April 22, 2007
Apr 22 02:40 Obama Promises to Surrender Apr 22 08:19 The 'Iraq Glass' Is Empty
Prior Years: 2006
https://lfr15years.blogspot.com/2021/12/april-19-21-2007.htmlObama Promises to Surrender
When Barack Obama saw a woman cry at a New Hampshire rally, Obama declared that he'd surrender to Iran and AQI if he were elected president. Yes, that was a tongue in cheek comment but the point is that Democrats, including Obama, are swayed by emotional outbursts about the war rather than by military opinions.
"I can't breathe," she said, her voice breaking with sobs. "I want to know, when am I going to be able to breathe? Are you going to get us the hell out of there? Promise us you will get us out of there. That's the most important thing."I can understand this woman being distraught. I'll even acknowledge that Obama has been anti-war since the beginning. That said, his policymaking is obviously too influenced by political support than by pertinent facts.
The crowd's applause as she finished gave Obama time to compose an answer.
"I can only imagine how you feel, as a father and as a parent," he said. "I don't go to a single town-hall meeting where I don't meet a mother or father who either is seeing a loved one go over there or has already lost someone, or has a loved one who has come back injured.
"So I make a solemn pledge to you, as president we will be out of Iraq," Obama said to loud applause.
Democrats criticize President Bush for not listening to variety of opinions, something I agree with. Why shouldn't Democrats be criticized for not listening to anyone that wants to defeat AQI and the other jihadists in Iraq? If Democrats hear someone say that Iraq is winnable, they accuse that person of repeating the Bush administration talking points.
Another way in which they're hypocritical is that they used to criticize President Bush of "not listening to his generals." Isn't it hypocritical that they've dissed Gen. Petraeus by passing legislation that cuts off funding for the troops that Gen. Petraeus needs to defeat the jihadists and to stabilize Iraq. Isn't it hypocritical that they've essentially said that they know more about Iraq than Gen. Petraeus?
If that isn't enough, Harry Reid says that the only way to win this war is politically, diplomatically and economically. How can the Iraqi economy flourish if the jihadists aren't defeated? I've come to realize that he's just that steadfast in his intent to declare defeat in Iraq.
One last thing: Obama says that he isn't against all wars, just poorly run wars. That's nonsense. There's nothing that suggests that he's for well run wars. Does Obama think that the Iraq war isn't worth winning? It certainly appears that way. If he cared about winning, he'd follow in Joe Lieberman's footsteps. That takes real courage. If he cared about winning, he would've suggested an alternative path to victory. He hasn't done anything like that. For that matter, Hillary hasn't laid out a plan for defeating the jihadists, whether they're in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran or anywhere else in the world.
The ugly truth about this is that Democrats couldn't care less about winning. That isn't just my opinion. Here's how Neal Boortz put it:
How's this for supporting our troops? Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Democrat (of course) has now declared that the United States has lost the war in Iraq. He told President Bush that the war could not be won through military force ... in effect saying that the U.S. military is incapable of defeating the Islamic fascist enemy.There isn't a dime's worth of difference between Reid and Obama on Iraq. They should be ashamed of themselves. They haven't added anything positive to this debate. They've been no-shows.
Know this ... there is no way in hell that you can say you support our troops when you say that our troops cannot win the battle. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell put it well: "I can't begin to imagine how our troops in the field, who are risking their lives every day, are going to react when they get back to base and hear that the Democrat leader of the United States Senate has declared the war is lost,"
I might put it a bit differently. What do you call a political leader in this country who declares a war to be lost while our men and women in uniform are putting their lives on the line to win that war. What do you call a highly placed political leader who puts a smile on the faces of the Islamic terrorist bastards who are out there trying to kill our soldiers. There's a word for it .. and it's a word that those of you who listen to my show will know that I don't use. That word is traitor. Dictionary.com has a few definitions for the word. See how you like them:
1. A person who betrays another, a cause or any trust.
2. A person who commits treason by betraying his or her country
So ... what is treason? Giving aid and comfort to the enemy during a time of war. Did Reid's comments give aid to the Islamic fascists trying to kill our soldiers? How can anyone not say that Harry Reid's words did just that? The only question then is whether, in the definition of treason, we can be said to be at war.
This may be Reid's escape. For my part, he has not only given aid and comfort to the enemy, he has emboldened them. I feel certain that American men and women in Iraq will die as a result of Reid's words encouraging the people who want to kill them.
Bastard.
Know this...Democrats are absolutely invested in our defeat at the hands of the Islamic insurgents in Iraq. Good news in Iraq is bad news for the Democrat Party MoveOn.org crowd. They watch the news every day looking eager for more stories of violence in Iraq aimed at innocents and our soldiers. The absence of those stories makes them sad. The presence of those stories lift their spirits.
Never in the history of this country has a political party been so dedicated to our defeat in armed conflict.
Their not presenting a plan for victory says everything you should need to know about how unserious the Democrats are about national security. They're nothing more than disinterested bystanders in the battle of our generation.
When history is written, they'll be known as more dovish than Neville Chamberlain.
Posted Sunday, April 22, 2007 2:42 AM
No comments.
The 'Iraq Glass' Is Empty
The old cliche goes that an optimist sees a glass as half full and that a pessimist sees that glass as half empty. When Little Chuckie Hagel looks at the 'Iraq Glass', he sees it as completely empty. Sen. Hagel has been the most negative politician when it comes to the war, worse than even pacifist John Murtha. It comes as no surprise, then, that Sen. Hagel has written an op-ed in this morning's Washington Post. I presume that his intent was a shot across Gen. Petraeus' bow just before he testifies before Congress.
Let's be clear about something: I hope that Hagel runs for president. Change that. I PRAY that he runs for president. It isn't that I want him as Commander-in-Chief. It's that he'd have trouble garnering more than a handful of votes. Even better news is that that would prevent Republicans from wasting money on a primary fight in Nebraska. If Sen. Hagel ran, then we could nominate a real Republican.
Here's a sampling of Sen. Hagel's bilge:
We must start by understanding what's really happening in Iraq. According to the National Intelligence Estimate released in February, the conflict has become a "self-sustaining inter-sectarian struggle between Shia and Sunnis" and also includes "extensive Shia-on-Shia violence." This means that Iraq is being consumed by sectarian warfare, much of it driven by Shiite or Sunni militias -- not al-Qaeda terrorists. Yes, there are admirers of Osama bin Laden in the country, including a full-blown al-Qaeda branch. But terrorists are not the core problem; Sunni-Shiite violence is. The Bush administration's rhetoric has not been nearly clear enough on this key point.Talk about wall-to-wall negativity. Talk about wall-to-wall stupidity. First off, the violence is being funded by Iran. Knowing that, why would they do anything other than fund more violence? The last thing they want is a stable Iraqi government. The last thing they want is a stable Iraqi democracy.
American occupation cannot stop a civil war in Iraq. Our military, superb as it is, can only do so much. The only lasting answer to Iraq's anguish will come from a political resolution. There will be no military solution in Iraq.
So how can America influence the Iraqis to reconcile their differences, at least enough to form some kind of responsible government?
First, we must recognize that we have few good options in Iraq and that we are dealing with dynamics that lie mostly beyond our control.
Second, we must do all we can to encourage a comprehensive regional security framework, which includes engaging Syria and Iran. The regional security conference next month in Egypt is an opportunity we must not miss. We cannot solve the problems in Iraq by ourselves. We will have to work more closely with our Middle East allies than ever before, and that means addressing the nearly universal perception in the Middle East that we are imposing our will on the region for our own purposes.
To get more help from our regional friends, we must also have Middle Eastern countries see the Iraqi government as credible, not a U.S. puppet. And to get our regional strategy right, we must clearly recognize the depth of the Sunni-Shiite split and factor it into our Middle East policy and relationships. If we do not, the region could explode into ethnic and religious conflict.
Third, and closer to home, the administration and Congress must untangle themselves from the debate over funding our continued involvement in Iraq. The Iraqis must be jolted into understanding that America's continued commitment of troops and money is not open-ended. Significantly, American leaders in Iraq told me that they believed the debate on this issue in Congress had actually helped them get Iraqi leaders to grasp this point.
What I find most troubling is the paragraph that says "we must do all we can to encourage a comprehensive regional security framework, which includes engaging Syria and Iran. The regional security conference next month in Egypt is an opportunity we must not miss. We cannot solve the problems in Iraq by ourselves. We will have to work more closely with our Middle East allies than ever before"
Is Sen. Hagel suggesting that Iran is an ally? Or is he simply saying that we must bring Iran's terrorists into a conference that's intended to bring about partnerships in solving Iraq's violence? If Sen. Hagel really thinks this plan will work, then he's delusional and unfit to perform his 'advise and consent' function in the Senate.
Sen. Hagel's pessimism isn't worthy of being considered advice. Instead, it's worthy of being considered worthless bilge that thinking people should ignore. It's bilge that's only worthy of consideration if you're a BDS-afflicted idiot.
Posted Sunday, April 22, 2007 8:20 AM
No comments.
