OK. I’ve picked on the Republicans enough for one week, lets get back to the Dem’s, lead by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. I don’t have anything current by Reid at the moment (though if I tried hard enough I’m sure I could dredge something up), but I do have this Pelosi gem from CNN:
â€œThere haven’t been gains, Wolf,â€ the speaker replied. â€œThe gains have not produced the desired effect, which is the reconciliation of Iraq. This is a failure. This is a failure…” (insert jumping up and down and arm waiving here)
She does go on to praise the troops for doing a fine job. How noble of her.
Funny how Mrs. P seems to have forgotten what she said about the surge a few months ago and what it was supposed to achieve. Lets look at statements made by Pelosi and Reid, circa June 13 of last year:
The increase in US forces has had little impact in curbing the violence or fostering political reconciliation.
It has not enhanced Americas national security. The unsettling reality is that instances of violence against Iraqis remain high and attacks on US forces have increased.
In fact, the last two months of the war were the deadliest to date for US troops.
Notice that the high casualty rate is emphasized far more than political reconciliation. Though no one is claiming it to be the sole reason, the surge has at least contribute to a dramatic drop in violence in Iraq. The 2007 statement by P. and R. seems to indicate that that was the more pressing concern between the two. So the surge has, at the very least, been half successful. But Mrs. P conveniently erases that measure from her mission rubric. Would this qualify as “Mission Creep”?
Lets face it, there is no way we can predict if the Iraq’s will ever find common ground, and that is something the Bush administration seems not to have considered when they entered into this occupation (it was going to be a quick in-and-out operation they promised) – [see NOTE below]. That said, conciliation between the various factions will be A LOT easier when sides aren’t busy blowing each other up!
Funny, she STILL hasn’t accomplished most of the stuff she promised us in the first 100 days of her tenure as Madam Speaker. Yet she takes offense if we declare – “This is a failure. This is a failure”.
PS. Holy Crap!!! I’ve been Instalanched!!! Welcome Insta-P readers, to the fourth most defective mind on the web! Does this mean I am now a legitimate blogger, or do I have to pass some sort of test or meet some set of benchmarks to be considered legit?
NOTE: People are giving me flack about my “quick in-and-out” aside, so much so that I was doubting my memory, which is wise in since mine is often faulty. My comment was poorly worded, and I think everyone is hanging up on the “out” part of my comment. I don’t mean that to say we would, as policy, just pick up and leave Iraq to its fate. Of coarse I knew before this started that we would have some military presence in Iraq after we toppled the Saddam regime; they would need some help getting on their feet. But no one seemed to contemplate the possibility that our military would still be fighting three years later. This is what Rumsfeld said in Nov. of 2002:
“The idea that it’s going to be a long, long, long battle of some kind I think is belied by the fact of what happened in 1990,… Five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn’t going to last any longer than that,…”
Rumsfeld said the U.S. military at present is capable “to do the job and finish it fast.”
He didn’t say we would be “out” of Iraq, but I would say he presented the case that combat troops would not be active and fighting after six months. That was part of the sales pitch to get public support for military action in Iraq. It has “This Will Not Be Another Vietnam” written all over it! Oh, the title of the article -
Rumsfeld: It Would Be A Short War
NOTE #2: Here is more to back my interpretation of the meaning of “It Would Be A Short War“.
Share on Facebook