Tell Democrats that Bush will not run in 2008
I know it’s hard for Democrats to understand, but they won’t be able to run against President Bush next year in November. I don’t who they’ll be running against, but it won’t be President Bush – so the fact that they’re campaigning based on their opposition to the Bush Administration’s policy in Iraq is fruitless. From the Wall Street Journal:
The second day of congressional testimony by the two top U.S. officials in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, gave presidential contenders from both parties a chance to serve up views on Mr. Bush’s troop surge. Mr. Bush is expected to endorse the general’s plan for troop reduction in Iraq in a White House speech tomorrow night.
After a relatively mild reception Monday in the House, Gen. Petraeus and Mr. Crocker yesterday faced heavy bipartisan skepticism in the Senate as they outlined plans to reduce U.S. troop levels in Iraq gradually through July. They reiterated hopes that Iraq’s warring factions will find ways to reconcile.
The men went before two Senate panels heavy with presidential contenders. Three Democratic hopefuls — Sens. Joseph Biden of Delaware, Christopher Dodd of Connecticut and Barack Obama of Illinois — didn’t question Gen. Petraeus’s assessment that the larger presence of U.S. troops has lowered violence. Rather, they suggested that the American sacrifices were being made in the service of an overall strategy that has little chance of success. Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York was the most critical of Gen. Petraeus, saying his report on improving security conditions “required a willing suspension of disbelief.” She then cited other statistics that suggested little to no progress.
Yeah, we get it, Democrats, you don’t like the War in Iraq – so what’s YOUR plan? All we hear is criticism and about plans for withdrawal (Gateway Pundit reports Bush is even ahead of them on that) – but how do we defeat the scourge of radical Islam? I know Democrats have been running against Bush for the last seven years, but now it’s time to run FOR something because president Bush isn’t going to be the opponent next year. I can’t emphasize that enough.
Dana Milbank of the Washington Post tells us that even though Hillary opposes the Bush Administration and the Petraeus report, she doesn’t mind getting in on the photo ops that go along with them;
Clinton, herself a member of the Armed Services Committee, at first entered the hearing room largely unnoticed; she then left and reentered moments later as part of Petraeus’s entourage — basking in the clicks of hundreds of camera shutters.
Pretty damn petty and opportunistic if you ask me. And Obama used his seven minutes for a speech;
In his seven minutes of questioning time, Obama seemed to be practicing for today’s speech. “This continues to be a disastrous foreign policy mistake,” he said. “And we are now confronted with the question: How do we clean up the mess and make the best out of a situation in which there are no good options?”
He then ridiculed President Bush for “suggesting somehow that we are . . . kicking A-S-S. How can we have a president making that assessment?”
Stump speech over, Obama observed that he was left with “very little time to ask questions.”
So instead of asking questions, becoming informed, and appearing like he was interested in what the General had to say, Obama decided to perform for the cameras instead. Good move, Rock Star.
Joe Biden, the only Democrat with a plan, a plan that harkens back to the days of the British Empire’s partitioning of the whole of the Middle East, but a plan nonetheless, couldn’t help but drag out the GAO report, leaked last week (S.A. Miller, Washington Times);
Mr. Biden, who has proposed partitioning the country to separate Sunni, Shi’ites and Kurds prior to a U.S. troop withdrawal rather than a rapid pullout, challenged the general’s report of decreased sectarian violence.
The senator pointed to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report last week that disputed Army statistics showing such a decrease.
Gen. Petraeus said the GAO findings were based on data that were at least five weeks old, compared with his report, which used statistics compiled up until Friday.
At least the general was kind enough to Joe Hairplugs not to mention that the GAO report was written from statistics by math geeks, not written by experienced warriors with dusty boots.
Like I said, the Democrats have been running AGAINST Republicans so long, they still haven’t figured out that at some point they need to be FOR something. Simply saying that withdrawing a brigade every month will get us out of Iraq by the end of next year isn’t a plan – it isn’t a strategy.
If the Democrats want to prove that they really are concerned about national security, we need to see particulars with hard facts that show us they know what they’re talking about.
At this point, while they’re apparently getting their strategic advice from the Code Pinkazoids (commentary and photos courtesy of Wordsmith at Flopping Aces) and the Kozbots, they’d do well to stay away from anyone in uniform above the rank of recruit to keep from looking like idiots.
Category: Foreign Policy, Politics, Terror War
The problem is that bush has created a monster which consumes all that it touches. no one has come up with a plan because there isn’t any way out of this mess that doesn’t entail the sacrifice of thousands of people and no one wants to admit it. the armed forces do the best they can by patching holes as they see them but the “insurgents”, or “patriots”, as they are called at home, are lining up to destroy themselves and all around them in the interest of repelling the “invaders” or “patriots”, as they are called at home. bush will leave this mess to the next president to attempt to clean up and then the name calling can begin anew.
Jonn wrote: Thank you for illustrating my point.
Read Frank Rich in the NYT, as opposed to Bush/Petreaus in Alice in Wonderland
Jonn wrote: Is someone still reading the New York Times? I’d like to see Frank Rich’s itinerary from his last trip to the Anhbar Province. Why is it that the Left so enamored with pseudo-general journalists and so little respect for the people fighting the war? I’d suggest that anyone still reading that rag, the New York Times, is living in a wonderland of sorts. Nothing personal, of course.
As someone who talks to soldiers all the time — and has to attend their memorial services — I think all the senators missed the most fundamental question for Gen. Petraeus. IS HIS STRATEGY WORTH THE LIVES OF THE NEXT 50 U.S TROOPS WHO WILL DIE IN THE NEXT 60 DAYS? There is nothing we can do about the 3,600 already dead, but we do have some control over how many soldiers and Marines will die in the next 30, 60, 90 days etc. It’s easy to beat your chest about abandoning our dead and disgracing the country until you look at the next batch of young troops going through convoy security training, IED identification trainging, and getting saddle up for yet another deployment. We can save their lives and we should, asap. Trying to get the Shiites and Sunnis to kiss and make up is not worth the life of one more 20-year-old trooper “killed by a roadside bomb in Baghdad.”
You wrote: “Democrats, you don�t like the War in Iraq – so what�s YOUR plan?”
Why should the Dems go through the difficult and politically costly process of developing a shadow plan for Iraq? It’s clear from his vetoes that the President is not interested in their views. The President is entirely accountable for the current policy, and its failure is entirely his responsibility. He’s unable to devise a political/diplomatic solution for Iraq, so he’s stuck on throwing more military resources at the problem, which the Dems don’t agree with.
Until the President shows willingness to solve the actual problem, or at least engage with Dems to find a solution, then he’s on his own and should get the beating that Dems, as the opposition party, are giving him.
How hard is that for you to understand?
Jonn wrote: Ref: How hard is that to understand; I’m talking about the Democrat presidential candidates. I thought that was clear. They want to be this county’s leader, it time for them to stop criticizing and tell us, you and me – the voters –  what they’d do. Not even what they’d do differently – just what they’d do.
Yeah, it is up to the Presidential candidates to solve the problem. Their position on any given issue can no longer be “I’m not Bush” – they have to show leadership. If you read the Milbank piece in it’s entirety, you’d have seen that Obama was reading notes from his campaign on what questions he should ask the good General Petraeus – if Obama is going to campaign from his seat in the Senate, he should stop his pitiful whining and show leadership. But then you Democrats like politicians who ask YOU what you want instead of someone who leads in the right direction without your (or my) useless input.
How hard is that for you to understand?Â
You wrote: “Yeah, it is up to the Presidential candidates to solve the problem.”
Apparently NONE of the candidates, Rep or Dem agree with you, and neither does political logic, nor our Constitution for that matter. So you might want to re-examine your opinion.
It’s amusing that you assume I’m a Democrat just because I can actually understand the situation and analyze it.
The comment by David reveals a great deal about the Dems strategy. The reason they should develop and articulate a strategy for Iraq is that they hope to gain the Presidency and both houses of congress in ’08. If they expect people to vote for them, they should tell us what they would do.
Why would the dems plan be politically costly? The only apparent reason is that it would be even LESS popular than Bush’s. Doesn’t this imply that all the likely democratic alternatives are even less attractive to the American people and that fewer folks would vote for them if they actually articulated their real views? What does that say about their true beliefs?
I certainly agree that Bush should be held accountable for all of his actions, but so should members of congress who voted to support the policy of this country.
Finally, the comment that “Bush is on his own” reveals a mindset that plagues the left right now. So many are taking pleasure in what they see as a Bush failure, they fail to recongize that it is the policy of the United States. Because they’re so pleased to see our President’s policies fail (at least as they see the situation), they are blind to the fact that our nation fails along with it.
If you want the nation to vote for Democrats, tell us what you’d do. How hard is that for YOU to understand?
Jonn wrote: Thanks, Dave. You get it. In fact every response here reflects the whole problem. They all want to focus on today and passing off blame with no thought to the future. The Democrat candidates are the same – they expect us to vote for them because TODAY they oppose the war. Kerry lost the election in 2004 using the same strategy and Democrats in this election are repeating the same mistakes. But judging by the responses to this post, here and in my email, that’s all their constituency expects from them. That vast area between NYC and LA might have different ideas, come next November though.
Sorry we don’t live in a ideal neocon world. For a dose of real world politics you might read up on how Nixon undermined President Johnson’s attempt to settle the Vietnam war in 1968, how Nixon campaigned vigorously as a critic of Johnson’s handling of the war, and yet–shocking to you I’m sure–had NO plan to end the war. It worked for Nixon and probably will work the the Democratic nominee next year. But hey you can keep trying & crying.
Jonn wrote: So Nixon started the riot at the Democrat Convention in Chicago?