Finding Wisdom in the Wreckage ( Now is the Republican's Time to Learn)

The American Thinker ^ | 11/09/2006 | J. Peter Mulhern

[Fighting Irish]

If only all of this introspection would have been considered years ago .....

[LS]

Mulhern is great---he really stood out in the Clinton impeachment.

Don't agree with all this analysis---I think our PERFECT handling of the Filipino Insurrection/Moro Wars shows that this approach to Iraq was feasible. But some of his points are correct. The main issue was that we never once, ever, should have conceded on the WMDs and switched gears. If there was no evidence, irrelevant. The line should always have been, we aren't going to war over WMDs, we're going to war over the POTENTIAL and THREAT of WMDs. If we find 'em, great, if we don't, even better. Next rat's nest.

I do think pitting one group against another only would have set up a British/India style Hindu/Muslim seething rage that would result in a mass resistance by all at an inopportune moment. But I agree that democracy might, or might not work. It's irrelevant, as long as they are on our side---or out of our way.

[tobyhill]

It's not time to learn, it's time to apply the knowledge they already have. They have been successful for the past 12 years but it seems for about the last 4 years they have allowed the MSM and Rats to frame the issues by inserting lies within the issues. I could care less if the Republicans even won the '08 elections with these wimps they turned into and if they want people to start caring again they better start fighting back.

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

Hail the global caliphate, brought to you by the same spiteful, disloyal back-stabbers who brought you Ho Chi Minh City and Pol Pot--the American electorate.

[FlipWilson]

Quote: "Voters didn’t like events in Iraq two years ago and they put President Bush on probation. They gave him a dangerously narrow reelection victory against an inept candidate with a long history of anti-American activism, a figure who should have been buried under a landslide that would make 1972 look like a squeaker. Two years later nothing had changed except that the voters were out of patience."

I agree with this assessment and with the particular assessment that going through the UN was a disaster. But, Bush's real failing was that after the 2004 election he took his eye off of the ball and focused on reforming Social Security. The democrats never lost focus on Iraq. Their attacks went unanswered for almost a year. By the time they were answered, it was too late.

[El Sordo]

Hmmm...

[Suzy Quzy]

Sadly, I agree with everything Peter has written.....sadly, very sadly. Bush is a good Christian man, who has a lovely, VERY SQUISHY wife who doesn't like him being too much of a warrior. Dick Cheney has a warrior wife....we would have been better off with the Cheneys as President.

[LS]

I'm not surrendering yet. And for what it's worth, Charles Martel and a few thousand soldiers in the 900s overturned centuries of Islamic dominance at a single battle. So stop being cynical and let's get to work.

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

Charles Martel did not have to cope with Islamists with nuclear weapons.

Nuclear weapons cannot win a war. But they can make sure that everybody loses.

[samtheman]

The main issue was that we never once, ever, should have conceded on the WMDs and switched gears. If there was no evidence, irrelevant. The line should always have been, we aren't going to war over WMDs, we're going to war over the POTENTIAL and THREAT of WMDs. If we find 'em, great, if we don't, even better. Next rat's nest.

You are so right. I've groaned out loud many times in the past few years watching Bush and the administration concede this issue. Which never should have been conceded.

[RightWhale]

We're learning already. Don Young has promised to continue sending pork to Alaska as best he can although he will have to ask for the committee floor now, a re-learning experience. We have learned to spell acetaminophen for the recall (Pelosi's fault.) No doubt we will learn more, and rapidly.

[LS]

More cynicism. They haven't used these yet. So until they do, how about if we DEFEAT them rather than grousing.

[4Freedom]

"The problem in Iraq is much larger than mere short-staffing and it isn’t a question of tactics. The problem in Iraq goes back to 1999 when Republicans, desperate for a presidential win, overlooked the intellectual incoherence of “compassionate conservatism” and embraced Governor Bush of Texas as their nominee."

This is the problem with Bush's approach to illegal immigration, education, prescription drugs for the elderly, foreign policy, international trade relations as well as the war in Iraq.

Bush is trying to be Mother Teresa in a Republican suit!

Gridlock is the best thing that could have happened to us these last 2 'lame duck' years of this bleeding heart's administration as he's hell-bent on driving us more than $10 TRILLION DOLLARS into debt!

[Dark Skies]

bump

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

They haven't used these yet.

There, I bolded the critical word, on which the fate of Western civilization turns.

Ahmadinejad, in his UN speech, actually prayed for the coming of the 12th Imam so that the end of the world could come about.

In other words, this guy is a real-life version of the liberals' slanderous caricature of President Reagan. And he's going to get nukes, because the Democrats the American electorate just sent up to run Capitol Hill want him to.

So until they do, how about if we DEFEAT them rather than grousing.

OK, step one: after the next attack, assuming that America survives it, we need to shoot every registered Democrat in this country before we do anything else. We cannot fight our enemies abroad without setting our own house in order first--Vietnam and Iraq have taught me that much.

[LS]

Well, at least you have a plan.

[upcountryhorseman]

If Republican Politicians had stayed with their base on immigration and reducing the Debt, along with promises
regarding tax reform, we wouldn't be in this situation.
Even so, these races were very close.

[Kenny Bunk]

Everyone s looking for 'lessons learned' from this debacle. IMHO, there probably aren't many.

The Democrats evolved a brilliant and very simple strategy to deal with any Republican, Conservative, RINO, Values, etc. candidate: on a head-to-head basis. They simply matched our candidate with one who was ideologically equal or better, and then they backed him up. They recognized that the average voter tends somewhat rightward on most issues, so that's where they ran. Our team wasn't smart enough, tough enough, or courageous enough to deal with the old "all court press." BTW, our coaching squad really was out to lunch.

The Democrat party, under this truly scary Rahm creep, and the equally shifty (note polite placement of the "f") Schumer are only wedded to left-wing loser socialist ideology after they win elections.

A damned shame that no one on the RNC reads ... or more likely ... believes what's on this site. There are at least 50 posters here who knew the score better than the RNC, Rove, Mehlman, Liddy, et al. These clymers should be benched immediately. Not only did they waste hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign funds, but they, quite needlessly IMO, put a group in power that could very well deliver ruin to our republic. Apparently they failed to notice we are in a death struggle with 200 million Muslims who want to kill, enslave, or at the very least convert us and make us live under their laws.

One could be forgiven for pointing out that a cataclysm of such historical proportions should at least get their attention. Pardon me, but it's a little like not showing up for the Siege of Vienna, or The Battle of Lepanto. They are that stupid.

Sure, It's a tradition. Every 8-year president seems to get shellacked 6-years out in the "Lame Duck" Mid-term. But this time, it's a lot more serious because we are in a World-Wide War our leaders were afraid to spell out. Finally we can join the chorus: "It's Bush's Fault."

[LS]

Good points. Part of the problem, though, is when you win three consecutive elections with a "play" from the playbook, the old maxim is that you keep running it till they stop it.

There was no evidence prior to this election that Republican turnout could be beaten. We can debate why, and you are right that the Dems ran a bunch of "conservatives." And no, we can't blame the public for choosing the "conservative" who hasn't voted yet over the "conservative" who has voted badly, for the most part.

The problem for the Rahm strategy now is that those "conservatives" will absolutely not be able to govern as such, so they, in turn, will have a record in two years, and it won't be a good one.

Now, a good coach would already anticipate that. But it does suggest that the strategy you see as so brilliant is a one-shot opportunity---provided, of course, the Republicans get sensible candidates.