 2008 at 10:22 PM
How do you know this to be true? How many tours have you had in Iraq? How many Iraqi’s have you spoken to? How many Iraqi families have you touched with your kindness? How many Iraqi children have smiled and thanked you for giving them a safe neighborhood to play in again?
You don’t know squat.
You only know what you read or hear.
fogw on February 10, 2008 at 10:22 PM
Who do you know that is in uniform and served there who had told you that? You are spending too many hours in front of the TV.
Been there, done that. Have you?
gstrickler on February 10, 2008 at 10:29 PM
I spend zero time in front of the tv or reading the MSM. Say what you will, there is nothing that will convince me that this war is a good thing or a success.
Drum on February 10, 2008 at 10:35 PM
Thanks.
Nancy.
fogw on February 10, 2008 at 10:38 PM
As for my bona fides — the implication is that one mustn’t criticize the war if one hasn’t served, been to Iraq, or known someone who is serving — and thus I won’t share them with you precisely because you hold that presumption.
Drum on February 10, 2008 at 10:43 PM
Call me names. This war is wrong. If I’m wrong about that, then I guess I’ll burn in hell. I’m willing to take that chance.
Drum on February 10, 2008 at 10:47 PM
Thanks for sharing, Nancy.
It is this same narcissistic closed-mindedness that inhibits anything positive to be gleaned from Iraq.
You lose before you start.
.
Do you realize how selfish and childish that really is?
shooter on February 10, 2008 at 10:51 PM
Given your posturing on the war, I would think you would consider it a badge of honor to be called Nancy.
fogw on February 10, 2008 at 10:51 PM
Pelosi supported this war. She speaks out against it for political reasons. She’s not against it. If she were, she’d have done something to end it, as would Reid.
My feeling is that we either leave, or we learn to occupy in the grand old traditional empire manner, e.g. England in India and Africa. Americans don’t have it in them to undertake the latter, and thus if we don’t leave, the suffering all round will only continue and we’ll be diverted from the broader war on terror.
Drum on February 10, 2008 at 10:59 PM
Here’s more proof of how stupid Bush is. The fact that he continued a war one minute longer than WW II shows he doesn’t understand tactics, strategy or world affairs. And if we keep the focus on Bush no one will remember that congress voted for every last cent to make it happen.
snaggletoothie on February 10, 2008 at 11:01 PM
Total BS.
You created that interpretation out of thin air. No one here played that game with you. You claimed to know exactly what was happening on the ground in Iraq and how the Iraqi’s felt about our presence there. You were called on it and asked to explain where you get your “solid” information from.
It was never about your criticizing of the war per se, it was about where you get your information. If you weren’t there, or if you didn’t get your information directly from someone who was there, then just STFU because your personal opinion doesn’t carry any weight.
Quit playing games.
fogw on February 10, 2008 at 11:02 PM
There is no question that major mistakes have been made in running this war, mistakes that did not start getting corrected until GEN Petreaus took over, and even now, there are things that could be seriously improved.
However, there was also a serious series of blunders made on the sociopolitical side-blunders that, given the power of PC in our government today, may not have been avoidable.
The first and biggest blunder was (and still is) assuming that Democracy and Middle East Islam are compatible. Some 8 decades ago, a man named Ataturk knew they were not. So he deliberately suppressed Islam, forced it out of public and political life. Turkey is just now, in 2008, considering legalizing headscarves for the first time since Ataturk. Bush should have taken Ataturk, the only man so far to successfully democratize a Muslim nation (and even now there is conflict there) as his role model and shut Islam out of public and political life, no matter how much the PCers and Dems and UN et al squawked.
The second error was in accepting the power of the tribal sheiks. Any opposition at all should have been met with a bayonet, and cousin-marriage and polygamy should have been banned in order to force the people to marry non-relatives and thus break the power of the tribes and the sheiks.
But all of that would mean admitting that Islam and Islamic culture are not the equal of our Western Civilization,and our civilization is prepared to commit suicide rather than admit its own superiority to anything.
Western Civilization has passed its zenith, but it won’t die of murder-it wil die of assisted suicide.
Lancer on February 10, 2008 at 11:07 PM
Oh, and BTW, why is WW II the measure of all wars’ timelines nowadays? Snaggletoothie says Bush is stupid because he kept the war going “one minute longer” than WW II. By that measure, George Washington was an idiot because the Revolutionary War lasted far longer than WW II. One of the Seminole Wars lasted longer as well. The Civil War also lasted longer than our involvement in WW II and resulted in far more Americans dead than any other war. Hell, more Americans died in a few hours at Antietam than have died in Iraq since the beginning.
So to all you “But WW II wasn’t this long” whiners, I say, Shut It. WW II was not a typical war, any more than our first war against Iraq was. Each war is different, and to compare the war in Iraq or even Afghanistan (which has been going on even longer, incidentally) with WW II is simply naive if not intellectually dishonest.
Lancer on February 10, 2008 at 11:18 PM
Say what?
Drum on February 10, 2008 at 11:40 PM
How come the libs and the Dims don’t push for withdrawing our troops from Bosnia? Why the time they have been in Bosnia is probably longer than WWI and WWII combined. Speaking of which, why dont’ the libs and Dims push for withdrawing our troops from Germany. Why, they have been there for almost 63 years longer than it took to fight WWII.
Could the Dims at least get creative enough to come up with a new meme.
Mallard T. Drake on February 10, 2008 at 11:44 PM
Quite a forum where two posters in a row tell others to “shut up” or in the one case “shut the f*ck up.”
Drum on February 10, 2008 at 11:45 PM
See, here’s my gripe. Why not have the Boehner and the “botox belle” on at the same time to discuss the same issue! I’m sick and tired of this carefully scripted propoganda. Let Pelosi spout her nonsense and let Boehner call her a denier at the same time!
highhopes on February 10, 2008 at 11:46 PM
Drum is playing the cs devan offense. He’s expounding on a position, but will not admit his back-up or his sources. We are just supposed to take it on his word. I don’t know if he is playing the true CSD offense or a modification. If Drum starts calling us “bigots,” then it is the true CSD offense.
Mallard T. Drake on February 10, 2008 at 11:51 PM
Drum’s just a clueless troll trying to stir the pot. Unfortunately for him, he’s being beaten down with facts and not just “our word”. If he had anything substantive he’d have played that card by now.
Kowboy on February 10, 2008 at 11:57 PM
You might want to check out the article linked at this post. Then again, since you have your fingers in your ears and mush for your mind, you probably won’t.
Mallard T. Drake on February 11, 2008 at 12:12 AM
Kill jihadis whenever and wherever you can find them until they disappear from the face of the Earth.
That’s the war we’re in.
If they show up in Iraq, kill them there.
If the run from Afghanistan to Pakistan, kill them there.
Pu$$yfooting only delays the inevitable: killing jihadis.
The ROE have been the major mistake.
In short, letting them get away, by hiding in “mosques”, or skeedaddling “across the border” into [name your jihadi-harboring neighboring Muslim country).
Pelosi is a clueless crone.
Bush is a weak-kneed sucker.
Kill jihadis, or prepare for them to kill your Civilization.
Because their “holy” playbook is for an endless war to achieve a totalitarian theocratic terror state.
(Did I mention kill jihadis?)
profitsbeard on February 11, 2008 at 12:17 AM
Absolutely! I won’t deny that.
Drum on February 11, 2008 at 12:19 AM
Why are we to worry? We have Gen Hillary or Lord Obama on the way “To end this war” because that is what the PEOPLE want. We should just leave TODAY and beat them to it.
The PEOPLE want to be left alone by the governmet. Take a poll CNN FOX whoever and you will see.
TroubledMonkey on February 11, 2008 at 12:24 AM
Do you hear voices?
fogw on February 11, 2008 at 12:50 AM
These Democrats appear to be without any historical perspective at all. Revolutionary War 1775-1783–8 years–talk about a quagmire! And then not until 1787–4 years after the cessation of hostilities–was the Constitution completed, and then it took almost another two years for the government to be operational! She wants in 6 years what took us 12 to do, and we had some real talent working for us! What a dope.
smellthecoffee on February 11, 2008 at 12:59 AM
Actually…THAT right there should be THE GOP message for the general election:
The Dems Have FAILED.
Get the machine rolling, spend every cent reminding everyone who voted the Dems into power that the Dems have not accomplished anything at all, much less all the crap they promised. Spotlight Dingy Harry and The Wicked Witch of the West as the most inept congressional leaders of the most inept, do-nothing, congress in HISTORY.
See, no matter what happens, we’re going to get a POTUS who’s hostile to conservatives and the GOP in general. What we should be playing for now isn’t so much the White House as the congress. If McCain stumbles in, so be it, but odds are that it’ll more than likely be Evita or Obamma-mania. If we can regain control of congress, or at the very least close the gaps in the House and Senate, we can deny any of the possible POTUSes:
1. The ability to declare a mandate.
and
2. The ability to enact their most egregious policy projects, ie; Universal Health Care, Premature Withdrawl from Iraq, and Amnesty.
Support your local conservative GOP candidates for congress. If the incumbent was pro amnesty, support a challenger who’s against it, and bust your hump to get them the nomination now and the seat in November. Get out the vote if you live in a swing district. If you’re in a district that the GOP lost in ‘06, get out there and get that seat back. No surrender. No retreat. No amnesty.
The troops fight the war over there. We owe it to them to fight the war over here.
SuperCool on February 11, 2008 at 5:34 AM
I quite agree that far too many in the Democratic leadership are in denial about Iraq, both past and present, and that Iraq needs time. One thing often overlooked is Iraq’s recent history. The Baathists have been in power since the late 60’s. That is, a bloody, fascist regime has been in power for almost 40 years; that’s over 1 generation of people. It takes time to throw the shackles of oppression off and have the country function again. The Nazi’s were in power in Germany for only 12 years, and what the Democratic leadership forgets is how long we, along with the other Allies, occupied Germany after the war, and that we still have troops there.
But there is also another important element to Iraq, and that is islam. To go from one repressive regime, the Baathists, to another repressive regime, shari’a law in their constitution, shows that handing a people Freedom on a silver platter is risky, especially without Iraqis or Afghanis willing to fight for it. If one has never known Freedom, one does not know how precious, and delicate, a thing it is. There comes a time when the Iraqis have to stand up on their own two feet, and that time is coming soon. They must make the choice to live in Freedom, or to live with militias and suicide bombers in their midst.
RickZ on February 11, 2008 at 6:44 AM
There are only two ways in which the Democratic Party can support the war in Iraq:
1) if they can somehow politically profit from success (nearly impossible since they’ve so loudly and so long called for defeat and declared it per AQ’s request)
2) if they cannot escape accountability/responsibility for the defeat (as in the case of a Democrat winning the WH)
…and I disagree with the idea that all Iraq needs is time. No. It needs unified support. With unified support, the enemy will see there is no chance of coming back, and they’ll move the fight to ground that’s better for them (Pakistan).
scottm on February 11, 2008 at 6:56 AM
One thing - quit calling me names. I’ve been posting here since HotAir’s inception and most know that I’m am by no means a “leftist Paultard.”
I agree. But unfortunately in today’s politically correct climate, that’s just not going to happen. Therefore, I think my question is a valid one - how long do we go on with this? Until we bankrupt our country?
pullingmyhairout on February 11, 2008 at 9:01 AM
Did Pelosi yell “Palimino” at any point in the interview in the hopes that Wolf would stop asking her questions?
uniclone on February 11, 2008 at 11:24 AM
I was being sarcastic. I was pretending to call you all of the things that I have been called for criticizing this war and its justification. That’s why I followed it with “but seriously.” OK, so I’m no comedian.
I know you don’t agree with me. But speaking of political correctness, there is as much of that residing here at HotAir as there is at Kos. It’s just the Republican sort. Don’t question the war!
Drum on February 11, 2008 at 11:46 AM
PELOSI: There haven’t been gains, Wolf. The gains have not produced the desired effect…
Ok have we had gains or not? How does she get away with saying no gains then in the next sentence says there have been gains?
free on February 11, 2008 at 12:12 PM
Welcome back Nancy. You’re like a Whack-a-Mole.
If your wittle feelwings are hurt here, why do you keep coming back?
Sarcastic, pretending, tit-for-tat? Typical troll drivel.
How about we call you a disingenuous back-peddling hypocrite, who complains about being called names and then gets caught calling others names?
fogw on February 11, 2008 at 1:33 PM
We say, “War on Terror,” because we can’t say, “War on Jihad,” or “on Islamic…” whatever. We have ROE (Rules of EEngagement) because without them the moderate populace (not just politicians, but regular people) would not allow us to fight them at all.
The answer involves a change in popular thinking. There was some of this after 9/11, but it was limited and quickly removed by anti-American forces within America. The American people need to adopt a militaristic attitude. They need to have direct confrontation of enemies–not “negotiation,” “peaceful coexistance,” or any other capitulating idea–as their FIRST thought.
We need to drop the 1960s and ’70s “peace and love” perceptions of the world (liberalism, which has utterly infecting American and Western thinking), and “Me Generation” lazy self-centeredness (now big with Conservatives who sit on their lazy ***** instead of sacrificing for their causes), and turn ourselves and our country into the eternally hegemonous power it can and should be.
Tommygun on February 11, 2008 at 1:40 PM
Welcome to 2003. This weekend three wannabe Senators on the Dem side had a little televised mano a mano a mano to try to convince Minnesotans that one of them is the right Dem to unseat Norm Coleman.
I learned from Al Franken that we were lied into war. As I said-welcome to 2003. The other two no names were only sure that America sucks and the only way to make it not suck is to elect Democrats. One of them tried to paint Franken as pro-war. If Dennis Kucinich even needs a wingman…
Doug on February 11, 2008 at 1:42 PM
So, if the Iraqi gov’t gets its shit together and passes all that legislation Francy wants, how will she then call it a failure?
1. Too little, too late.
2. Point out the it hasn’t stopped the shooting and bombing
3. Deny the legislation was passed
4. Claim the Iraqi Parliament was elected by mostly Shia and Kurds and therefore anything they pass does not represent the will of the Iraqi people.
5. Come up with a new list of “benchmarks.”
I’m going with #2 or #5. They fit with the left’s MO of moving the goalposts when faced with defeat.
Kafir on February 11, 2008 at 3:07 PM
For everyone who thinks Iraq is a failure, I disagree. For everyone whose focus is so small as to be limited to Iraq, or Afghanistan, or Saudi Arabia, I say you have missed the point. For all who believe large mistakes were made in prosecuting the War on Terror, I say identify a single man who could have done better, and been more clairvoyant, with just the resources available. You can’t because the Army and Marine Corps STILL are not big enough to win by themselves by a facotr of three.
This War is about changing Islam, although no one will admit it. This War demands that Islam stop trying to kill those with whom it disagrees just because they are not “good Muslims”. And if the Religion of Peace will not police itself to do so, then WE (America) will do it for them, because civilization itself cannot suffer a return to the Dark Ages for ourselves or for the rest of the world.
For you who deny it is a clash of civilizations or a non-religious conflict, you ignore the vast amount of evidence to the contrary. Every symbol used by our enemies, every action which they insist on claiming is a victory (but which their participants view wholly as Defeat) is meant to be used only to change our minds and play on our feelings for poor helpless innocents, which the people of Iraq, and indeed, Muslims all over the world are most assuredly not. They refuse to protest the killing of innocent infidels anywhere. Such restraint in the killing of innocents is a rule of civilization. You don’t kill innocent people (here in the US or anywhere else in the world) unless you intend to be met with overwhelming violence and utter contempt as a result. The US is ready to accept that task, in a fashion far more humane and respectful of the lives of innocents than the enemies of civilization, and the radical adherents of Islam.
There is only one rule in determining who the enemy is. Either killing for your religion is wrong or it isn’t. Noncombatants either believe non-Muslims and Muslim collaborators should die, or they support the US tracking down and killing the killers of their own people. The vast majority of Iraqis now want the US to stay until they are strong enough to care for themselves. Americans, as usual, have been found to be the only fair and just people on the battlefield.
It is that example which will change Islam. Not the platitudes and protestations of imams who steal from their brethren with one hand, and lie to the US Army through their teeth. And there is NO ONE in the US who could have fought the war any better than it has been fought because only the circumstances you can affect can be managed. And in war, half of the conflict involves responding to how your enemies act after you act. The Iraqis were not ready to act civilized in 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 or even 2007. They are now ready to accept civilized conduct again. That is the only factor which could change their minds. And it was changed because American soldiers fought hard, took casualties by being humane (not leveling all of Fallujah immediately and killing ANY Iraqi with a gun until they were all dead — if it worked for Saddam, it sure as H*ll would work for us, nimrods), killed our enemies in overwhelming numbers, demoralized our enemies, and persevered through our sterling example and dogged determination.
Victory is won by not surrendering. The Iraqis are finally surrendering because they see how living WITH us is better than fighting AGAINST us. They have finally begun to acknowledge their Defeat. And now progress towards their own Victory can begin.
Only a fool would think leaving now would be Victory. That, or a terrorist sympathizer. Nancy is more the latter than the former.
Subsunk
Subsunk on February 11, 2008 at 4:22 PM