Thursday, April 03, 2008
If you are among those who wonder why the Democrats have a reputation for being anti-military and soft on national defense, look no further:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) warned Army Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker on Thursday not to "put a shine on recent events” in Iraq when they testify before Congress next week.
“I hope we don’t hear any glorification of what happened in Basra,” said Pelosi, referring to a recent military offensive against Shiite militants in the city led by the Iraqi government and supported by U.S. forces.
Yes, the Speaker of the House is "warning" the American theater commander in the middle of a war not to "put a shine on" in his report. Because, God forbid, he might suggest there was cause for optimism. We cannot, after all, have the general leading our soldiers actually saying there is a chance for victory. You know, in public, in front of television cameras where actual Americans might see him.
Ten thousand jihadis could surrender tomorrow and beg to be waterboarded and Nancy Pelosi would refuse to view it as victory.
Pelosi did say one thing that is certainly true but wholly inconsistent with her policy prescription: That Moqtada al-Sadr's ceasefire in Basra was on orders from Tehran.
Although powerful Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr agreed to a ceasefire after six days of fighting, Pelosi wondered why the U.S. was caught off guard by the offensive and questioned how the ceasefire was achieved, saying the terms were "probably dictated from Iran.”
So, the senior Democrat in our national government acknowledges that Iran is waging a proxy war against the United States and the government of Iraq, and yet believes (i) it is in our national interest to cede Iraq to the Islamic Republic and (ii) the United States has no casus belli against Iran. And that the one American general who has shown some capacity for counterinsurgency needs to be warned against any suggestion of victory, tactical or otherwise.
Somehow, I think General Petraeus could give a rat's patootee about what Pelosi thinks of him or his professional assessment of the conditions in country. I'll bet if we nailed al-Sadr and Bin Laden, together with bringing about the untimely demise of Lord Farquat in Iran, she'd still come up with some clever conspiracy about why that was a bad thing. But hey ... let her unleash the hounds on him, and let him tell it like it is. I'd like that.
The only thing missing from Pelosi's comments was a nearly obligatory reference to Vietnam. Perhaps McCain's presence in the campaign is finally cooling the far Left's consistent croons about Vietnam, the war they love because it's the war we left.
Unrelated, but hilarious and I felt obligated to mention it.
"Traditionally, Democrat candidates for President start slightly radical, then try to reassure Conservative America, get in a tangle and look like idiots. But this time may be different, because Barack Obama has stuck by his friend the militant preacher, refusing to disown him, and Hillary Clinton has gone mental."
Pelosi's outburst is nothing.
This morning on NPR they started with as assertion that Basra cease-fire was 'an embarassment', brought in some experts to state that Maliki "acted unilaterally" and should never be allowed to pull anything like that again and then brought in more experts to discuss the advantages of engineering a coup against Maliki.
After all that, they finished with the obligatory statement that US must leave Iraq ASAP.
Not only Hillary has "gone mental".
For you young-uns that missed the Viet Nam war, what you are seeing is very similar to the Tet offensive in 1968; the MSM and the war's oppenents declared what was clearly a military victory and portrayed it as a defeat. The jihadis have certainly learned from history; too bad the democrats and MSM havent.
If Nancy wants to have a hearing...
Wouldn't she want to know if Botux does travel to the brain?
"Botox May Move From Face to Brain, Study in Rats Says"
only in America could we have the speaker of the house injecting herself with a wmd, 'trying' to look younger.
put aside the name calling and learn to read: she is simply saying Tell us the truth. and the truth, alas, is that nothibng good is taking place.Nothing. Read the paper and the reports of how many Iraq army guys refused to fight against the insurgent militia!
been around long enough to know that it was the American people and not the Democrats--plus the draft--that ended the Viet war...
You are so ready to continue this war which Irq citizens will not? offer to serve instead of serving the keyboard
"offer to serve instead of serving the keyboard"
OMG--is that chickenhawk argument still floating around? How will that argument play should HRC/BHO get elected? It certainly won't play with John McCain.
Going to need a new meme there, Anon.
The Democrats did their damnedest to shut the surge down in its tracks, then called Petraeus a liar to his face when he said it was working. Since then the numbers out of Iraq have spoken for themselves.
I'm amazed that Pelosi would even have the nerve to show up for any hearings now, at least without a paper bag over her head.
I think the truth of Iraq lies somewhere in between the bluster and b.s. of Douglas Mccarthur in Korea and the defeatist spin of Walter Cronkite in Vietnam. But you're right, NPR, the MSM and the Democrats keep spinning negative...they are much too politically vested in failure.
Just accept that Democrats, even though they spent a decade warning of imminent threat, and voted in the majority to give Bush authorization, will never find any positive developments.
They have quite successfully created a separate reality which has them as against the war from day one, and no-one seems eager to call them on it.
You can't just write off Iraq like a spoiled shipment of lettuce. That's waaay too facile of an answer.
There are Iraqis that have risked their lives daily for the last 5 years hoping for something better and all the while Ba'athist thugs and Iranian puppets have been trying to tear down that which has been built up. How can the individual Iraqi - especially the ones who do risk themselves daily - ever get a shot at something better if we don't continue to help them against the forces of tyranny?
It's a lot more complicated than assuming that flat out cowardice by some (unfortunately even by some in upper Iraqi echelon) paints a picture of all.
If someone did "offer to serve", would you then discredit them as being biased?
As I said over at my place yesterday (http://pointsofcompass.blogspot.com/2008/04/can-we-question-their-sanity-now.html), the Dems do not want to hear the truth. They can't handle the truth. They have staked their future upon a US/Iraqi defeat and will not tolerate it when someone tells them it's not gona happen.
--been around long enough to know that it was the American people and not the Democrats--plus the draft--that ended the Viet war...
been around long enough to know that the American people were more divided on it than your post suggests.
also been around long enough to know that the American people were mis-informed by the liberal media. To the point, Tet was a major military victory by US-ARVN forces, but Uncle Walter told us it was a defeat. The American people might have decided differently if they knew North Viet Nam was on the edge of surrender. But the useful idiots such as John Kerry carried their propaganda water.
BTW, that's the real similarity of Iraq to Viet Nam. The reprise of disloyal, America hating lefties cheering for our defeat
That's a stark, simplistic difference, but it really does seem that way sometimes.
"You are so ready to continue this war which Irq citizens will not? offer to serve instead of serving the keyboard"
What do you have to say to all the people who have or are now serving in Iraq and use the keyboard as well? You know, people who desperately try to let the world know how things really are, yet are roundly ignored?
Stooges? Babykillers? Footsoldiers of fascism? Imperialists? Liars? Come on, surprise me. I've heard a lot. Just try not to use the words 'Rovian' and 'plot/conspiracy.'