Hugh Hewitt has a post up on the Senate's attempts to pass a resolution against the troop surge in Iraq. Of course Secretary of Defense Gates says it will embolden the enemy, but what do they care? They have important things, like the next election to concern themselves with:
What part of "encouragement to the enemy" don't the Republican senators understand? They can stop the Biden resolution, or at least do the public the service ofilluminating which republicans are willing to join Democrats in providing that encouragement. There is no valid reason --none-- to agree to cloture.
Senator McConnell's D.C. office is closed for the weekend, but you can reach his Louisville office at 502-582-6304. The other contact info is below for Senators McConnell and McCain and the others in the Republican leadership.
Please spend some time this weekend reminding the Republican senators that they are not their to serve themselves.
UPDATE: Read this exchange between an LATimes' editorial board member and Governor Bill Richardson, candidate for president: They are discussing "worst case sceanriaos" for Iraq.
LAT: So Plan B is, Maliki doesn't do what you want, he says "I don't really care what you do"; the Mideast peace conference, everyone says, you know, "America's sort of a weak giant, on the run, and we actually don't like each other, we don't want to sit around and talk about it"; we just leave and the place descends into utter, horrible chaos?
Richardson: No, no, no. You link it to reconciliation talks, but Plan B has to be a diplomatic process that involves other nations sharing the load. I mean, if Saudi Arabia is saying "this is the worst thing in the world for the U.S. to leave," you know, what are you going to do about it? You gotta finance troops.
But I think eventually the best situation is a linkage. But if the linkage is not there, you know, the phased withdrawl, it has to happen. Because right now, it can't be any worse. There's a civil war going on. The Iraqi people want us to leave. So, you cut your losses.
LAT: The can't-be-any-worse argument was also very popular in 1975 in Vietnam, and Cambodians found out that it could actually get quite a good deal worse. Is that something that worries you? What do you build into that process?
Richardson: Yeah. It worries me, but how worse can it get?
LAT: Two million people killed in a genocide?
Richardson: Well, but you're assuming that our presence there has prevented that from happening. Our presence there has caused, I think, the civil war to accelerate. [...] Is our presence preventing this genocide? I'm not sure.
I can remember the same arguments about Viet Nam. In fact I can remember John Kerry saying we were the problem, remove us from Viet Nam and the fighting in South East Asia would stop. Oh, a couple of thousand people might die, but overall the situation would improve. We all know that was a lie.
If the Democrats really believe this nonsense then they need to side with the 15% of the population that wants and immediate and complete withdrawl from Iraq.
Hugh is angry with McCAin for trying to put together some kind of compromise resolution. I have my doubts as well, but it should be remembered that McCAin has always supported sending more troops to Iraq and he still does. He is not a quitter.
Lorie Byrd ask a question that deserves an answer:
It is certainly not a pleasant thing to accuse fellow Americans, particularly ones entrusted by the citizenry with the nation’s well being, of playing politics with American lives or of providing moral support to her enemies, but I think it is time to ask some hard questions.
Why have so many critics of the war spent more time talking about alleged abuses at Gitmo than they have talking about the new freedoms being enjoyed by those in Afghanistan and Iraq as a result of actions taken by the U.S. military?
Why is it that many war critics seem to believe the U.S. is capable of addressing the conflict and genocide in Darfur, but that they are not capable of achieving victory in Iraq?”
Why is it that when generals, or more frequently former generals, express a lack of confidence in the President, the Secretary of Defense, or our policy and mission in Iraq, their word is not only accepted without question, but their opinions are treated as absolute fact, but when other generals say that it is still possible to win in Iraq, and that condemnations of the President and his policies encourage the enemy, they are ignored?
Why, when given a choice between defeat through surrender or the possibility to pursue victory, there are so many so eager to choose the former?
Is Chelsea Clinton Now Fair Game?
1 hour ago