“The consequences of our actions grab us by the scruff of our necks, quite indifferent to our claim that we have 'gotten better' in the meantime.”
— Friedrich Nietzsche
The flaccid flip-flopping of Democrats over what is and isn’t happening in Iraq is morphing from confusing to pathetic. Even their efforts to exploit retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez denouncing our occupation in Iraq as a failed Bush policy begs the question of palpable, quantitative improvements in Iraq. . . now.
Sanchez has valid arguments about not enough planning, not the right planning, "if I could, I would, I shoulda stuff,” however, the current sitrep from the ground has changed.
Charles Krauthammer is right in his observations about the "State of Denial" http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/22/AR2007112201089.html by Democrats.
“The violence in Iraq has been dramatically reduced. Political allegiances have been radically reversed. The revival of ordinary life in many cities is palpable. Something important is happening.” However that something is contrary to the Pelosi policy pogrom.
When presented with overwhelming compelling facts that contradict their preconceived opinion and prejudices, how do the critics defend the indefensible? Krauthammer observes, “By asserting that we have not achieved political benchmarks — mostly legislative actions by the Baghdad government — that were set months ago.”
Honestly, for this do-nothing, acrimonious, petty partisan collection of self important nabobs to vilify another brand new foreign government for not moving fast enough is sufficient to gag a maggot. Talk about overreaching pretentious arrogance.
Congress is angst ridden by the inability of the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds to resolve “all the knotty questions of federalism, de-Baathification and oil money” despite their own inability to agree to agree on almost anything.
Even the New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/us/politics/25dems.html?em&ex=1196053200&en=7a51d9bcd58b99dc&ei=5087%0A reported, “The war in Iraq has taken a turn for the better, but don't try to tell that to Nancy Pelosi.”
After months of ragging on the "failure of Iraq" now the Democrat presidential wannabes have to tap dance and “are undertaking a new and challenging balancing act on Iraq: acknowledging that success, trying to shift the focus to the lack of political progress there, and highlighting more domestic concerns like healthcare and the economy.”
Gee, maybe if they just ignore their incorrect prognostications voters will forget all the chest thumping? Ya think?
Begrudgingly, “advisers to Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama say that the candidates have watched security conditions improve after the troop escalation in Iraq and concluded that it would be folly not to acknowledge those gains.” Rewind that: “security conditions improve after the troop escalation . . .” Hmmmmmm . . .
But wait, “American casualties are still too high,” yeah, that’s the ticket. Hold on . . . American casualties are too high compared to what? Go back to the NewsBusters piece from January 2007 "Many US Cities Have Had Murder Rates Higher Than Iraq's 2006 'Violent Death' Rate" http://www.newsbusters.org/node/9932.
Where has the violent death/murder rate exceeded the slaughter in Iraq? Washington D.C. 1991 New Orleans 2003 Compton Calif. 2005 East St. Louis 2004 Detroit 1991 Gary, Ind. 2005 New Orleans 2006 Atlanta 1973
The politics of war could very well effect a sea chance in the ’08 election . . . especially if the gains become cumulative. As the Democrats continue to pander to the anti-war element during the primary race, they increase the risk the GOP will bludgeon them with a perception of “defeatist and lacking faith in the American military.”
I recall back in 2003 telling my radio audience we should have done what the Brits did in 1947. Take a crayon and make a new map . . . carve Iraq up into three parts: Shiite, Sunni and Kurd . . . make them all pay us an oil tax and go home to watch the inevitable civil war.
Here we are four years later and the Washington Post reporting, “As for federalism, the Kurds are running their own region, the Sunni sheiks in Anbar and elsewhere are exercising not just autonomy but control of their own security, and the southern Shiites are essentially governing themselves, the British having withdrawn in all but name.” Archimedes personified!
Krauthammer gives props to Gen. David Petraeus for his “encouraging the emergence of and allying ourselves with tribal and provincial leaders” — good for Chuck. However, despite the myopia of our Congress as they are ‘Waiting for Godot’ frankly the dysfunctional constitutional mechanisms in Baghdad are no less egregious than the serial sins of our own do-nothing Congress.
Michael E. O’Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution (who is a supporter of Hillary and a proponent of the military buildup) said, “If Iraq looks at least partly salvageable, it will be important to explain as a candidate how you would salvage it — how you would get our troops out and not lose the war. The Democrats need to be very careful with what they say and not hem themselves in.”
Or is it too late?
© 2014 Newsmax. All rights reserved.