April 02, 2007
Ninety Percent of Success is Just Showing Up
So perhaps the
braintrusts of
certain liberal blogs might want to get all of their facts straight before pitching a hissyfit over the fact General Petraeus ended up giving a Republican-only briefing last month.
It turns out that invitations to the videoconference were extended to both Democrats and Republicans, but no Democrats showed up.
Perhaps they were out of spit.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
03:26 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 76 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I have it on good authority that the Congressional Democrats have switched to the new Google BETA internet access product and are having a bit of a problem with their communications. I would post the URL but the spam filter rejects URLs from that domain. But the URL is the main WWW site with /tisp/ tacked on the end of it.
Posted by: crosspatch at April 02, 2007 05:55 PM (y2kMG)
2
In a recent poll 17 percent of Democratic congressman identified General Petraeus as a character from the movie '300.'
Posted by: Zhombre at April 02, 2007 06:36 PM (v72Rn)
3
Out of brains/balls is more like it ;->
Posted by: Purple Avenger at April 02, 2007 06:36 PM (22lCG)
4
It seems as if the liberal blogs spend most of their time linking to each other. And they use those links as evidence.
Bizarre ...
Posted by: muckdog at April 02, 2007 10:55 PM (s/Vux)
5
Posted by Zhombre at April 2, 2007 06:36 PM
I thought he was that metal dude in Star Wars 1,2,&3.
Posted by: Retired Navy at April 03, 2007 09:43 AM (8Ms63)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Feingold/Reid: Retreat Now, and We Can Still Lose This
Russ Feingold and Harry Reid say that the war in Iraqi
isn't being lost fast enough, and will sponsor a retreat bill in the Senate that would largely defund the war and require a pullout to begin 120 days after the bill became law.
Meanwhile, on the ground in al Anbar, soldier/blogger "Teflon Don" speculates that the insurgency may be reaching a tipping point.
I'll try to keep writing about the winds here in Al-Anbar. I'll go out on a little bit of a limb and say that the insurgency is quickly approaching a tipping point. If things continue as they are right now, our military won't need a surge to chase the terrorists out of Anbar- the citizens will do it for us, which is as it should be. It's beginning to show already: more local tips, more police recruits (far more than anticipated), and sadly- in bigger and more desperate Al-Qaeda attacks.
He concludes this thought-provoking post by stating:
It's a big job, but I think we may have finally learned enough forgotten lessons from places like East Timor, Vietnam, Ireland, Malaysia, and others that it just might work this time.
Color me hopeful.
It might not come as much of a surprise to discover that others on the ground in Iraq are also seeing these same hopeful signs, which is perhaps why Reid and Feingold are so desperately trying to push to lose the war now before signs of a positive change become more widely known.
Perhaps Harry and Russ should do a little reading.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
01:04 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 276 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Why wait a year? Why don't they try it right now?
Posted by: 1sttofight at April 02, 2007 03:43 PM (6s+nG)
2
Don't get carried away by those reports. Remember, we're fighting against two different groups in Iraq and good news on one front doesn't mean we're making progress across the board:
One group is the terrorists, who we may very well end up beating, with or without the help of the Iraqis.
The second group is the Iraqis who would rather fight than share power and resources. There are too many of them, to paraphrase Golda Meir, they love their kids less than they hate their so-called countrymen, and they're prepared to carry on the fight for generations to come, so we'll never defeat them so long as victory is defined as them all holding hands and singing campfire songs. The best we can hope for is that our surge will force them to hide for awhile, long enough for Bush to again declare "Mission Accomplished" and bring our troops home... after which they're emerge from their hiding places and pick up killing each other.
Posted by: steve sturm at April 02, 2007 06:57 PM (XBWtm)
3
The second group is the Iraqis who would rather fight than share power and resources.
Which is why the oil revenue sharing plan and so many tips rolling now we can't handle them all right?
Time to recharge your flux capacitors Steve - you're still time warped to 12 months ago.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at April 02, 2007 07:09 PM (22lCG)
4
I won't argue that there aren't
some Rodney King Iraqis. There just aren't enough of them to do much good. So what that there's an oil sharing agreement? Agreements over there are meant to be broken. And tips? How many of them are simply one faction's crazies dropping a dime on the other side?
Sorry, but for all of Bush's grandiose thoughts about the 'Iraqi' Army and police force taking control, he has failed to realize that there is no such thing as 'Iraq'. The people there don't owe their allegience to Iraq, they owe it to their fellow sects. And just as Shiite soldiers won't take to coming down on fellow Shiites (just look at Maliki's record for confirmation), neither will, for example, Sunnis cotton to having Shiite soldiers come down on them.
The best we can hope for is a partition where the three sides can do a good enough job of deterring the other two sides from attacking that there exists a cold war of some kind (certainly better than the shooting war going on now)... there is no hope, at least not in my lifetime, nor that of my grandkid's grandkid's, of there ever being a truly peaceful Iraq. And unfortunately, the occupant of the Oval Office is too stupid and/or stubborn to realize that.
Posted by: steve sturm at April 02, 2007 07:49 PM (XBWtm)
5
It's beginning to show already: more local tips, more police recruits (far more than anticipated),and sadly- in bigger and more desperate Al-Qaeda attacks.
Yes, Al Qaeda's use of bigger attacks is evidence that they're almost at their "tipping point". Gotta love that argument.
Posted by: Arbotreeist at April 02, 2007 08:00 PM (N8M1W)
6
Yes, Al Qaeda's use of bigger attacks is evidence that they're almost at their "tipping point".
Anyone with a few
functioning neurons can see why. Fewer, but larger attacks means they're running out of competent bomb makers.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at April 03, 2007 05:15 AM (22lCG)
7
"... the war in Iraq isn't being lost fast enough, ..."
Oh, they don't want the war to end before the next Presidential election. If we leave before the job's done and things go from bad to worse, as they likely will, they'll have to accept the blame. So expect them to drag this out long enough for candidates to proclaim, "If elected, I will end this war." In the meantime, they will pass appropriate funding.
Posted by: DoorHold at April 03, 2007 12:19 PM (M+7fQ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
How the Democrats Can Win In Iraq
It was
all for show:
If President Bush vetoes an Iraq war spending bill as promised, Congress quickly will provide the money without the withdrawal timeline the White House objects to because no lawmaker "wants to play chicken with our troops," Sen. Barack Obama said Sunday.
"My expectation is that we will continue to try to ratchet up the pressure on the president to change course," the Democratic presidential candidate said in an interview with The Associated Press. "I don't think that we will see a majority of the Senate vote to cut off funding at this stage."
I think Obama is stretching the truth a bit when he says, "no lawmaker wants to play chicken with the troops." Playing chicken with the troops is the preferred Democrat tactic these days, and passing the recent meaningless pork-laden bills through the House and Senate when they know they could not override a veto are concrete examples of this in action.
What Obama perhaps should have said is that no Democrat wants to get caught playing chicken with the troops, as John "Okinawa" Murtha has done several times, first when he accused Marines in Haditha of "cold-blooded murder" well before the investigation had concluded, and just months ago, when he attempted to undercut deployments by the arbitrary setting of readiness standards which would mark units as unfit for combat if they did not have key equipment before deploying.
more...
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:42 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1631 words, total size 11 kb.
1
It's only playing chicken with the troops if the army keeps people there past the time that they know there will be no money.
Let's say that Bush goes nuts and, during an out-of-body experience, accidentally signs the bill. That still give everyone some lead time. If troops get stranded in Iraq, it would be because of military mismanagement and/or chicken-playing, not because of anything Congress did. If you see the gas tank is dropping toward empty, don't keep driving.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at April 02, 2007 10:41 PM (FSIeh)
2
Most devoutly to be wished.
Posted by: Wolf Pangloss at April 02, 2007 11:14 PM (tex8j)
3
The left has precluded any chance of a Democratic nimble redeployment to a victory stance on Iraq. If attempted, such a move will elicit derision from the right, laughter from moderate independents, uneasy dancing from center-left Democrats, and screaming rage from the base.
Make that continued screaming rage.
I think the Republicans own Iraq, period.
Posted by: Steve-o at April 02, 2007 11:53 PM (2nDll)
4
Confederate Yankee
Previewing your Comment
A well put together article but your concern of a, "bumbling Republican Party" being, "relegat(ed) to the sidelines for decades to come" is misplaced. Many Repubs were crowing about the same fate for the Dems just one election cycle ago when they held power in all branches of government. Unfortunately that didn't prove to be the case. Predictions of a long term collapse of either side in this war of ideologies seem to be less accurate as the stakes get higher. You can't be defeated if you never give up and I don't see anyone in the mood to give up.
Posted by: Boyd at April 03, 2007 09:01 AM (naEh1)
5
What a fantasy. When an Iraq war spending bill is passed without a timetable for withdrawal, most Democrats will vote against it. To vote for it would jeopardize their re-election funding from Hollywood and the netroots whose opposition to the Iraq war is entirely emotional. For the Democratic leadership to make public pro Iraq war comments would cause the anti-war Democratic base to be more likely to stay at home in 2008. Their anti-war opposition is idealistic (at best), certainly not pragmatic. The anti-war Democratic base is not going to turn pro Iraq war no matter what anyone says. How some of their base staying home (or voting Green) could result in more Democrats elected is hard to see.
Many of the pro-war Democrat and Independent voters voted for Democrats over Republicans in 2006 because of that year's fantasy, that putting the Democrats in power would force them to become serious about the war on terror. Do you see any war on terror seriousness in Pelosi or Reid so far? I certainly do not. Just a lot more Bush Derangement Syndrome. Won't the pro-war Democrats and Independents notice this come 2008? I think enough will notice to lower the number of them voting Democratic. So less + less = more? No way.
No, I think very few Democrats will ever speak of General Petraeus surge as a success. The MSM will be able to convince enough Americans that Iraq is a failure so that both the Democratic and Republican nominees for U.S. President will have to promise to "bring the troops home" at some point during their campaigns. The timetable for withdrawal will then be negotiated between the next congress and the next president. I just hope they don't screw the Iraqi's as bad as they did the South Vietnamese.
Posted by: klrfz1 at April 03, 2007 01:38 PM (dRU6B)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Petraeus Interview
John Noonan at
OpFor has an interview with Commanding U.S. Gneral David Petraeus
posted that is certainly worth a read.
In addition, I'd strongly recommend reading this Arthur Herman article article on how to win the war in Iraq, which provides the historical background of the COIN strategy currently being rolled out by General Petraeus in Iraq.
Once you've read it you'll wonder why the strategy contained within wasn't rolled out in 2004.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:01 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 77 words, total size 1 kb.
1
"Once you've read it you'll wonder why the strategy contained within wasn't rolled out in 2004."
My point exactly!
Anyone with a brain would have launched the surge in '04 and would have eliminated the QUDS bases and the Natanz nuclear facility in '06 at the latest when the evidence was first made public. Of course, they would have targeted the insurgent leaders in Syria in '03.
There's a permanent 30% of democrat whackos that will always want a US surrender but the real collapse in support for Iraq is because Bush and the GOP don't really have the balls to win either.
As Patton said, "America hates a loser". You can smell it on Bush. He's morphed into LBJ; he's letting our guys be killed doing just enough not to lose. Rummy and McNamera; two sides of the same coin.
Bush is worse than useless now.
RCL
Posted by: Richard L. at April 02, 2007 12:18 PM (CK4a9)
2
He was smart enough to pick Petraeus.
It should be noted that Lincoln went through a number of generals before he found the right one too.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at April 02, 2007 05:30 PM (22lCG)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
33kb generated in CPU 0.0233, elapsed 0.0942 seconds.
55 queries taking 0.0791 seconds, 170 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.