Democrat Dementia
We're fixing Iraq because they know we're leaving
By haystack Posted in Democrats | Harry Reid | Hillary | Iraq | NYT | War — Comments (7) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Hillary Clinton is a lot of things, but brilliant just never seems to make it to the short list. Crafty, cagey, resilient, exonerated (err-I mean un-charged) criminal perhaps, bold-faced liar even...but she ain't exactly the sharpest tool in the shed.
So it came as no surprise to me that she would say so many idiotic things on Meet the Press this Sunday past. Dumb though this woman is, I must say Hillary Clinton's narcissistic naivete should scare the bloody hell out of everyone. The woman...seriously...needs counseling.
This week's trainwreck moment came regarding Iraq. When asked by Russert
"[i]f General Petraeus says, Senator, in September you called the surge the suspension of belief. It has worked, and you know it's worked, you can see on the ground. I'm saying to you, Senator, or president-elect Clinton, don't destroy Iraq. It's working, the surge is working. Keep troops there just a few more months to get this reconciliation complete"
the political savant that IS Hillary!™ gave us this little gem of genius [emphasis mine]:
The point of the surge was to quickly move the Iraqi government and Iraqi people. That is only now beginning to happen, and I believe in large measure because the Iraqi government, they watch us, they listen to us. I know very well that they follow everything that I say. And my commitment to begin withdrawing our troops in January of 2009 is a big factor, as it is with Senator Obama, Senator Edwards, those of us on the Democratic side. It is a big factor in pushing the Iraqi government to finally do what they should have been doing all along.
In other words, Hill babes...the more Democrats fight against a thing...vilify, attack, discourage and disregard...the more likely it becomes that said "thing" will ultimately succeed? I got that right, darlin'?
Hillary is claiming responsibility for Iraqi political reconciliation by making sure they know she means to pull the plug on...
wait for it...
American support for Iraqi political reconciliation. You just can't make this stuff up people.
Get out the popcorn, and let's work through this beauty below the fold...
We're all well past confusion on just how the Democrats have mangled Iraq and the war on terror in the interest of political expediency. We get that. THIS, however, brings us to a whole new low in smash-mouth politicking...and the Hildebeast holds no monopoly. Obama said as much just a short week ago (Democratic presidential debate at St. Anselm College in Manchester, N.H., January 5, 2008) when he suggested:
I welcome the genuine reductions of violence that have taken place, although I would point out that much of that violence has been reduced because there was an agreement with tribes in Anbar province -- Sunni tribes -- who started to see, after the Democrats were elected in 2006, you know what, the Americans may be leaving soon, and we are going to be left very vulnerable to the Shi'as.
Wow.
Haven't had enough yet? Why, of COURSE there's more. A friend suggested we call this something along the lines of: "NYT vs NYT: The perils of ignoring the facts." Consider THIS beauty first, in which the standard NYT playbook of trash-talking the President...and EVERYTHING to do with Iraq (except tucktailing and running) is laid out:
Iraq will be a central challenge — perhaps the central challenge — for whoever succeeds President Bush and has to repair the profound damage he has wrought with a war that should never have been fought and has been managed so ineptly. The candidates must talk more to the American people about when troops will be withdrawn and how it will be done, as well as how they will manage relations with Iraq and the region.
Yet the war has receded as a major topic on the campaign trail, much to the relief of the Republican candidates, who never stray far from the party line but know that Americans overwhelmingly want the troops home.
One year after Mr. Bush announced that he would try to salvage his misadventure by rushing in 30,000 more troops, casualties are down. Yet 2007 was the most violent year in Iraq since the 2003 invasion. Mr. Bush has nothing to show in the way of political progress, which is even more important for ending the war.
As a result, the war continues to be a significant political disadvantage for Republicans, not to mention a constant drain in lives lost and resources squandered. Meanwhile, violence in Afghanistan has surged and Al Qaeda has strengthened along the Afghan-Pakistan border. That is the real front line of the war on terror — no matter how often the Republicans say it is in Iraq.
Yeah, yeah-we know...but wait-I'm pretty sure the NYT published THIS semi-positive piece on the very same freaking day, backed up by THIS reuter's piece which together describe the significance of the latest progress in Iraq on the...again, wait for it...Political progress:
Iraq's parliament voted on Saturday to let thousands of members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party return to government jobs, winning praise from Washington for achieving a benchmark step toward reconciling warring sects.
The law is the first of a series of measures that Washington has long been pressing the Shi'ite Islamist-led government to pass in an effort to draw the minority Sunni Arab community that held sway under Saddam closer into the political process.
"This law preserves the rights of the Iraqi people after the crimes committed by the Baath Party while also benefiting the innocent members of the party. This law provides a balance," Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said.
Shh...this is not consistent with the mantra...[whispering]don't tell the Democrats-they just might have to speak even LOUDER about leaving so even MORE reconciliation might be realized.
Back to Clinton and Russert for a moment...when asked about how she'd deal with good news from Petraeus in March, and whether she'd allow those 30,000 troops to remain until the end of 2008 should Political reconciliation be showing signs of improvement, here's what this potential Commander in Chief had to say:
No, and here's why, Tim. The surge was certainly explained and rationalized as giving the Iraqi government space and time to make the hard decisions that they needed to make. 2007 was the deadliest year for American troops, and, you know, from my perspective, part of the reason that the Iraqis are doing anything is because they see this election happening and they know they don't have much time, that the blank check that George Bush gave them is about to be torn up. I have said that as soon as I become president, I will ask the Joint Chiefs, secretary of defense, my security advisers to give me a plan to begin withdrawing our troops within 60 days.
The reason I have to do that is because last spring, I asked for a briefing on what the planning was. Secretary of defense and the Department of Defense basically said "We're not going to tell you." And I said, "Well, yes you are." We had such a briefing. It was classified. I can't talk about it, but the bottom line is it was cursory. I don't think that the Bush White House wants there to be much planning. So starting on day one of my presidency, we will begin that planning. We will begin to withdraw our troops within 60 days. I think we can take out one to two brigades a month. At the same time, I will put increasing pressure on the Iraqi government. I will engage in a full diplomatic effort to work with the countries in the region and others who have an interest in the stability of Iraq.
But Tim, I think that the large part of the reason that we're seeing the Iraqi government do anything is because time is running out. And yes, I believe President Bush will give them the rest of this year no matter what we try to do, and we don't have the votes to reverse course. But as of January 20, 2009, we will begin to bring our troops out of Iraq. Therefore, I certainly believe it's in the interests of the Iraqi government and the people of Iraq that a lot of this reconciliation that I've been calling for going back four or five years start and actually get implemented now.
Sensible response escapes me. All I keep hearing in my head is that OTHER Democrat savant, your favorite and mine...Harry M. (short for Moron) Reid. Please tell me you remember him sharing his deep knowledge and insight back in April about the realities of Iraq.
The war in Iraq "is lost" and a US troop surge is failing to bring peace to the country, the leader of the Democratic majority in the US Congress, Harry Reid, said Thursday.
"I believe ... that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week," Reid told journalists.
Reid said he had delivered the same message to US President George W. Bush on Wednesday, when the US president met with senior lawmakers to discuss how to end a standoff over an emergency war funding bill.
"I know I was the odd guy out at the White House, but I told him at least what he needed to hear ... I believe the war at this stage can only be won diplomatically, politically and economically."
Seems Harry-boy's angst ALSO should be credited for having helped things improve in Iraq...consistent with this alternate reality the Dems live in. You know, given this "Twilight Zone" logic from the left, perhaps we should have them stand up against tax cuts and for immigration reform...maybe even get them yelling and screaming in favor of SCHIPS and the DREAM act...and oh so many others.
Oh wait...
« Louisiana Dems: Jindal has lost all credibility! — Comments (8) | The Tears Were Fake, But the Rumors Were True — Comments (22) »
Democrat Dementia 7 Comments (0 topical, 7 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Iustum et tenacem propositi virum non civium ardor prava iubentium, non vultus instantis tyranni mente quatit solida.
-Quintus Horatius Flaccus
Basically, Hillary, Obama and the Democrats are claiming that they played the role of "bad cops" to President Bush's "good cop" in forcing the reluctant Iraqis to stop goofing off and deal with the problems in Iraq. Theoretically, it would be possible to make an argument like this, but in real life, the "bad cop" is always working in tandem with the "good cop" to trick the con, and there is simply no way that any rational observer is going to believe that the Dems worked in concert with President Bush to trick the Iraqis.
With that said, I expect that this will be the argument that the Dems make on Iraq. They have nothing else to say, and it allows them to claim credit for our success their. And with a little help from the dishonest MSM, who knows - they could succeed in convincing some of the people some of the time that this is true.
PS: Ironically, for all of Hillary's posturing on Iraq, should she (god forbid) win the presidency, she will actually do nothing of substance to jeopardize Iraq. Instead, she will take advantage of already laid plans to bring home many of the troops, and claim that she prompted them.
As I said here, Hillary can't say that there wasn't any doubt that we'd succeed if we surged 30,000 troops into Iraq, like she said yesterday, but then tell Gen. Petraeus that the report he was giving required the "willing suspension of disbelief".
That's just another instance of Hillary's trying to have it both ways.
then blame Republicans, declare a peace dividend, the kind you never see a check in the mail for, and tacitly encourage further acts of terrorism, also the the Republicans fault.
I've always suspected Hillary left her eyeglasses, mousy brown hair , and brains at her college commencement. But her misplaced ego is intact for surely the terrorists know what she is saying and pay attention to it. Just not in the way she would like to believe.
God, do they hate the idea of American military success !
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
"...we don't have the votes to reverse course" she says, without even wondering why not. Since her demands cannot be satisfied in the constituted processes, she will invoke them by diktat. Among children we call that 'being spoiled'. No wonder she cries.
A world in which saying we lost the war causes us to win it.
A world in which pulling our troops out of turmoil causes the turmoil to cease.
No, none of us have ever seen this world, but I can't get through my looking glass either.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
There seems to be no shame in terms of those who want to take credit on the backs of people actually having courage and doing the heavy lifting while dodging flaming tar balls from Hillary and her party.
Hillary is a despicable opportunist, willing to say anything that will get her elected. She morphes into whatever each situation requires based on her AUMF vote. Truth be told, that vote is about the only part of this engagement she supported, albeit it too was a calculated risk. Otherwise, Hillary has spent the entire time demurring and playing linguistic gymnastics. One answer for the anti-war left and another for general consumption.
The best I can say about Russert is he runs a close second to Forest Gump Clinton. Where was the follow up question replete with her public statements on the surge? Guess that research was eaten by the dog or not on the list of permitted interview questions. Dishonest much, Tim? Frankly, I know 15 year olds that could do a better job.
There are only three to thank; Petreaus for the plan, Bush for the courage to accept his advice and our armed forces carrying the heavy load.
"Nec Aspera Terrent"
bene ambula et redambula
Contributor to The Minority Report