September 12, 2006
Sprint for Defeat!
The Democrats, after years of threatening, have finally enunciated their own defense/anti-terrorist policy; it appears to be modeled on a pell-mell dash towards the exits, overturning the ottoman and the teakettle in their mad rush:
Mr. Reid and several colleagues offered what they called the “Real Security Act of 2006,” calling for the beginning of a phased withdrawal of American troops from Iraq by the end of this year, a heightened effort to enlist more countries to take part in building a new Iraq, the ouster of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, and a faster adoption of the recommendations of the independent commission that investigated the 9/11 attacks.
Whew, a blueprint for victory if ever I saw one! Though it loses points for the lack of originality, having a disturbing similarity (approaching plagiarism) to their earlier plans for Vietnam and Somalia, and their mentors' plans for defending la belle France during the late unpleasantness with Germany.
Let's take these one at a time...
"A phased withdrawal of American troops from Iraq by the end of this year"
There are exactly 117 days left until the end of the year, and there are about 150,000 American troops in Iraq. That means the Democrats want a "phased withdrawal" of forces at the rate of 1,282 soldiers every day. (Perhaps more, if they require the Pentagon to stick to the unions' 35-hour work week.) Call it the "battalion a day rout."
Withdrawing 1,300 soldiers a day from Iraq is probably about as fast as we reasonably could do it. So by "phased withdrawal," what they actually mean is yanking them all out at breakneck speed, pedal to the metal, as fast as humanly possible.
When Ehud Barak ordered the mass exodus of Israelis out of Lebanon, he made them flee so fast, they left armor behind; the IDF actually had to send helicopters in to destroy the Israeli Merkava tanks left in Lebanon, lest Hezbollah snatch them up and use them against Israeli towns. I wonder if the American Democrats want us to do that with our Abrams tanks, just for the heck of it?
At that speed, it would be absolutely impossible for the Iraqi Army to keep pace with our hysterical retreat. Vast stretches of Iraq would be left utterly unguarded; they would quickly fill up with militias and terrorists, leaving Iraq rather like Lebanon. Are the Democrats confused about which Western defeat they're trying to recreate?
Perhaps al-Qaeda could supply us extra transports to use to flee in disgrace. No doubt Sen. Harry Reid (D-Caesar's Palace, 100%) would immediately take to the TV screens, with his floppy wrist and weak, ineffectual -- dare I say "reedy" -- voice, crowing that he told us all along that it would end in tears.
If he meant it would end in a Democratic victory in 2006, then yes, the nation would soon be in tears.
"A heightened effort to enlist more countries to take part in building a new Iraq"
What, off in a corner? I'm unsure where exactly this "new Iraq" is supposed to be built: most of the territory in the Middle East is already spoken for... perhaps in the Australian Outback? I understand that's mostly unoccupied, and it's barren enough that the Iraqis might go for it.
Seriously, what on Earth does Harry Reid mean this time? How does he plan for us -- or rather, other countries -- to "build a new Iraq?" Will France depose the current government of Monsieur Maliki?
Who -- besides those "other countries" enlisted -- gets the oil? It seems as if the Iraqis have by and large already decided what sort of government they want: a parliamentary democracy, along with eighteen provinces headed by provincial governors. It's somewhat tribal and somewhat federalist... but I don't think they're anxious to rip it apart and rebuild it.
And certainly not to satisfy Mr. Reid's whim to be seen as the "founding father" of a brand, spanking new Iraq, the model of a major Middle Eastern state as the Democratic Party see the region: caliphates and satrapies controlled by Iran, the Democrats' favorite "Arabic" "republic."
Pardon me if I'm a bit skeptical, but I'm not completely persuaded that Mr. Reid can get the Iraqis to throw over their own political constructs for his.
"The ouster of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld"
Come to think on it, this is the only part of the Democrats' Real Security Act of 2006 that is actually specific, concrete -- and non-negotiable.
Has Donald H. Rumsfeld made mistakes? Sure; he's trusted Democrats to put the country first, for example. Has he made decisions that the American people don't like? Certainly... especially after the unhelpful Democratic Party and their willing accomplices in the elite media get through chewing their newscud.
Has he screwed up so spectacularly that he needs to be removed? Of course not; he's won two major wars and is doing as well against the terrorist/insurgent/sectarian militia challenge as almost anyone could. Have we lost the Iraq War? Only if we elect the Democrats, would could snatch victory from the jaws of a crocodile.
Does Donald Rumsfeld frighten the Democrats? Evidently so.
Have we finished interviewing ourselves? I think so.
"And a faster adoption of the recommendations of the independent commission that investigated the 9/11 attacks"
All right, I'll bite. What "recommendations of the independent commission that investigated the 9/11 attacks" in particular does Mr. Reid mean?
The 9/11 Commission -- sorry, the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States -- offered a huge bunch of recommendations, which were followed by add-ons from numerous other commissions and groups:
- The Gilmore Commission
- The Bremer Commission
- The Joint Inquiry of House and Senate Intelligence Committees
- The Hart-Rudman Commission
You can read the entire schmear here, if you're really masochistic.
But for those of you who, like me, have the attention span of mayfly, here's the Campbell's Condensed Cream of Commission:
The U.S. government must attack terrorists and their organizations;
Afghanistan. Iraq. Al-Qaeda. Got it... check. So how strongly do the Democrats support those attacks today? I'm just asking...
The United States should be willing to make the difficult long-term commitment to the future of Pakistan;
Pervez Musharraf; foreign aid; joint anti-terrorist operations. What more would Harry Reid do? Hm, maybe a case of bubble bath.
The United States and the international community should make a long-term commitment to a secure and stable Afghanistan;
NATO -- say, that's a good idea! Why didn't Bush think of that? Oh, wait...
The problems in the U.S.-Saudi relationship must be confronted, openly;
Hm... I'm sure there must have been a Democratic proposal in the House or Senate to work with Saudi Arabia to reform all the madrasses that preach nothing but hatred towards America, Israel, and the West; but I can't quite bring it to mind.
Of course, the Bush administration has actually moved the House of Saud pretty significantly in the direction of shutting down al-Qaeda and some of the more radical clerics. I'm going to have to give the Republicans another upcheck on this one.
We should offer an example of moral leadership in the world, committed to treat people humanely, abide by the rule of law, and be generous and caring to our neighbors;
Let's see: leash-wielding, prisoner stripping, sex-obsessed guards at Abu Ghraib tried and convicted of crimes... check. Soldiers accused of rape or homicide arrested and threatened with the death penalty... check. Official policy opposing torture... check. Allow Red Cross to inspect prisons... check. All right, what more exactly would the Democrats offer, aside from cable TV (with the naked channel) and a high-speed internet connection?
Just as we did in the Cold War, we need to defend our ideals abroad vigorously;
Er... what is Nancy Pelosi's position on full funding for Voice of America anyway?
The U.S. government should offer to join with other nations in generously supporting a new International Youth Opportunity Fund;
If this is anything like the Boy Sprouts, we're probably already doing it -- and the Democrats are probably already suing it.
Economic policies that encourage development, more open societies, and opportunities for people to improve the lives of their families and to enhance prospects for their children’s future;
I think that would be called "Capitalism"... which to the Democrats is "the unknown ideal."
Engaging other nations in developing a comprehensive coalition strategy against Islamist terrorism;
I think that would be called "Democracy"... which to the Democrats is "the failed policy of the current administration."
The United States should engage its friends to develop a common coalition approach toward the detention and humane treatment of captured terrorists;
If that means America must move to embrace the average of the interrogation procedures of Europe, then that would mean we should expand our list of acceptable techniques to include the rack, the thumbscrew, and crucifixion.
The U.S. should make a maximum effort to strengthen counterproliferation efforts against weapons of mass destruction by expanding the Proliferation Security Initiative and the Cooperative Threat Reduction program;
"The Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) is an international effort led by the United States to interdict transfer of banned weapons and weapons technology."
"The Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) Program of the United States assists the states of the former Soviet Union in controlling and protecting their nuclear weapons, weapons-usable materials, and delivery systems."
Now, I don't want to judge before all the evidence is in, but the fact that these are two long-term, ongoing programs of the United States would tend to imply that we're already doing this. But perhaps I've been misinformed.
The U.S. should engage in vigorous efforts to track terrorist financing.
Unless I miss my guess, that would be the SWIFT (Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication) terrorist-tracking program. And as I recall, but correct me if I'm wrong, the Democrats demanded it be killed after it was outed by the New York Times.
The American Left is not going to lie on the ground and merely play "speedbump" for the American response to terrorism; they're determined to rear up like underwater reefs and wreck the entire ship of state!
“Five years after Sept. 11, 2001, the American people deserve a government that has learned the lessons of the terrorist attacks,” the Democrats said in a statement. “Bush Republicans have talked tough but failed to protect this country.”
Given that the phrase "protect this country" in this context means protect it from violent attack, I can only conclude that there has been some significant terrorist attack since September 11th, 2001, on the American mainland -- or at least on our embassies, Marine barracks, or the USS Cole -- that Mr. Reid is privy to but which has been successfully concealed from the rest of us. I encourage the minority leader to file an FOIA request to liberate that information, so the Times or the Washington Post can publish it.
Either that or... do you think it possible that the Democrats (I know this is absurd) might finally have snapped, and are having a feverish argument with their own fantasy version of reality, like Elwood P. Dowd in Harvey? (More important, is Jimmy Stewart's character related in any way to Maureen?)
Oops, I might be in trouble under the McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 for posting this so close to the November election.
Hatched by Dafydd on this day, September 12, 2006, at the time of 4:50 AM
TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/1219
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Sprint for Defeat!:
» Because We Trusted Bush... Yeah, That's the Ticket! from Big Lizards
The story that Democrats are attacking President Bush over his magnificent, almost Churchillian speech last night is already being adequately covered by many other excellent bloggers. Oh, and also by those guys in the elite media, if anybody still read... [Read More]
Tracked on September 12, 2006 6:19 PM
» Whack-a-Mole -- or Seal-a-Hole? from Big Lizards
The antique media is infamous for burying the lede: not understanding the real point of a story -- or else not wanting us to understand it! -- and instead hiding it deep within the article, where they know few eyes... [Read More]
Tracked on September 15, 2006 4:48 PM
The following hissed in response by: Big D
So doesn't the Democrat Point A (withdrawal from Iraq) preclude Point B (Get others to help us in Iraq)?
The Democrats are seriously unhinged.
The following hissed in response by: exDemo
The Democrats show that they can't be trusted with the powers of the Patriot Act. They have censored ABC is the most blatant fashion. ABC merely blipped out a sizeable portion and ended each episode up to ten minutes early, revealing the raw use of Political intimidation.
ABC obviously fears the vindictive Mrs. Clinton from New York and even the possibility of her in the White House as anything but a tourist.
They are guilty of everyhting they accuse of Mr. Bush.
On another note Mr. Corn in criticizing Mr. Bush inadvertantly shafted his entire thesis, that we should bugout of Viet er, Iraq because its unwinable, when he said we can withdraw immedialty because Al Queda has been so thoroughly degraded. (Translation: they are losing badly!)
The following hissed in response by: Fritz
I'm always amazed that so many people will say so many things without bothering to think through what they are saying, or the consequences of what they propose. It is not the exclusive property of the dimocrats, or dumbocrats if you prefer the other spelling, but seems to be pervasive throughout the political spectrum. As you so correctly pointed out, most of what the dimocrats claim they want is already being done, but they refuse to recognize it with a blindness I can’t explain in rational terms. They choose to ignore facts no matter how well proven, even those presented by the responsible members of their own party. They trumpet lies as facts, even though those lies are easily proven to be such. They continually ignore things they have said in the past, or try to blame what they said on someone else. Those actions, in and of themselves, are bad enough, but to actively sabotage the programs doing the things they claim they want, such as interrupting the flow of terrorist moneys, is beyond ludicrous. The actions by a large number of the dimocrats, with regards to protecting the country from terrorists, can only be likened to a death wish. I can only conclude that they would be more than willing to have the country conquered by terrorists if that might advance their political goals, but I fail to see how it would. If they truly believe that they would be better off by allowing the country, and the world, to be defeated and then ruled by the Islamic terrorists, then I can only pity them for they are so lacking in intelligence that they know not what they are asking for.
The following hissed in response by: bill
Withdraw, get others to help in Iraq -- How does that work, they see you leaving so they are going to be willing to take your place? I doubt it.
Your point about the Somalia strategy has a ring to it. Democrats at the first sign of trouble cut and run there to. Look what that got us.
Donks are seriously irresponsible, conflicted, consumed with hatred. It's all about them and winning their power back, did they ever stop and think that maybe, just maybe it should be about America first? I wonder if they ever consider how they sound to those not afflicted with BDS? The notion that Bush never does anything right is getting very thread bare.
The following hissed in response by: yetanotherjohn
To be fair, the plan calls for "the beginning of a phased withdrawal of American troops from Iraq by the end of this year". So sending one soldier home New Years Eve and scheduling the next guy to return home in 2050 would meet this very unspecific push.
But it isn't clear to me how running away from Iraq before the job is done would help with the "enlist more countries to take part in building a new Iraq". I think the sales pitch would go like this. "We're running away, showing that we are clearly not willing to bear any burden nor endure any hardship in the pursuit of freedom. We would like you to ignore our example and help make Iraq more secure by sending some of your troops to help with security". Actually thinking about it, if the democrats could do that, I would be pretty impressed. But frankly I rate it about as likely as the Nigerian contact coming through with those millions.
The second part of the contradiction in is "a faster adoption of the recommendations of the independent commission that investigated the 9/11 attacks." So we leave a battlefield that the organizations we are fighting call the central front of the war, we fill the Pakistanis, Afghanistanis and Saudi's with warm fuzzys that if the going gets tough we are so out of there (how can we not be more effective when we show that OBL is right and we are just a paper tiger who will fold after a few blows), what greater display of moral leadership can there be than cowardice in the face of obstacles (and apparently kindness and generosity to our neighbors would exclude Iraq from being a neighbor), what greater way can we express our desire to defend our ideals abroad than to leave a fledgling democracy we helped create in the lurch, etc.
There is a saying in politics that if you are explaining, you are losing. But there should be a coarallary thatif you are letting the other side lie or distort the truth with out effectively answering, you have already lost.
The above hissed in response by: yetanotherjohn at September 12, 2006 1:52 PM
The following hissed in response by: Bill Faith
Excerpted and linked at Old War Dogs >> Bill's Bites -- 2006.09.13.
The above hissed in response by: Bill Faith at September 12, 2006 11:00 PM
The following hissed in response by: v4570
What does it mean when you say:
Sen. Harry Reid (D-Caesar's Palace, 100%)
There is always some % value attached to the names of congressional members, and I have looked all over the website and can't find what that means. Doesn't mean an explanation isn't there somewhwere, I'm just not seeing it. But considering that it is Harry Reid, and it says 100%, I am guessing that it is a measure of how Communist, anti American, liberal, and duplicitous that particular person is? Just my guess..
The following hissed in response by: Fritz
Dafydd posted an explantion of the numbers some time back. Here it is.
* The numbers in parentheses after Democratic politicians are their ratings from the Americans for Democratic Action... a very liberal group, usually considered the sine qua non of liberalism. This indicates how liberal the senator or representative is.
* The numbers after Republican names are their ratings from the American Conservative Union, indicating how conservative they are.
If you wish to read the complete post they were presented in, use the search box and search "Hayden Surprise Symphony." Hope that answers your questions.
The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh
I've explained before; but posts scroll off the bottom, so I'm always happy to explain again.
There are two major groups that politically rate members of Congress: the American Conservative Union (conservative) and the Americans for Democratic Action (liberal). There are other groups -- the NRA, the ACLU, etc.; but these two are the gold standards on their respective sides of the aisle.
The percent numbers I include for each member is one or the other of these ratings for that member:
- For Republican members, the number is the member's rating by the ACU;
- For Democratic members, it's his rating by the ADA.
In other words, for a Republican, it measures how conservative he is; for a Democratic member, it measures how liberal he is.
Thus, in the instant, we learn that Sen. Harry Reid has been given a 100% liberal rating by the liberal Americans for Democratic Action; while Sen. Lincoln Chafee has been given a 12% conservative rating by the American Conservative Union (in 2004, he had a 40% rating).
I believe it's helpful to know where a member stands ideologically, in order to properly weigh whatever he says or does.
The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh at September 13, 2006 4:34 PM
The following hissed in response by: v4570
Thanks for the explanation. But now I have another question - what if the person is an independent?
The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh
I go by who the member caucuses with, not how he's registered. The two "Independents" in Congress caucus with the Democrats.
The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh at September 15, 2006 2:14 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)
© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved