Mar 09 2007

Undercutting the troops…

The Democrats have decided to impose a timetable on the troops, never mind that the surge has shown signs of success. In a very real sense, they have decided to take the coward’s way out. When Multi-National Force-Iraq held briefings for Congressional leadership, the Dems didn’t even show.

The President is right to call it a non-starter, but he is being kind. What the Democrats are doing is much worse.

The Democrats are placing a knife in the back of General David Petraeus and every solider, sailor, airman, and Marine trying to help the democracy in Iraq get on its feet and recover from the tyranny that Saddam’s regime held over the Iraqi people. It is, in essence, telling al-Qaeda in Iraq and other terrorists that they want to quit. There is no other way to describe it.

Am I being hypocritical given my earlier criticism of Ann Coulter? I submit that I am not. First of all, I’m telling the truth. This is a stab in the back. Should the Democratic legislation pass, our troops will not have been defeated by al-Qaeda, they were defeated because Congressional Democrats decided to cut and run, aided and abetted by the mainstream media, which has waged its own war against the war on terror.

Second of all, I am opposing something that is utterly indefensible – to wit, undercutting the mission of our troops. One cannot support the troops and oppose the mission they are on.

Our troops can win this war if they are allowed to do what it takes. We’re about to find out who in the Beltway is willing to do so, and whose “support the troops” talk is just insincere talk for a soundbite on the news.

69 responses so far

69 Responses to “Undercutting the troops…”

  1. crosspatch says:

    Compare and contrast:

    “Bush Asks Congress to Revise Budget to Free $3.2 Billion for Extra War Forces” (Fox News)


    “Tab for congressional pork is $13 billion” (CNN)

    The point is that the total addition spending that President Bush is asking for is less than 1/4 the amount that Congress is going to *waste* in pork spending.

  2. gil says:

    answer to macker.

    al Malaki is our creation, and we keep him in power. The one common denominator that I see among the people in the Right is an incredible capacity for self delusion.
    al Malaki is supported by the likes of al Sadar, and al Sistani… these two clerics just to name a few CONTROL irak, and are 100% pro-Iranian, and hate Americans. So please Republican Right WIngers explain to me how is it that we accomplish “victory” by handing these characters the power in Iraq?


    About your chicken-hawk comment . If this blog starts insulting (as usual) Democrats that try to give you a solution by calling them cowards….. Then you people deserve to be called chicken-hawks for if you want a war you you serve in it, or at least sacrifice for it. No draft, no tax increase, no effor by any one of us, no nothing!!! But you “patriots” are for war? …… A lot of you here more than fit the description. The U.S. is not at war THE U.S. ARMY is at war….. all you “heroic” Right Wingers do is trow insults at people that are really worried at the situation that your “support” has put the Army under.

    As for the surge. You are correct in saying that any surge should be to HOLD territory, not pretend that you are winning by driving the Insurgents and militias out so that they can simply circle around and start fighting somwhere else. That is the solution for fools, or spin experts not military experts. The surge as a political tool will not work any more than any previous surge. The surge is designed to give Bush time to get out of office and live the problem to some one else that is the true purpose of this latest surge get it?

    We have morons like merlin and eforcement whose only contribution to this blog is to put a few lines of insults agains what I said. That’s the extent of their intelligence…. But of course they question mine!!! At least you sound more coherent, and I thank you for it.

  3. gil says:


    Funny you question my intelligence!!!

    If all you can write is a two sentence “answer” to my ideas….. The question here is where is yours.

    Insults is all you have. Pathetic.

  4. gil says:

    Answer to wiley.

    You know my friend if you and your friends here want to win…. And keep on repeating the same thing as the years go bye maibe you should try actually delivering the victory?

    That might go a long way when it comes to your credibility don’t you think? Or you want to “win” by sending the same troops back again, and again, and again. You want to win by not creating a draft, sending even more troops, raising taxes, confronting Iran, confronting Syria, confronting the Saudi, confronting Pakistan, and Afghanistan and so on….. That’s how you win….. But then again this is just make pretend for you people. Like a little play that has you playing the role of “heroes” without the pain.

  5. gil says:


    I am sure that you know how it is to get by a .50 in your knee….. Should I bring the band to play now for you????

    Are you play acting here? Who the hell do you think you are? Do you think that you are the only one in this blog, or that is against this war that has served????

    Many, many people out there with credentials, out in the open (not pretending in a blog) , with the medals, and the missing limbs, and the dead sons, or doughters are against this war and the way it has been conducted.

    Let me ask you this question. How does one disagrees with the policies of a a war that ovbiously has gone wrong? Do you actually think no one has the right to be angry about the mess your side has made of things? Do you in your mindless delusion actually believe that it is unpatriotic for us to ask you not to trow the lives of our soldiers on stupid plans that have them patrolling the same streets over and over again ad infinitum? What the hell do you think we spent billions of Dollars and thousands of lives so far then? Was it not to train the 350,000 Iraqi troops that now as it turns out, are not even good enough to hold their own Capital???? But now after all these years, all these lives lost, and all the money spent…. We are in need of a surge!!!

    The only surge you guys need is in intelligence.

  6. gil says:

    Answer to Dennisia.

    If you are so fond of the draft Right Wingers why don’t you bring it back?

    I am all for it…. You know why? Because it will finally make many, many chickens-not-hawks get a taste of what it really means to be a patriot. I can assure you the draft will have no takes in your ranks…. I wander why?

    Is easier to Rent-a- Patriot maibe?

  7. ivehadit says:

    Ah Gil, what percentage of the VOLUNTEER military now in service is C-o-n-s-e-r-v-a-t-i-v-e?
    Huge. And they volunteered. Imagine that. They put their money where their mouth is, so to speak, didn’t they?

    Libs never do. They want someone to do it for them, so your comments make perfect sense…for a liberal.

  8. crosspatch says:

    “al Malaki is our creation, and we keep him in power. ”

    Uhm, no. Allawi was our creation and it is looking like he mi9ght work his way back into power too. We would have preferred someone more secular and not as aligned with sectarianist groups.

  9. gil says:

    answer to ivehadit.

    The percentage of the volunteer Army is conservative… Huge.

    Hey is your world you make it up as you go along. An 18 year old is no more a Conservative than you are in Iraq.

    But let’s not argue about percentages here, I am sure you guys all want to go to Iraq to show how much more patriotic you are vs. us Defeactorats cowards. That’s why you are calling for a draft, and for your taxes to go up.

    Say guys, what’s your part in the sacrifice again?

  10. gil says:

    Answer to Crosspatch.

    al Malaki is our creation in the sense that he is what came out of our “Democracy” . Problem with that, is that al Malaki is pro-Iranian, and supported (as I keep on mentioning and you guys keep on ignoring) by pro Iranians. As for the “Democracy , is just another delusion by the Righ.

  11. gil says:

    Right Wingers.

    2 years from now you will still be saying that you are in for victory… As Bush lives you holding the bag litteraly.

    Your 30% will feel very lonely indeed. No Brits, no allies, no victory, no Democracy, no WMD’s , no Osama…… I wonder at what point will you guys begin to feel like fools?

  12. Dc says:

    If you’d like to see a perfect example of “denial” in the face of reality over the war…then look no further than “this”

    EVEN with Obey trying to explain the situation, where things are, , and what can be done about it, etc..they refuse to accept it and aruge with him. He tries 4x….to get them to understand that they have their facts wrong, that they actually “hurting” the effort to stop the war and fighting against the only chance they have to actually pass something that might stop it. He finally gets angry and calls them idiots.

    With that…I’ll say this:

    The US had nothing to do with Malaki’s appointment to his current position (nor would he have been our first choice). Malaki was chosen through intense negociation that took quite a while within that elected body…as part of the accepted “gov” by all parties after Iraq’s first national elections. Further, Sistani and Sadr are VERY different. Sadr “is” aligned closely with Iran and has a very small following that is entirely hostile and militant. Sistani reps the largest block of Shiah in Iraq (most of them), is not aligned politically with Iran, is a moderate, wants an independent Iraq, wants peace and has worked closely with US and UK govs.

    Sadr has in fact attacked other shiahs to try and provoke them and Sistani into a fight (power struggle). Sadr has as well killed 3 of the people under Sistani, including some of Sistani’s family, and attempted to assasinate Sistani as well. Sadr wants to take leadership of the shiah (by force).

    I’ll be glad…”left winger”…to explain to you how free gov works.
    The ONLY thing that will change the paradaigm in the ME (and elsewhere) that way everybody “wins” in places like Iraq is to have free gov and markets that THE PEOPLE themselves accept!! Instead of dictators who keep their boot on their necks and decide who is favored, and who not, based on etho-religous or other criteria. Because there there will never be peace..without it being a peace that the people accept. This should not be a foreign concept to “left wingers”…who have for years…expoused and yelled about this very condition in the ME and elsewhere (ie…the US supporting brutal dictators, economic exploitation, etc…that has resulted in “terroism” of various kinds as a response to this form of “tryrannical” oppression.

    Thats not a “rightwing” policy invention. That’s something liberals as well have advanced for YEARS….that we can no longer turn our backs on such conditions…and continue supporting people like Saddam,..for the sake of “stability” in the ME to keep the oil flowing. Saddam could keep things “quiet” in Iraq..just like a lot of those dictators that we support do. But, the resetment, violence, etc..that goes along with that…as the cost of such policy..has long been known was a powderkeg just waiting to go off. That it was breeding resentment…etc. recognize your own argument (made for decades by liberals opposing past policies of turning a blind eye to what was going on in the ME, and elsewhere…accepting the terroism, violence and lashing the price of “stability”…and demanding that these dictators keep their people in line). Just like the person in the above video link…some liberals are fighting against the very things that you say you are for …and can’t even recognize it. To me, “that’s” dellusional.

    We are ALL in this war whether you acknowledge it or not. Because it’s a war that invovles the United States….not “Bush’s war”. Nor Redstate war. Not a chickenhawk war. The outcome of, draw…will be the consequence, cost, etc…for ALL Americans….the nation as a whole. The time for being against invading Iraq or Afghanistan is long over. We are a nation at War.
    The question now…is what is the best course for our nation is IN this war. Beause that’s where we are. (speaking of dellusional).

    Most recognize that the ultimate solution in this is going to be political..and mainly between Iraq’s themselves. The point is to provide the atmosphere that that can take place in…in an environment where there are people, including AlQueda, who do not want to see that happen. That’s where the surge comes in..which was even part of the bi-partisan commission recommedation. (if you read it). You can always get “quiet”…by stomping on heads. The Baathists/sunnis that made up Saddam’s gov..were a very, very small minority of the popluation of Iraq. Their effectiveness at keeping things quiet was through their brutality. That’s not going to be a long term solution.

    Lastly, I would suggest this…even if everything goes well….it will still be years down the road before we see the results/benefits that can in anyway be weighed against anything. You are standing on Omaha beach…talking about how the invasion of europe has failed. The battle isn’t over yet…much less the war. And there is much political wranggling to be done. And any benefit gained from this, the political impact in the region, etc… WAY down the road.

    I have no qualms with anyone who ..looking at the situation… arguing about the best course for our nation. Thats never been the point. IT’s with people …who just like in the video example above….are politically motivated, are wrongly informed, (in some cases..fighting “against” The very things that they say they are for ..without knowing it), and substitute their political agenda arguments…for National interest.

    I think the discussions at this point should be understood to clearly see the knife fight that our nation is in (in both Iraq and Afghanistan)…and the consequences that we face from whatever decisions we might make. Instead..of political argument based on election ’08.

  13. OCPatriot says:

    Your quote is a lie – “Our troops can win this war if they are allowed to do what it takes.” Even Petraeus has stated that more than a military solution is necessary, so we can’t win unless we want to impose a social solution, which is “nation building”, which Mr. Bush or the neocons wanted to do because it would cost too much. Mr. Bush (yes, he is where the buck stops, isn’t he?) hasn’t even allocated enough funds to care for our hard-working veterans. So unless patriots like you and your countless readers enlist, and participate in the nation building efforts, we’re on the losing end of the stick. Iraq has not met any of the benchmarks, and stop lying about how they have, so we are still throwing young men and women out there as cannon fodder. This is supporting the troops, sending them into the Valley of Death? And, if they’re injured, cheaping out on their care. Get down off your mountaintop of lies and seek some facts before you urge people to continue with this senseless war; which, by the way, is about “OIL” which somehow never gets mentioned in many pieces, and access to it.

  14. Dc says:

    There is nobody who is rebelling against the disclosure of the problems at Walter Reed. (not like we haven’t known about those problems for a long time). Who exactly are your referring to opposed to veterans care?

    Gil argues that conservatives are chickenhawks..then suggests that most of the military serviing in Iraq is made up of conservatives. Then argues that they are too young to have formed their own opinions…therefore…their parents are responsible for them being there. Hmmm. Maybe you need to think about that a little more.

    I would just say this….there’s a reason why the DNC and others working within the party can’t find the votes OR the balls to step and defund the war. That reason would be because it would be political suicide for them. And why praytell do you suppose that’s so? It’s because the people they represent would not support such a move and would hang them out to dry. And why would that be…if the “majority” of the public is on the side of stopping the war in Iraq anyway possible and would support such a move??

    Ever think about that? And you call us chickenhawks? Go look in the mirror.

  15. hastingspete says:

    Uncomfortable facts. A majority of the country is opposed to this war. In just about every single quarter, any set of metrics you choose to define success in Iraq have gone in the wrong direction from quarter to quarter and year to year. There is no positive trend-line. The Administration cannot succinctly define success to the American people anymore in regards to Iraq. The original justification for the war is proved false. The current justification is tautologically flawed: the war we started by mistake must be won otherwise we will procvide succor to the terrorists we gave a cause to by starting a war by mistake. I’m not criticizing anyone on this board. I had the sad privilage of actually watching both planes hit the World Trade Center from a perspective of less than 300 yards. I bought the administration’s arguments on Iraq and argued fiercely with my wife who did not. She, in the end, was completely and abjectly correct. The war has gone south, and every day we spend throwing good lives away (both ours and theirs) is a day too long. Some – maybe even most – Democrats who support a desire to get out believe that too. They are at odds on how vigorously to pursue that sentiment, but they believe it is important to stand up to the Administration. If you believe as I do now, that this war is a terrible mistake and tragedy, then you would want your elected officials to do what they can to get us out, and the Democrats are doing that to the best of their disorganized abilities. They’re patriots, and their efforts will sabe lives. This President has already cost us thousands of lives. Yeah, I support the troops. And leaving them in an untenable situation in Iraq is not my idea of support. Sorry, gentlemen, I humbly disagree with you. I believe that many of you are patriots deep and blue, but I have no doubt that history will look back it will not be kind on this war, this President or his supporters in Congress. A great wrong was done here.

  16. Dc says:

    You can humbly disagree…but it doesn’t change the fact that there are not enough votes or support (even within the DNC itself, much less the entire congress), to submarine the war and force a withdrawal. If what you say were true…you can repeat it all you want, there would be NO question or problem for the house to stand up and deliver on this…and/or do ..”just that”. They would have the absolute backing of the majority of this country. But, that in NOT the case.

    Barring that, the DNC is desperately trying in vain to force through somekind of sidebar that would in effect …end the war..without them actually having to vote on it directly. But, those efforts are even being submarined by some of the groups who oppose the war because they don’t understand how things work in Washington., have their facts wrong, are actually fighting against it…and won’t listen to anybody.

    Withdrawing from Iraq..may end “our” casulties in the short term…but it’s not going to stop what’s going on in Iraq. What do you propose…just let them kill each while we watch? I mean…it’s not like we haven’t done “that” before either. What about AlQueda taking control of central Bagdhad and Sadr taking the south? I mean..there’s a lot at stake here…not just for “now”…but the future. Things that are going to impact our nation (and perhaps cost exponentionally more) in the future. Arguing about “how” the war got started isn’t a solution or an answer to anything at this point. The war “is” started..and we are “in it”. In that regard…an uncondtional withdrawal without regard to conditions on the ground (otherwise known as…a headlong retreat), just like suicide, has always been..and is…an option we have.

    Just FYI, I was at WTC plaza that day too (standing in WTC plaza right under where the first plane hit). That doesn’t change anything about the choices we face “today” in Iraq.

  17. Dc says:

    As a seperate sidebar unrelated to current events in Iraq..I would add ..that the admin bringing up Saddam’s long outstanding unresolved WMD issues and potential dangers/threats that we might face after what happened 9/11, and onward…was, in my view, just being mildly observant and prudent about the dangers we were facing in the new world we were living in. That wasn’t something that had to be “sold” to anybody. The disagreement was more about whether or not it warranted a possible military action or not and to what degree. Obviously congress believed that under certain conditions it did and they authorized that. The later disagreement was over whether or not those conditons had been met during the UN process…and further..whether even if they were..should it have been prosecuted at all given the conditions at the time.

  18. OCPatriot says:

    Did everybody forget? Bin Laden was the enemy, not Iraq. Bin Laden is still alive. Iraq was Bush’s personal vendetta (probably also Cheney’s and the neocons for the oil and control of the oil-rich Middle East). Iraq was a diversion, a stupid move by Bush, and now we are mired in their civil war and still ignoring Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Bush’s war has begun to consume and weaken our military while Al Qaeda now revives itself and the Taliban who were one of their original protectors. So if we stay in Iraq we’re in a civil war, not a war against Al Qaeda; don’t let them con you into thinking that Iraq is a war against Al Qaeda. Afghanistan and Pakistan are the places we need to pay attention to; even Iran is another diversion. Watch and see how, like a bull fighter, the Administration plays you with their diversions.

  19. Dc says:

    It’s one thing to argue differences on the basis of what’s best for our nation. But, to suggest, as a solution, that it should not have happened, then suggest a pullout to repudiate the admin..damn the consequences to our nation in doing so….that has nothing to do with patriotism. It means you need therapy.

    If your thoughts are…that you are somehow punishing or repudiating Bush and/or trying to force a withdrawal of our troops from the battlefield….you are sadly in need of help. The place for that was election ’04. (or elections in general). Of course..the congress can defund the war to stop it. So you can speak to your congress person or senator about it.
    But, they too have to actually vote on that and there aren’t the votes to do it. (see above video and watch it 4x).

  20. gil says:

    Answer to DC

    In your long post you go int several areas in the war in Iraq where I can see that you are absolutely wrong, or are simply looking at a different very particular reality that only belong in the Right Wing world, and that by the way has been proven by the events in Iraq to be absolutely incorrect, and even a dangerous set of ideas. Let me elavorate, and in doing this, let me also commend you for at least you do express your ideas in a coherent form and with no insults. Good for you. At last a Right Winger willing to debate his/her ideas on its merits!!

    Now about your points one by one here it goes;

    1) ” The U.S. has nothing to do with al Malaki’s appointment to his current position”, and al Sadr and al Sistani are very different”

    al Malaki is a product of our invasion, and further attempt to Democratise Iraq. In that sense al Malaki is a product of our considerable influence in events in Iraq. To say that the U.S. has nothing to do with al Malaki’s hold in power is naive. If one is to see reality, we can understand that the present surge for example, is designed to give al Malaki a chance to succeed in keeping his increasingly tenuos hold in power with the blood of still more American soldiers. I see where you are comming from tough. In your eyes is as simple as he was elected by Iraqi internal negociations, and that you interpret as independence!! Some independence he has with over 150,000 American soldiers in his country, with over 60,000 Shiite Militias, with over a 100,000 Peshmmerga Kurd Army to his North, with over 40-50,000 Insurgents !!! My point is that you are correct in interpreting al Malaki’s “independence from the U.S. only if you are willing to ignore all the above mentioned…. And I guess you are, so we do have a difference of opinion. Your independence is in the abstract, mine lives in the real world, always more complicated.

    2) As for your asertation that al Sistani is not pro Iranian, a centrist, and an Iraqi first and foremost. Here I have to say that you are simply not informed correctly. al Sistani as you know is the real power behind Iraq, but he has LIMITATIONS. Like any other politician he has to deal with the likes of al Sadr increasing power. I noticed that you say al Sadr “small” following…. Wrong!!! Go back and research the topic, and you will find out how incorrect you are. al Sadr Militias have been at the forefront of the Shiite defense Vs. the SUnni, and over the calls by Sistani to stop!! Some influence he has right? The latest deal between al Malaki and al Sadr was for al Sadr to stop the campaign again Sunni Insurgents that’s why the current “peace”… Notice no al SIstani in the negociations? notice why our “surge” has caused the violence to drop considerably? It is simply a deal caused by a surge that every one in Iraq considers only temporary.

    al Sistani is an Iranian by birth, and an allied of Iran by natural choice. He is a moderate when compared to al Sadr, but make no mistake HE IS NO MODERATE when it comes to our interest in the region. To consder al Sistani a potential partner for peace in Iraq is the ultimate mistake. al Sistani is a SHiite Grand Ayatollah and as such he hates America with vengance, and he does not want Democracy only a Theocracy. Right now al Sistani’s game is simply to give us Americans what we want in words, while he consolidates the power of the Shiite (his power) with our blood. After that is acomplished, al Sistani will simply turn against us because my friend we are his natural enemies. Again in your consideration of this point I see you only went superficially deep, and even then you try to give a nice color to the situation. I do know that you have shown more intelligence that the rest of the Right Wing bloggers combined, so maibe you can understand that if you want to really see a problem, you look at the problem as it is not as you want it to be.

    As for your Left Vs. Right comments…. Let me just point out to you what is right in front of your face. Iraq is a mess, the U.S. under Bush has no credibility left in Foreign Policy, we are about to be abandoned by even England (out for the most part by 08) in our adventure in Iraq, and your side’s only offer for victory to ask for still more time. That is the meassure of your success, that is the platform from where the Right’s ideas stand…. Some platform indeed.