Posted on 02/07/2007 7:11:02 PM PST by Alouette
What's going on in Washington now is unbelievable - Bush is getting away with it. He's escalating the war in Iraq. He's sending 21,500 more soldiers over there. Nobody's stopping him, nobody's going to, either - not the Democrats, not the new Republican realists and not American public opinion, where Bush is heading down to Nixon's Watergate level.
The war in Iraq is a four-year, runaway disaster, the American voters turned adamantly against it in the November elections, the vaunted James Baker-led panel recommended what most everybody wants - a careful withdrawal, or as careful a withdrawal as possible. In the face of all that, it was just assumed Bush would have to bow to reality.
No way. The exact opposite is happening. Not only is Bush not starting to get the troops out, he's not content to stand pat with the troops he's got there now. No, he's sending over more. The war in Iraq is one of the worst blunders in American history, and the man responsible is now digging America in deeper. And America is letting him do it.
You watch these clowns in Congress, these eunuchs who don't have the balls to even pass what a Bush ally laughed off as a "confetti resolution" - a symbolic statement that wouldn't force Bush to withdraw but would at least officially express Congress's opinion in favor of withdrawal. But they can't even agree on that - they're afraid the White House will accuse them of demoralizing the troops, of encouraging the enemy. It would be too politically risky.
Such a statement wouldn't have stopped Bush anyway. The only way Congress can prevent Bush from escalating the war is by refusing to pay the cost of sending the extra troops in. But only a few senators and congressmen are willing to take that step because then the White House would accuse Congress of leaving the troops to die, of taking away their guns and uniforms and everything.
It's bullshit, of course. The only thing that would be taken away is Bush's right to send over those 21,500 more soldiers. But it's not going to happen; the fear of White House propaganda has all but a few politicians paralyzed, and the White House knows it. The administration isn't even worried. "We are moving forward," Dick Cheney told CNN about Bush's decision to escalate. "Congress has control over the purse strings, they have the right, obviously, if they want, to cut off funding, but in terms of this effort, the president has made his decision." In America, the dogs bark but the caravan moves on. Right over the cliff.
MEANWHILE, the administration's argument for moving forward has cleverly changed. Bush and his mouthpieces have stopped braying about "victory," because nobody will buy that anymore, it'll only hold them up to ridicule.
No, America isn't fighting to win in Iraq now, because whatever victory might look like, it's nowhere on the horizon. Instead, America is fighting to avoid defeat, which is very easy to visualize. Defeat will come when America leaves Iraq with the country still exploding, with the killing still going on in all directions, with America still hated by everyone (except the Kurds), and with nothing but further atomization, slaughter and radicalism ahead.
That's defeat. And that, warns the pro-war camp, will leave the entire Middle East in danger of being pulled into the Iraqi conflict. Even worse, it will leave America disgraced and its enemies emboldened.
So, they argue, America has no choice but to fight on. The 21,500-plan is called a "surge" - a euphemism for "escalation" that lets people think this is just temporary, that the extra troops being sent into Iraq will be home soon.
The idea is that these new troops, being deployed in new ways, will make the difference in the war, that they will bring a turning point toward security on the Iraqi streets and national unity in the Iraqi government.
I'm not being too original when I say this is impossible. In the best case, the extra troops might make Baghdad somewhat less lethal; they might bring the daily nationwide body count down from 100 or so to 80, or 70. But security they're not going to bring. And this is in the best case. Another possibility is that they will make no difference at all. Still another is that they will make things worse.
But even if the new troops really make a dent in the murder rate, does anybody think that whatever security and stability gains might be made from the "surge" would remain in place after America's withdrawal? In other words, is there anything these additional soldiers can achieve that would change the consequences of an American pull-out, that would make those consequences any different from what they would be if those 21,500 soldiers were kept home?
Does anybody have a good idea for anything at all that the US can do in Iraq over the next two years, or five years, or 10 years, that would make the downside of an American withdrawal any less steep than it would be after the gradual withdrawal, beginning now, that most Americans want? I haven't heard such an idea, and I don't believe it exists. While optimists may come up with feasible plans for improving Iraqi conditions under America's occupation, no one can come up with a feasible plan for holding Iraq together after American troops are gone.
So by staving off the withdrawal, the Bush administration's escalation of the war is just delaying America's inevitable defeat. The only lasting difference the surge will make is to increase the number of American soldiers getting killed and maimed.
The majority of senators and congressmen, Democrats and Republicans both, now understand this. And since they understand, but lack the courage to use their power to force Bush to wind down this war, the American blood about to be spilled for nothing will be on their hands, too.
Warning! This is a high-volume ping list.
Larry - you stupid schmuck, read Article II of the Constitution! What a friggin' schmendrick!
Heh heh heh... I love watching their eyes bug out in disbelief.
Keep repeating the lie...Unbelievable as it may seem to any logical, thinking person, about half of our sheep, err.. ahh... citizenry get their world view from the msm.
Who the Hell is Larry Darfner? Obviously a loser.
They'll never mention what happened in Vietnam when the Democrats cut the funding. Nope, Vietnam and Cambodia instantly became a paradise (Cue Disney characters and music).
We are letting him do it because as a nation we suffer from cognitive dissonance. We know there needs to be a violent resolution to the current state of American ME stalemate but are afraid to cheer for it. So we grumble and acquiesce to our primitive instinct to survive. The best we can hope for is a war with Iran, attacks in the USA and the certain domestic fallout against muslims. Then these muslims need to stand up and declare their independence from Mecca. What we need is a 21st century equivalent of a 15th century break from the head church. In this case, western based Islam, American to be specific (since the European muslim is quite a bite more radical at this time), should give the Koran a rewrite and stand up to the primitive practice. We need a Church of England equivalent for the Muslim faith. Someone to break off from tradition and modernize.
Actually it wouldn't be an exact rewrite of the Elizabethan experience and I suppose Mecca is more like Bethlehem (don't wretch please) than the Vatican. So perhaps it more along the lines of saying to hell with the bastardization of the religion being performed on it by the extremists and take a stand in favor of a permanent separation of state and religion as a cornerstone to their declaration of independence. Getting carried away here but I really believe the folks from the ME that live here overwhelmingly are good and peaceful and most importantly secure enough through the protection of our LAWS AND INSTITUTIONS to be comfortable making a stand.
The enemy is dissappointed in the Democrats.
Isnt that great??
Well, I guess I do have a little common ground with the left, after all....
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Yes, Derfner has earned his nickname "Moonbat."
I'd be interested in looking into Derfner's background. From the way he writes, I'd be willing to bet that he was one of those American Jewish campus radicals of the '60s who somehow emigrated to Israel and hasn't changed over the years.
BTW, it would be be hard to find any Israeli (Jewish) leftist in government or politics who openly expresses such venom against the American mission in Iraq. I suppose Derfner's approach doesn't go over well with the Israeli electorate.
Yes, and Derfner is mouthing off about that and his hatred for Bush.
The Iraq "debate" is completely contaminated. My best analogy of the situation would be to a counter worker at a fast-food joint caught sabotaging the food and service, talking down the business to customers while waiting on them, and in general disrupting the business operation.
The business owner is forbidden to fire the guilty worker.
Then, the guilty worker DEMANDS to be consulted about business operations, and insists upon attending meetings which are designed to improve the business.
This is where our media is at today...
When they elect someone with balls as Prime Minister, like Golda Mier, I'll start thinking Israel as an asset in the war on terror.
Obviously, in Olmerts case, the circumcision scalpel slipped and got the stones too.
When they elect someone with balls as Prime Minister, like Golda Meier, I'll start thinking of Israel as an asset in the war on terror.
Obviously, in Olmerts case, the circumcision scalpel slipped and got the stones too.
JPost is an eclectic mix of excellent analysts like Caroline Glick and Evelyn Gordon, cheek-by-jowl with a grab-bag of ranting freaks like Larry Barfner, Gershon Baskin, MJ Rosenberg and David Forman. They are trying to compete with Haaretz (which is Israel's version of "The Guardian") and YNet (Israel's "National Enquirer")
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.