McCain's Shot Across Reid's Bow
With the Senate about to conduct a pajama party tonight to discuss all the ways in which we can retreat in the face of our enemies, John McCain seems almost alone in the Senate in confronting Harry Reid on the consequences of his actions. They want to conduct a series of votes overnight in order to force Republicans into cloture on an amendment that would demand a pullout of Iraq by next April and beginning in September:
They called for sleeping cots to be rolled into a room off the Senate floor and told members to prepare for repeated votes throughout the evening. Senators even left open the possibility of dispatching the sergeant at arms to summon colleagues from their homes to the floor if lawmakers ignored the debate.The threat was reminiscent of a 1988 debate on campaign finance reform in which Capitol police carried Oregon Republican Sen. Robert Packwood into the Senate feet first shortly after 1 a.m.
The goal of the planned marathon debate was to test the patience of Republicans, who have threatened to filibuster the bill. So far, the GOP leadership has been successful at blocking anti-war legislation because Democrats don't have the 60 votes to cut off what would become an endless debate on the war.
It's more reminiscent of the overnight session called by Republicans two years ago to force votes on judicial confirmations. That went nowhere and the GOP looked foolish for its publicity stunt -- and Harry Reid has fewer votes than Bill Frist did back then. In fact, he may not even get a quorom. Even if he managed a quorom, an approval for cloture requires 60 votes, which will not be forthcoming under any circumstances.
Reid might like publicity stunts, but John McCain reminded Reid that these circus acts have real-world consequences in an impassioned speech today from the Senate floor:
No matter where my colleagues came down in 2003 about the centrality of Iraq to the war on terror, there can simply be no debate that our efforts in Iraq today are critical to the wider struggle against violent Islamic extremism. Already, the terrorists are emboldened, excited that America is talking not about winning in Iraq, but is rather debating when we should lose. Last week, Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda’s deputy chief, said that the United States is merely delaying our “inevitable” defeat in Iraq, and that “the Mujahideen of Islam in Iraq of the caliphate and jihad are advancing with steady steps towards victory.” He called on Muslims to travel to Iraq to fight Americans, and appealed for Muslims to support the Islamic State in Iraq, a group established by al Qaeda.General Petraeus has called al Qaeda “the principal short-term threat to Iraq.” What do the supporters of this amendment believe to be the consequences of our leaving the battlefield with al Qaeda in place? If we leave Iraq prematurely, jihadists around the world will interpret the withdrawal as their great victory against our great power. Their movement thrives in an atmosphere of perceived victory; we saw this in the surge of men and money flowing to al Qaeda following the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan. If they defeat the United States in Iraq, they will believe that anything is possible, that history is on their side, that they really can bring their terrible rule to lands the world over. Recall the plan laid out in a letter from Zawahiri to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, before his death. That plan is to take shape in four stages: establish a caliphate in Iraq, extend the “jihad wave” to the secular countries neighboring Iraq, clash with Israel – none of which shall commence until the completion of stage one: expel the Americans from Iraq. Mr. President, the terrorists are in this war to win it. The question is: Are we?
The supporters of this amendment respond that they do not by any means intend to cede the battlefield to al Qaeda; on the contrary, their legislation would allow U.S. forces, presumably holed up in forward operating bases, to carry out targeted counterterrorism operations. But our own military commanders say that this approach will not succeed, and that moving in with search and destroy missions to kill and capture terrorists, only to immediately cede the territory to the enemy, is the failed strategy of the past three and a half years….
Those are the likely consequences of a precipitous withdrawal, and I hope that the supporters of such a move will tell us what they believe to be the likely consequences of this course of action. Should their amendment become law, and U.S. troops begin withdrawing, do they believe that Iraq will become more or less stable? That al Qaeda will find it easier to gather, plan, and carry out attacks from Iraqi soil, or that our withdrawal will somehow make this less likely? That the Iraqi people become more or less safe? That genocide becomes a more remote possibility or ever likelier?
Mr. President, this fight is about Iraq but not about Iraq alone. It is greater than that and more important still, about whether America still has the political courage to fight for victory or whether we will settle for defeat, with all of the terrible things that accompany it. We cannot walk away gracefully from defeat in this war.
The Democrats may not care about the gracefully part, but they're going to do their level best to see us run away from the fight.
Posted by Ed Morrissey on July 17, 2007 3:20 PM | Comments (38) | TrackBacks (0)
Comments (38)
Posted by starfleet_dude | July 17, 2007 3:38 PM
Reid's already succeeded by making it clear that it's the Republicans who are holding things up in the Senate.
Posted by Philip | July 17, 2007 3:55 PM
Democrats want us to lose. It is as simple as that. When they speak of a "teachable moment" they mean that they want the US to be humiliated in defeat. They can not have us win and will do all they can to prevent it.
A shameless lot. I will be voting against them all.
Posted by Stephen | July 17, 2007 3:59 PM
Could you imagine just for a moment what the jihadists would be thinking if this nation's Democrats stood firmly with the likes of John McCain on destroying this enemy? It is sickening that the party of the left care more about a political loss for George Bush than they do about battling jihadists. I am a big supporter of Rudy for 2008, but everytime I hear Senator McCain speak about the war in Iraq, I think I could still be persuaded to support him. And, by the way, Kerry was considered untouchable when he spoke abou the war in the last election because he fought in one. Why isn't Senator McCain treated the same way by the MSM?
Posted by syn | July 17, 2007 4:02 PM
"whether America still has the political courage to fight for victory or whether we will settle for defeat, with all the terrible things that accompany it. We cannot walk away gracefully from defeat in this war"
I lived through the last time Americans settled for defeat, for me the choice this time is easy I'm fighting for victory.
Posted by NoDonkey | July 17, 2007 4:11 PM
"Reid's already succeeded by making it clear that it's the Republicans who are holding things up in the Senate."
Holding exactly what "up"? An irresponsible, cynical, political ploy to mollify far left, anti-American lunatics who desperately yearn for an American defeat?
Yes, mustn't wait another moment for that. Even though the Generals say our efforts are succeeding.
Who cares? Daily Kos and his little cockroach readers want defeat.
If Sen. Reid succeeds in pulling defeat out of the jaws of victory, imagine how many electoral votes that will win for the absolutely worthless Democrat Party. And that's all that really matters, isn't it?
Quisling and Arnold, you are free. Reid has replaced thee as the handle for a worthless, gutless, gelded traitor.
Rejoice, Judas Party! How about following up your pajama party with a month long hunger strike?
Posted by starfleet_dude | July 17, 2007 4:14 PM
Holding exactly what "up"? An irresponsible, cynical, political ploy to mollify far left, anti-American lunatics who desperately yearn for an American defeat?
No, it's holding up a straight up-and-down vote on Iraq and other matters. That's as all-American as it gets.
Posted by Gmax | July 17, 2007 4:28 PM
This wont get past the first 1/2 hour. A quorum call will be made and the Dems have at most 49 votes since Tim Johnson is still incapicitated and Lieberman will not stand for this. So 1 Republican shows, objects to the lack of quorem and voila! Farce over.
Posted by russ | July 17, 2007 4:44 PM
Enough of Iraq. Time to strike the next enemy. Imagine if FDR has spent 5 years rebuilding Italy rather than taking the war to Germany in 1943. It is time we took the war to Iran and Syria and Saudia Arabia...the CEO, COO and CFO of Islamic Fascism.
Posted by the tapper | July 17, 2007 4:56 PM
what's the point?? How much money do these monkeys make??? What a waste!! I hate to see which way my Rino's will vote tonight...'Everytime there is a democratic vote there they are right up from to sell their nation down the drain....We'll see tonight. Hopefully in 08 they will have a draft from republican, otherwise theyve lost a vote
Posted by MarkJ | July 17, 2007 5:06 PM
No, it's holding up a straight up-and-down vote on Iraq and other matters. That's as all-American as it gets.
Dear starfleet_dude,
*Sigh* No matter how much lipstick Harry Reid tries to put on his pigs, they'll always be pigs. And, in all cordiality, your Kerry-esque, stentorian mumblings about "straight up-and-down votes" ain't gonna change that fact. You'd better pray for a Senate quorum tonight, old man, because, if there isn't, Reid's grand debate stunt is going to last about all of 15 minutes.
My unsolicited definition of a Democrat:
An individual who simultaneously holds two opposing viewpoints...and doesn't believe in either of them.
Posted by Scott Malensek | July 17, 2007 5:11 PM
ok, please, Please, PLEASE pardon my ignorance and confusion....
In October 2006, Al Queda admits to losing 4000 fighters in Iraq, MNF briefings are pressed and admit a confirmed kill of over 7000 Al Queda killed in Iraq since 10/05.
Media ignores the reports, and Americans are polled re the war. A majority say they want a New Direction in Iraq as Dems are promising.
Dems are elected to power in not one, but BOTH houses of Congress, but on election night, DNC Chairman Dean admits to Chris Matthews that the vaunted "New Direction in Iraq" plan doesn't exist, never has, and they hadn't even formed a committee to brainstorm ideas.
Having been elected, the electorate, media, everyone wants to know what the Dems will do. Reid, Pelosi, Dean, Clintons, even the likes of Durbin, Levin, Biden, and Rockefeller all endorse and even call for more troops to be sent to Iraq.
The next month, December 2002, Democratic senators go to Syria, meet with Asad, come back, and the DNC (or was it the DLC) holds a conference to determine their new direction in Iraq plan.
The next month, US intel reports that Saddam's muscleman, VP, head of the segment of the insurgency that was former Iraqi leaders, Izzat al Douri, is alive, had met with other insurgent leaders in Syria (right after Dems left having been no more than an hour drive from the insurgent leaders).
Beating Dems to the PR punch, the President "changes direction" in Iraq and sends more troops.
The next month, Dems reverse their calls for more troops, and start the non-binding resolution/faux opposition attempt at appeasing their base and misled constituents.
First they want more troops, then they meet with Syria (where 80+ Al Queda suicide bombers fly into Iraq from every month), and after that meeting, Dems' "New Direction" is OUT at all costs; defeat, and let's be clear, OUT is defeat....even Reid acknowledges that.
So, which is it:
Dems want more troops and new direction,
OR
Dems want fewer troops and return to old direction that they themselves claim voters didn't want.....but...wait, I'm confused.
Ohhhhhhhhh, I see, they want the war to be a defeat so they can appease their base, take power from a nearly powerless lame duck President, and then get voted into power where they'll be stuck cleaning up the mess they legislated into existence. I see, tonight's little show is a show about a show where they didn't want a show, but then they did because everyone else didn't.
This is so stupid.
Why don't they protest the terrorists and condemn their actions instead of protesting those who are trying to stop them?
Posted by The Yell | July 17, 2007 5:14 PM
"No, it's holding up a straight up-and-down vote on Iraq and other matters. That's as all-American as it gets."
Not according to Robert Byrd:
"Many times in our history we have taken up arms to protect a minority against the tyrannical majority in other lands. We, unlike Nazi Germany or Mussolini's Italy, have never stopped being a nation of laws, not of men.
But witness how men with motives and a majority can manipulate law to cruel and unjust ends."
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/003963.php
Your crew broke the Constitution to assert the sacred right of 40 Senators to filibuster ANYTHING before the Senate. This isn't an extraconstitutional filibuster of a judicial nomination, it's the traditional stalemate on legislation. Suck it up, buttercup.
Posted by Del Dolemonte | July 17, 2007 5:33 PM
Man, it's already started...Babs Boxer is hilarious! I wonder who writes her "material"...
Posted by Angry Dumbo | July 17, 2007 5:35 PM
It's more reminiscent of the overnight session called by Republicans two years ago to force votes on judicial confirmations. That went nowhere and the GOP looked foolish for its publicity stunt -- and Harry Reid has fewer votes than Bill Frist did back then.
You speak of the judicial debate-a-thon. I disagree. The stunt was made for t.v. and red meat for the base of the Republican party. Sailing into a stiff breeze, Republicans made serious across the board gains in 04.
The anti-war left is doing the same heavy lifting for Democrats in 08 that social conservatives did for Bush in 04. Meanwhile, social conservatives are being treated like ugly step children. For some of us, the judicial debate-a-thon was not "foolish" publicity stunt, but a moment of great pride. When Dick Durbin and Chuck Schumer said that pro-choice, practicing Catholics and other social conservatives were so far out of the "mainstream of American political thought" to be unqualified to serve on the federal appellate bench, I was happy beyond words that our Republicans in the Senate finally spoke up for people like me.
Sadly, those moments are increasingly rare. Perhaps, Republicans should recognize that Democrats are simply feeding their base. Social conservatives could sure use a bone right now.
Posted by Fight4TheRight | July 17, 2007 5:42 PM
Great comments Scott M.
Also, Mark J., that definition of a Democrat is wonderful! haha
This was a great speech by McCain. Chances are good, that if that speech was heard by Americans, they will nod their heads and say, "Yep, he's right....he's absolutely right."
But then again, I'm sure Dick Durbin will get up and promise all of the troops home snug in their beds while the Iraqi's all get together for a huge picnic.
So I guess it will come down to who you believe. A decorated war veteran who kept American secrets deep inside him while his enemies tortured him over a span of years or a Senator from Illinois who compares our military sons and daughters to Nazis.
Who will Americans believe?
Posted by Lightwave | July 17, 2007 5:58 PM
That sound you hear is the Democrats talking, intellectualizing, and extemporizing themselves right out of existence.
The moonbats DEMANDED!!! that Harry Reid do this. What Kos wants, Kos gets: the Dems looking like a bunch of fools while the reality is AQ is running out of time to hit the US again, and losing ground day after day in Iraq. The only way we can possibly lose in Iraq is if we surrender. The voters will be reminded of that daily over the next 16 months, and when November 08 rolls around, the Democrats are through politically in this country.
And then we can deal with the traitors and cowards.
Posted by Scott Malensek | July 17, 2007 6:26 PM
What's really gonna be a Greek tragedy/comedy is when the surge is over, and troop levels do decrease (recall that it is a SURGE of forces, not an indefinite escalation as Dems try to sell). So, when it's over, and troop levels decrease under the military and Republican claims of success, will Democrats agree that troop levels came down because of success, or will they argue it was in defeat (important because the latter would encourage Republicans to send more troops in or keep troop levels where they are at the moment). This half full/half empty point isn't just semantics. It's important because it will be POST Feb5, 08 when both parties have nominees, and ranting against W or ranting against the war just is no longer enough. After the SuperDuper Tuesday primaries on 2/5/08, nominees will have to distinguish themselves and THEIR PLANS for the future. Ranting about W is useless as it gives the Republican nominee cover, and ranting about the war is useless because if elected, then the Democratic nominee would have to actually walk the walk. Given Democrats' track record at walking the walk (be it Pres Clinton breaking almost all his campaign promises, or the recent election of the most DO-NOTHING Congress in American history, that's a pretty tough record/burden to sell between Feb and Nov 08.
Imagine if you will,
OPTION A
troop levels decrease
Military claims mostly success
Republicans claim mostly success
Dems claim defeat
Republicans then have to continue the war because they don't want the US to be defeated
Dems (if they're lucky again) get elected to power, then have to either continue war or take office and immediately evacuate Iraq ala Vietnam (political suicide)
OPTION B
troop levels decrease
Military claims mostly success
Republicans claim mostly success
Democrats claim some success, focus on joy of troops coming home, but are then disarmed in their anti-Iraq War rants
Feb-Nov election can't focus on W since he's not running, and doing so would give free pass to Republican candidate, and Dems can't focus on a vaunted "new direction" mantra either. Their 2 core draws are gone, and they're stuck playing defense and ranting about "the poor"
http://www.therant.us/staff/malensek/07172007.htm
Posted by Keemo | July 17, 2007 6:36 PM
What's behind this shameful stunt; George Soros for one... Soros pulls the strings and the little Democrat puppets do the dance... Any Republican that sides with the little Democrat puppets has simply been bought by Soros through one of his many networks.
When it comes to the GWOT, McCain is solid as stone. When it comes to the most worthless bunch of lawyers ever assembled; just watch the Democrats in Congress on TV tonight. In fact, I just tuned in and what a show already. Pure raw sewage flowing down the isles of Congress; wow.
100% invested in an American defeat in Iraq and the global war on terror; Democrats are... Every day that passes, brings more light on this fact. The Democrat Party, the so called Main Stream Media, the Hollywood critters, the MTV critters; all 100% invested in an American defeat.
This is all amazing to watch unfold right before our eyes. One of our two parties wishing for and doing everything possible to see our own country lose a war; one of our two intelligence agencies (CIA) wishing for and doing everything possible to see our own country lose a war... All is not lost; no freakin way. It will be interesting to watch the American people as these revelations become clear through the smoke screen. The American people just rose up and defeated a remarkably bad bill; the American people gave me lots of hope with that huge effort. We are all watching the complete meltdown of our political membership. We have much work ahead of us; we can't trust these politicians to act out on behalf of the citizens; we can't trust an intelligence agency that leaks our secrets in order to destroy political opponents; we can't trust an intelligence agency that sent Joe Wilson to find out critical information regarding our national security; this very same agency that employs hundreds of highly trained professionals to do this job, but yet they chose an untrained desk monkey for this critical job.
Lot's of work ahead; difficult times for our country indeed.
Posted by Scrapiron | July 17, 2007 7:00 PM
Reid is leading another group of democrats into history as cowards and worse, traitors. There are thousands that will be documented in history from Vietnam as traitors and the latest will only add to the total of democrat traitors. Personally I consider anyone that voted for Hanoi John/Hanoi Jane a traitor. You can like it or KMA, it's the truth. You know it's the truth if you finished the 3rd grade but don't have the guts to admit it much less ever fight for freedom anywhere.
Posted by Keemo | July 17, 2007 7:05 PM
It might be worthwhile for a U.S. Senator to read this on the floor of the Senate tonight as reported from John Burns of the N.Y. Crimes, it a recap of General Lynch’s remarks made Sunday.
A taste:
He implied that an early withdrawal would amount to an abandonment of Iraqi civilians who he said had rallied in support of the American and Iraqi troops, and would leave the civilians exposed to renewed brutality by extremist groups. “When we go out there, the first question they ask is, ‘Are you staying?’ ” he said. “And the second question is, ‘How can we help?’ ” He added, “What we hear is, ‘We’ve had enough of people attacking our villages, attacking our homes, and attacking our children.’ ”
General Lynch said his troops had promised local people that they would stay in the areas they had taken from the extremists until enough Iraqi forces were available to take over, and said this had helped sustain “a groundswell” of feeling against the extremists. He said locals had pinpointed hide-outs of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, an extremist group that claims to have ties to Osama bin Laden’s network, that had been used to send suicide bombers into Baghdad and they had helped troops locate 170 large arms caches. The general said the locals had started neighborhood patrol units called “Iraqi provincial volunteers” that supplied their own weapons and ammunition.
…
What they’re worried about is our leaving,” he said. “And our answer is, ‘We’re staying,’ because my order from the corps commander is that we don’t leave the battlespace until we can hand over to the Iraqi security forces.” To hold on to recent gains, he said, would require at least a third more Iraqi troops than he now has, and they would have to come from other battle areas, or from new units yet to complete their training. “Everybody wants things to happen overnight, and that’s not going to happen,” he said.
…
General Lynch said he was “amazed” at the cooperation his troops were encountering in previously hostile areas. He cited the village of Al Taqa, near the Euphrates about 20 miles southwest of Baghdad, where four American soldiers were killed in an ambush on May 12 and three others were taken hostage. One of the hostages was later found dead, leaving two soldiers missing. Brig. Gen. Jim Huggins, a deputy to General Lynch, said an Iraqi commander in the area had told him on Saturday that women and children in the village had begun using plastic pipes to tap on streetlamps and other metal objects to warn when extremists were in the area planting roadside bombs and planning other attacks. “The tapping,” General Huggins said, was a signal that “these people have had enough.”
General Lynch said that he and other American commanders were worried that extremist groups under attack by the buildup might retaliate with a spectacular, focused attack on American troops aimed at tipping the argument in Washington in favor of withdrawal.
The Democrats are panicking because some of them can see there is a decent chance the new strategy will work out. They simply can’t allow that to happen, and certainly not with a major election ahead of us. So they must engineer surrender of the battlefield as quickly as possible before a wider change in reality and perception takes place. As usual, good for America (and Iraqis) equals bad for liberals, and I’ve yet to hear in all the moaning in the U.S. Senate chamber today and so far tonight why they think this debate can’t wait till after the September update from Petraeus. (Polipundit)
Posted by docjim505 | July 17, 2007 7:39 PM
Scott M;
Knocked the cover off the ball!
Posted by Brad Marston | July 17, 2007 8:40 PM
McCain is right about the battle in Iraq. It is a battle in the larger war against radical Islam.
Of course the all nighter is a stunt. That is all the Democrats have. They campaigned on cleaning up Washington DC which they haven't done becausde they do not want to and getting the US out of Iraq which they do not have the power to. Incompetent and impotent is a bad combination.
However, with so many cots in the Capitol Building it may be Hillary's best chance in years to get laid.
Posted by Mark Buehner | July 17, 2007 9:48 PM
McCain just got me listening to him again. This was a major mistake by the dems, because they dont actually believe in what they are proposing- they want us out, period, but politically this is their best shot. So they are arguing for something that EVERYONE knows cant work. And now the republicans (and Joe Lieberman) are wiping the floor with them all night.
Posted by mrlynn | July 17, 2007 10:06 PM
Writes Fight4theRight: This was a great speech by McCain. Chances are good, that if that speech was heard by Americans, they will nod their heads and say, "Yep, he's right....he's absolutely right."
"If that speech was heard by Americans." That's the problem. How many watch C-Span? What major-market newspapers, TV stations, and networks will carry even a portion of it?
Political junkies like us will know about it. But all most Americans know is what they hear between ball games and 'reality' shows, and that is that George Bush is a villain and 'the war in Iraq' is a disaster.
The Democrats are playing first to their radical-left supporters, and second to their allies in the media, who will reliably keep the American public fat, dumb, happy, and abysmally ignorant.
A Republic of uneducated, ignorant rabble cannot survive. And that's what we're allowing them to create.
What can we do about it?
/Mr Lynn
Posted by Drew Smith | July 17, 2007 10:12 PM
McCain's facts and judgment are wrong, but his heart is surely in the right place. I wish I could say the same of the 25-30% of the electorate represented by this blog and its readers.
I don't read this stuff too often, but it's always a shock. Both the blog and the comments all take it on faith that opposition to GWB and the war is fueled by hatred of country and a desire to see America "defeated". Are you folks really so far gone that you believe this? Or is it just a rhetorical ploy? With 60+% of the country against both the President and his war, it's a losing stance either way: in the first instance, believing that a majority of your countrymen are traitors; in the second, believing that you can persuade and influence that majority by calling them traitors.
There are serious and principled arguments to be made in favor of continuing the war; but name-calling and character assassination seem to be easier than making those arguments.
Posted by Rose | July 17, 2007 10:47 PM
NOBODY is STANDING BY McCain??? DUH!!!
After SHAMNESTY, who wants to lose their career by standing too close to HIM ???
He should resign!
Posted by Terry Gain | July 17, 2007 10:59 PM
Drew Smith
Your comments are ignorant and fool no one. General Petraeus is due to report in 2 months. This body confirmed his appointment unanimously. So what's the rush to declare his mission failed?
Obviously the rush is created by the danger posed if Petraeus reports the Surge is working and over the course of the next 15 months it becomes clear that the Surge has worked. In that event your party is toast in the 2008 elections.
So stop pretending that you're somehow above rank partisanship.
Posted by M. Simon | July 17, 2007 11:05 PM
Angry Dumbo,
I suppose you could get a law passed against involuntary abortions. If it would make you feel better.
I don't want no bones.
I want WAR.
WAR on the jihadis.
All else is optional or forgivable, even that great piece of Republican Socialism, the Drug War.
Posted by Rose | July 17, 2007 11:41 PM
Democrats want us to lose. It is as simple as that. When they speak of a "teachable moment" they mean that they want the US to be humiliated in defeat. They can not have us win and will do all they can to prevent it.
A shameless lot. I will be voting against them all.
Posted by: Philip at July 17, 2007 3:55 PM
*******************************************
VOTE AGAINST THEM???
HAHAHAHAHA
When the terrorists the DIMS have already flooded this nation with finally begin to start having so many incidents in America they can no longer be ignored, those Dims will be looking for cover behind Conservative SKIRTS.
heheheheheheheheh
They'll wish THEN they'd been making FRIENDS in AMERICA OF AMERICAN CITIZENS, at THAT point.
Posted by Rose | July 17, 2007 11:55 PM
Posted by: Drew Smith at July 17, 2007 10:12 PM
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
If you are old enough to vote, you are old enough to figure out the TRUTH about that SO-CALLED 60%, and what they are REALLY totally against.
If you aren't, then you deserve what you'll get for be ing so foolish.
Since you do know the Turth, you will likewise deserve your just rewards for being so vicious to America, and our troops.
Posted by Rose | July 18, 2007 12:04 AM
Why don't they protest the terrorists and condemn their actions instead of protesting those who are trying to stop them?
Posted by: Scott Malensek at July 17, 2007 5:11 PM
**********************
You mean like, actually WORK to make AMERICA strong?????????
WHAT A NOVEL IDEA for DIMS.
Nah!! That would screw their agenda.
Posted by M. Simon | July 18, 2007 12:07 AM
Drew,
Faulty assumption. Just because the Pres is at 60% + disapproval doesn't mean they all disapprove for the same reason.
Some folks want to know why he hasn't bombed Iran.
i.e. the opposition is not monolithic.
It is why the Dems in the House won't cut off funding despite the power (at least until vetoed) to do so.
It is a losing proposition and the Ds know it. So we get kabuki. Fortunately you are not easily fooled by such stylized dramas.
Posted by crossdotcurve | July 18, 2007 6:00 AM
When this orgy of shallow boosterism has abated, you might want to read a sober analysis from one of America's most knowledgable diplomats on Iraq. Someone who's been involved in our Iraq policy for decades.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/07/18/iraq/
It's a devastating article and I challenge anyone here to read it and maintain their ridiculous optimism that the "surge is working" and leading us to "victory".
Posted by mrlynn | July 18, 2007 6:35 AM
Peter Galbraith's article, linked by crossdotcurve above, is a familiar litany of charges, claims, and opinion, without any evidence to back them up. In point of fact, the situation on the ground in Iraq (as opposed to the offices of some liberal think-tank) is enormously variegated and complex, and one can cherry-pick both good and ill, depending on which axe you want to grind.
The real truth is this: We are not leaving Iraq. We cannot afford to let Iran and Al Qaeda carve it up, leaving Al Qaeda with a base in the heart of the Middle East, and Iran in control of the Gulf and all that oil. Even Mrs. Bill Clinton, if elected President, cannot fail to admit this reality.
The smarter Democrats know this, which makes their grandstanding and demogoguery especially reprehensible, even traitorous. The disunion the enemies see encourages them, as no enemy should be encouraged. Had President Bush used the momentum of September 11th to ask Congress for a formal Declaration of War, he would now have the authority to put the Democrats in jail for aiding and abetting the enemy.
/Mr Lynn
Posted by George Dixon | July 18, 2007 7:31 AM
Democrats started the last civil war too......
Posted by MarkW | July 18, 2007 7:46 AM
sfdud clearly defines progress as passing the Democratic agenda.
When the Dems were blocking the Rep agenda, that also was considered making progress.
Posted by JabbaTheTutt | July 18, 2007 8:08 AM
McCain said: "The supporters of this amendment respond that they do not by any means intend to cede the battlefield to al Qaeda; on the contrary, their legislation would allow U.S. forces, presumably holed up in forward operating bases, to carry out targeted counterterrorism operations."
The amendment supporters are wanting to adopt the failed pre-surge strategy. The whole point of the surge is to "clear and hold". Before, we "cleared" out the terrorists, then turned it over to Iraqi forces, who were not ready to hold. Now, we hold and only turn over control, when the Iraqis are capable of holding.
Posted by Brian H | July 18, 2007 11:00 AM
The post-pullback strategy/plan for antiterrorism that the Dems are sketching is the merest hand-waving. They cannot produce any plausible military analysis which suggests it has the faintest hope of succeeding. It stands, in fact, as a thoroughly reality-discredited rerun of much of the early post-invasion approach.
Hand-waving. Useful for carnies, not much else.