I shoulda listened.

Wednesday, November 15, 2006
A client of mine who had a bad bike accident and suffered a spinal cord injury as a result told me to listen to wheel chair boy. That is what he calls himself. He said the Democrats were just playing the crazies along and that after the election we would start hearing some alternative views from the anti Bush people. It seems the New York Times might be having a slight change of perspective.

I posted this at Roger's but I thought I would put on here too. It is from one of the my favorite bloggers, Big Lizards :

And what exactly should be the goals of these new American forces? Rather, "Coalition" forces... assuming there are any countries left in the West besides us who can actually fight. The Times answers that question:

* Reduce Iraqi unemployment;

* Secure Iraq's borders with both Iran and Syria;

* "Enlist more cooperation" from tribal sheikhs -- in the Iraq frontier, primarily in the province of Anbar;

* Weaken or crush the militias -- which primarily plague "the capital," i.e., Baghdad.

Finally, Kenneth M. Pollack, a Brookings Institution guy, argues that pulling out now will make a bona-fide civil war inevitable; as Wikipedia puts it, "the Brookings Institution is a center-left think tank, based in Washington, D.C.... currently headed by Strobe Talbott."

This is precisely the fig leaf the Democrats can use, if they choose, to turn on a dime and give a nickle change. Especially if the Iraq Study Group (the Jim Baker commission) recommends a troop increase, as I suspect they will, instead of a pull-out: then the momentum for sending in a bunch of troops to secure borders, borderlands, and Baghdad will become irresistable.

At least, let's keep our fingers crossed: not only will it make the war infinitely more winnable than if we were to pull out prematurely (like Onan did) -- which is the most important consideration -- but secondarily, it will enrage the nutroots and cause them to go all-out to force a Kossack wack-job on the party as the 2008 presidential nominee. I don't know if they'll succeed... but I like the idea of la bataille royale within the Democratic Party for the next two years!

One more thing; take a look at the last line from our previous post:

By the way... if I'm right, and the Democrats are willing to go for a change in this direction instead of insisting on that direction, then I predict they will also go ahead and confirm Robert Gates as SecDef.

And compare to Sen. Harry Reid's (D-Caesar's Palace, 100%) "top priority" that we quoted from an AP story yesterday:

[110th Congress Senate Majority Leader Harry] Reid told The Associated Press that a top priority for the remainder of the lame-duck session will be confirming Robert Gates as defense secretary, succeeding Donald H. Rumsfeld. "The sooner we can move it forward the sooner we can get rid of Rumsfeld," he said.

Batiste and Zinni are calling for troop increases while Abizaid is being grilled by Democrats who say they want to withdrawal....someday.....soon...... Strange, doncha think?


Barry Dauphin said...

And let's not forget that Ken Pollack wrote a book (I believe titled the Gathering Storm) about how Saddam was making WMD as fast as possible. I remember seeing Bush in a picture carrying his book (pre invasion). He was a Clintonite focused on Middle East Policy, espcially wmd stuff.

terrye said...


I saw him on Oprah back when she was prowar. No kidding.

vnjagvet said...

I think we need a Lawrence of Arabia type person on the ground dealing with the various sheiks.

"The more things change the more they stay the same".

Syl said...

Well, I be thinking that the real reason Pelosi is pushing Murtha for the top spot is to keep the net roots hopin' (and hoppin').

Otherwise it will become all too obvious that the nutroots were just being played for fools.