About Not Supporting the 'Surge'

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
Some in blogosphere are hitting back:

http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/g/f2010221-89c7-4c6b-a351-5c48d2ba61fc

Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Take The Pledge
Posted by Hugh Hewitt | 5:29 PM

Take the pledge. This is the temporary site. The full-service site will be up soon.

If you are a blogger who has taken the pledge and linked to the site, please send me a note so I can add your support here.

I interviewed Tony Snow at the top of the program today, and Senator Norm Coleman is scheduled in hour two.

After you have taken the pledge, please call Senator McConnell's office and urge a filibuster of Senator Biden's and Senator Warner's resolutions.

Senator McConnell's office number is (202) 224-2541. The capitol switchboard is 202-225-3121. Senator McConnell's e-mail is here.

Yesterday General Petraeus testified that the Biden/Warner resolutions and those like them encourage the enemy.

What does it mean, "to encourage the enemy?"

It means that the enemy gathers will and strength from the prospect of a collapsing political will to seek victory in Iraq and stability in the region.

With that additional strength and will the enemy redoubles and retriples efforts to kill American soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines.

In short, it means that more Americans will die....
 

Bullypulpit

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2004
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
382
Points
48
Location
Columbus, OH
Given that Chimpy has ignored every bit of advice on the matter of Iraq from the Iraq Study Groups, to the JCS, to commanders in the field, to the American people, what is there to support? With the number of people who actually support the administration in this disasterous foreign adventurism approaching the level of an endagered species, it's long past time for Chimpy to stop worrying about his legacy and start worrying about the US troops he wants to throw into the meat-grinder...Start worrying about the countless thousands of innocent Iraqis who have died, and continue to die, in Iraq since the invasion. A number which far exceeds that of people Saddam killed and buried in mass graves.
 
OP
Annie

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
Given that Chimpy has ignored every bit of advice on the matter of Iraq from the Iraq Study Groups, to the JCS, to commanders in the field, to the American people, what is there to support? With the number of people who actually support the administration in this disasterous foreign adventurism approaching the level of an endagered species, it's long past time for Chimpy to stop worrying about his legacy and start worrying about the US troops he wants to throw into the meat-grinder...Start worrying about the countless thousands of innocent Iraqis who have died, and continue to die, in Iraq since the invasion. A number which far exceeds that of people Saddam killed and buried in mass graves.
So you find comfort in the Senate also doing the same? In spite of the generals? Ok, that's great Bully:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/23/AR2007012301306.html?nav=hcmodule

Leave Politics To Us, Warner Tells General

Wednesday, January 24, 2007; A21

Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) asked Army Lt. Gen. David H . Petraeus during his confirmation hearing yesterday if Senate resolutions condemning White House Iraq policy "would give the enemy some comfort."

Petraeus agreed they would, saying, "That's correct, sir."


Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), until recently chairman of the Armed Services Committee and a co-sponsor of one of those resolutions, later explained to the general that he needed to be more careful about appearing to wade into a political debate and warned Petraeus to not let himself be trapped into portraying members of Congress as unpatriotic for disagreeing with President Bush:

We're not a division here today of patriots who support the troops and those who are making statements and working on resolutions that could be translated as aiding and abetting the enemy. We're trying to exercise the fundamental responsibilities of our democracy and how this nation has two co-equal branches of the government, each bearing its own responsibilities.

I hope that this colloquy has not entrapped you into some responses that you might later regret. I wonder if you would just give me the assurance that you'll go back and examine the transcript as to what you replied with respect to certain of these questions and review it, because we want you to succeed.

. . . I'm very proud of this committee and I don't want an impression, certainly among the armed forces, that we're not all steadfast behind them.

-- Thomas E. Ricks
A bit more:

http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/g/ea9ee88a-e0c6-485e-a963-5136fd4945e3

...What possible purpose could passing such a resolution have had? It couldn’t have changed the strategy. Indeed, it wouldn’t have even counseled a change in strategy. The only possible purpose would have been to express a national sense of disunity. And what good would that have done?

THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT WE have happening today with the Senate resolution that is currently being contemplated. The Senators who have expressed their support for the measure have earned history’s scorn. The Senators who have agreed to even consider such a divisive and pointless measure have earned history’s scorn.

Again, what’s the point? Among the opponents of the surge, you see the kind of intellectual slovenliness that may be acceptable for a blogger but is hardly worthy of a Senator. A case in point: A week ago, Andrew Sullivan said he couldn’t support the surge because after a careful tactical analysis, he decided that for a surge to be successful it would require 50,000 troops instead of the proposed 21,500. (Of course, I just made up the part about the “careful tactical analysis.”) Today, Andrew opined that to truly turn the tide we would need “in the region of several hundred thousand more (troops).” He offered no explanation for changing his figure by 14 fold, but I have little doubt that he arrived at the “several hundred thousand” number with a comprehensive tactical analysis similar to the one he used to arrive at the 50,000 number.

But Andrew’s just a blogger, and a childish inconsistency is every blogger’s Constitutional right, or at least it will be until the Democrats put us out of business for making “campaign contributions.” But we should expect more from our Senators.

If John Warner thinks Dave Petraeus doesn’t know what he’s talking about, he should explain why that’s the case in a detailed fashion. The same goes for Susan Collins, Norm Coleman, Gordon Smith and the rest of the pro-resolution gang. But I haven’t heard a Senator from either side of the aisle explain why he or she thinks the surge will fail with anything more comprehensive than Andrew’s virtual sound byte. When General Petraeus testified in the Senate yesterday, the Senators doing the questioning were loath to engage him in a tactical debate, clearly sensing their limitations. Yet without Petraeus in the room, the same Senators promise to be uninhibited when it comes time to vote for a resolution that will say in effect that Petraeus is wrong about the tactics he is pursuing...
 

Avatar4321

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2004
Messages
82,283
Reaction score
10,122
Points
2,070
Location
Minnesota
Given that Chimpy has ignored every bit of advice on the matter of Iraq from the Iraq Study Groups, to the JCS, to commanders in the field, to the American people, what is there to support? With the number of people who actually support the administration in this disasterous foreign adventurism approaching the level of an endagered species, it's long past time for Chimpy to stop worrying about his legacy and start worrying about the US troops he wants to throw into the meat-grinder...Start worrying about the countless thousands of innocent Iraqis who have died, and continue to die, in Iraq since the invasion. A number which far exceeds that of people Saddam killed and buried in mass graves.
What are you talking about? the addition troops idea came from the Baker report, (atleast i think thats the one, there are so many). Democrats have been calling for months for the President to implement those finding. We have statements from Nancy Pelosi and other prominent Democrats calling for an increase of troops and then the second the President said he increase the troops they made a 180 degree about face. They were interviewing a general the other day in their decision to make this stupid resolution, and he specifically told them they needed the troops and this resolution would only help the enemy did they listen? Of course not.

It be nice if the Democrats would let the generals fight to win instead of trying to tell them how to do their jobs with unnecessary reports they make.

I dont think the President is worried much about his legacy other than making sure he doesnt leave this nation unsafe. It be nice if Democrat politicians began thinking of their legacy. But then you cant really focus on the long term implications of what you do if you do everything by push polls.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top