Ms P., I think, will soon be notably sent to the situation room, from there to view Victory in Iraq. I have read two articles that lead me to this conclusion:

From Austin Bay:

One of the very smart young officers I know suggests the resignation is political prep for prosecuting the war even more vociferously.

From The Weekly Standard

Why do insurgent gangs, who have vastly smaller resources and manpower than the American soldiers they fight, continue to try to kill those soldiers?

The answer is, because they believe they only have to kill a few more, and the soldiers will leave. They need not inflict a military defeat (which would be impossible, given the strength of the American military)--all they need to do is survive until American voters decide to throw in the towel, which might happen at any moment.

The proper response to that cacultion is to make emphatically clear that the fight will not end until one side or the other wins, decisively. That kind of battle can only have one ending, as Abraham Lincoln understood. In a speech delivered a month after his reelection, Lincoln carefully surveyed the North's resources and manpower and concluded that the nation's wealth was "unexhausted and, as we believe, inexhaustible." Southern soldiers be gan to desert in droves. Through the long, bloody summer and fall of 1864, the South had hung on only because of the belief that the North might tire of the conflict. But Lincoln did not tire. Instead, he doubled the bet--and won the war.I think he’s on to something.

This makes sense; The Pentagon has decided to Double Down and Rumsfeld resigned to make an increased offensive more palatible, perhaps even to get other countries to participate. The choice of Gates may have been for the same reason that Eisenhower was picked to lead the European Campaign; his highly recognized diplomatic skills. - Gates reminds me of IKE

It can be a fun two years if the President "stays the course" (not the Iraq one, his personal one that Dafydd described) because the nutroots are demanding and even expecting that the Democrats will extract from the President what the "wacked-out lunatic[s] with Chicken Little syndrome" fear he will give up. Can you see Pelosi being Liebermanned?

Well said Dafydd.

The Democrats are going to have to compromise with Bush just as much as in the opposite direction - nobody has a 50 seat majority in the House to work with, and in the Senate it's worse yet. Considering how big the tidal wave of opposition to Republicans was supposed to be, we didn't do too badly. It was more of a ripple.

Calm down and work toward getting both houses back in 2008, and playing Ju Jitsu with the Dems.

You are absolutely correct, sir. I, too, am sick and tired of the tendency of all too many conservatives to INSTANTLY distrust whatever the most utterly transparent, utterly readable like a kindergarten primer of a politician any of us have ever SEEN does. More than any politician who ever lived, with Bush, what you see is what you get. I EXPECT this from the left, and they have a legitimate excuse: clinical insanity. What the Hell is OUR excuse?

As is ALWAYS the case with this man, we know what he is ultimately TRYING to do. With the Gates appointment (and everything else he does) he is TRYING to win the GWOT AND the Iraq War and perhaps even trick the Democrats into being patriots in spite of themselves.

So c'mon my fellow conservatives; criticize the President whenever he deserves it, but PLEASE stop embarrassing me! Let the DEMOCRATS have their tinfoil hats back, OK?

Wars are not won by Nations whose citizens don't support such, even after being attacked. Sometimes...sure, but do a reality check here first. Think back to Carter. To Reagan next. Islam's leaders (yes, even Saddam) have been conducting this War Against America for decades.

W had them on the ropes. (Note: Kadifi rolled over, just after Pakistan did, and Kim was sweating more liquid than Niagara Falls ever imagined.)

Now look at us...we can't even use the "MOAB".

Pathetic...at best.

PS...we can't even use Water-Boarding.

Great post.

I agree that President Bush has not changed his core values overnight. He's the same guy he was the night before the elections, only maybe a little bit more pissed off.

I agree. There are several people I don;t read anymore because all they do is bitch and moan and whine. In fact in regards to Dubai and Miers and Katrina I would say they have done a lot more harm than good.

I think they should at least give Gates a chance and this goes for powerline in particular, they have already decided the man is a disaster and his confirmation hearings have not taken place. Not long ago Kristol was whining that Rumsfeld had to go. Can not make these people happy.

Did Bush actually say that Rumsfeld was going to stay forever or did he say he had confidence in him? You know it could be that Rumsfeld wanted to go, he is and old man and serving in that position with the Democrats in charge of Congress might not have been something he was up to. As it is he is the longest serving Sec of Defence and the oldest.

Now people need to get a grip and stop trying to panic each other and the troops.

And btw no one really knows what it is in that report or if Bush will follow all, part or none of it.

I agree. Many other things may have changed, but I doubt The President has.

Why are we assuming that this wasn't Rumsfeld's decision? He's an honorable man who, with the Dems in control, was about to be called before every committee in Congress and belittled and maligned, and he may have decided that the war effort would suffer for it.

Hear, hear! W faced down the whole world and refused to back down. The man does not know how to back down. Fear democrats, puh-leeze.

I loved his quote that he wouldn't change his position even if the only support he had was Laura and Barney.

I'm sorry, but while I don't consider that "the end is near," I'm not going to bet the ranch on unbridled optimism until I see Bush take out the veto pen, or at least convincingly threaten such when exposing some prime bit of Democrat idiocy in a primetime speech. I think he still believes in his campaign promise to "bring a new tone to Washington," and I don't think the Democrats have the good sense to reciprocate. In other words, I don't think you have to be betting against Bush to be a pessimist -- you can bet on Democrats to be their usual surly selves and come to the same conclusion.

That's a great piece of dextrorotatory! But to believe Bush can be effective in his last two years, as you do, you have to believe he's a clever politician with a strongly held core agenda (beyond the GWOT). He has to be able to articulate his agenda. Then, after articulating an agenda, the President has to be capable of besting the Democrats in Congress in order to make any of that well defined and articulated agenda happen.

What's that core agenda? And, what makes anyone think a lame duck Bush can do anything like what a lame duck Reagan did, when confronted with a Democrat Congress?

Setting clear distinctions between parties in the voters minds going into the '08 elections requires some ideas, and some dexterous maneuvering. I'd love to think he'll measure up, but I don't.

Luckily, I think we can count on the Democrats to help us! Just wait 'till the voters get a load of Charlie Rangel on tax reform. Or Alcee Hastings on keeping the country safe. Or John Dingell on anything at all.

There's hope!

MTF:

I have never had any problem understanding Bush and it seems to me that some people always underestimate him.

MTF:

What's that core agenda? And, what makes anyone think a lame duck Bush can do anything like what a lame duck Reagan did, when confronted with a Democrat Congress?

I'll go one "better" (worse): when it comes to judicial appointments, what makes anyone think a lame duck Bush can do better than a lame duck Reagan did? Another borking, followed by another Justice Kennedy, is not good enough.

I hope I'm wrong, but I fear that Dafydd's post-election optimism may prove to be every bit as misplaced as his pre-election optimism was.

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!)

URL:
Remember me unto the end of days? AyeNay!

Comments: (Sssselect text and bite a button to apply HTML tagssssss...)