Blog Tools
Edit your Blog
Build a Blog
View Profile
« April 2024 »
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30
You are not logged in. Log in
Entries by Topic
All topics
AIP Commentary
Antiwar Movement
Culture of Death Updates
Election 2004
Eye on the Media
Hate-Bush Goofballs
Hurricane Katrina
Iraq War  «
Must Read
Odds & Ends
On Politics
Spanning the Globe
Sullivan Award
War on Terror
As I Please
Tuesday, 6 March 2007
The Nation's Shame
Topic: Iraq War

A thought on the Walter Reed scandal (with apologies to George Bernard Shaw): The American soldier can stand up to anything except the American politician.

Knowing the Army as I do, I was totally unsurprised by the news that wounded soldiers at Waller Reed Army Medical Center were being poorly treated in some respects. I could easily image what had happened: the hospital's resources swamped by an influx of combat-wounded troops, housing shortages, budget difficulties, bureaucratic buck passing. No one intended to do wrong by the troops, not really, but people were still operating on peacetime assumptions. "It's not my problem," they told themselves, and kicked the can down the road. This is no excuse for what happened, but it's the reality of life inside an enormous bureaucracy.

We have leaders, civilian and military, to cut through the bureaucratic red tape when action is urgently needed. That's what these people are paid to do—and they utterly failed to do it in this instance. Kudos to President Bush and Secretary of Defense Gates for taking immediate forceful action when the scandal came to their attention. But why, why, did it take so long for the Commander-in-Chief to get the message? Were I the President, with the responsibility for ordering men into battle, I'd be taking a personal, daily interest in the welfare of the wounded. George W. Bush didn't do that. Presumably he trusted the bureaucrats to do the right thing. Really, Mr. President, you should have known better. And this scandal will remain as a deserved blot on your record.


Posted by tmg110 at 6:32 AM CST
Post Comment | Permalink
Tuesday, 27 February 2007
The Mullahs and Their Progressive Pals
Topic: Iraq War

More evidence that Iran is arming out terrorist enemies in Iraq.

In this connection it's interesting to note how fervently the antiwar mob has rallied to the defense of the Iranian mullahs. For progressives, the idea that the Iranian regime might be sponsoring terrorists is preposterous. After all, everybody knows that George W. Bush is the reincarnation of Adolf Hitler.


Posted by tmg110 at 7:17 AM CST
Post Comment | Permalink
Thursday, 22 February 2007
When the Truth Hurts
Topic: Iraq War

Well, of course Speakerette Nancy Pelosi is whining about Vice President Dick Cheney's (entirely accurate) characterization of the Democrats’ position on Iraq:

 

Vice President Dick Cheney on Wednesday harshly criticized Democrats' attempts to thwart President Bush's troop buildup in Iraq, saying their approach would "validate the al-Qaida strategy." House Speaker Nancy Pelosi fired back that Cheney was questioning critics' patriotism.

 

It’s not that Cheney questioned their patriotism in so many words—what really bugs Nancy is that his criticism leads inescapably to the conclusion that the Dems suffer from a patriotism deficit. And that’s not Cheney’s problem.


Posted by tmg110 at 8:48 AM CST
Post Comment | Permalink
Monday, 19 February 2007
The Dems Bottom Out
Topic: Iraq War

Writing for the Weekly Standard, Bill Kristol excoriates congressional Democrats:

Politicians often say foolish things. Members of both parties criticize cavalierly and thunder thoughtlessly. They advance irresponsible suggestions and embrace mistaken policies. But most of our politicians, most of the time, stop short of knowingly hurting the country. Watching developments in Congress this past week, though, one has to ask: Can that be said any longer about the leadership of the Democratic party?

To answer Kristol's question—no, that can no longer be said the the leadership of the Democratic Party. Regarding Iraq, the Democrats have settled on a policy of retreat, defeat and humiliation. And why? Because Democrats see political advantages for themselves in an Iraq debacle. They know that they're hurting our country. They know that they're leaving our troops in the lurch. But they just don't care.


Posted by tmg110 at 7:12 AM CST
Post Comment | Permalink
Monday, 29 January 2007
A Piece of Fudge
Topic: Iraq War

Michael Barone eviscerates the pending Senate resolution on Iraq:

 

So the upshot of the resolution is that we should keep doing for some undetermined period of time pretty much what we have been doing, though it hasn't been working, and we should not do the different things that [General] Petraeus thinks have a chance—he's not guaranteeing success—of working.

 

What the resolution tells us is that most members of Congress, echoing what they think is the view of most voters, yearn to return to the holiday from history that we thought we were enjoying between the fall of the Berlin Wall and Sept. 11, 2001. And that they have no idea at all of how to get there.

 

The United States Senate may indeed have no idea how to deal with Iraq or terrorism—but as Barone makes clear, The World’s Greatest Deliberative Body does know how to shuffle, clear its collective throat, bob, weave and fudge.


Posted by tmg110 at 8:46 AM CST
Updated: Monday, 29 January 2007 8:57 AM CST
Post Comment | Permalink
Wednesday, 17 January 2007
The Political Poltroons
Topic: Iraq War

And speaking of the Democrats, have you noticed how cravenly they are behaving in their supposed opposition to the Iraq War? I say supposed opposition because for all their big talk, the Dems seem unwilling to use the congressional power of the purse to checkmate the dullard Bush and his sinister neocon cabal.

One positive outcome of November 2006 was that handing Congress to the Democrats has made manifest their cowardly lack of principle. Terrified of losing the power they so recently acquired, the Dems ducked and covered when the moment of truth came upon them. They won't support the war, but they won't do anything to get America out of it. Is this how Democrats "support the troops"?


Posted by tmg110 at 7:44 AM CST
Post Comment | Permalink
Monday, 15 January 2007
Fear and Trembling on the Right
Topic: Iraq War

Having excoriated the manufactured hysteria with which Democrats and leftists are treating this critical juncture of the Iraq War, I feel that I ought in fairness to point out that more than a few conservatives are preaching defeatism as well. See, for example, here and here.

 

The existential despair that permeates Peggy Noonan’s Wall Street Journal piece is particularly grotesque, e.g.:

 

 

Right now, in the deepest levels of the American government, intelligence and military planners should be ordered to draw up serious plans for an American withdrawal, and serious strategies for dealing with the realities withdrawal will bring. It would not be the worst thing if the Maliki government knew those plans were being drawn up. It might concentrate the mind.

What is paramount is a hard, cold-eyed and even brutal look at America's interests. We have them. I'm not sure they've been given sufficient attention the past few years. In fact, I am sorry to say I believe they have not.

 

Yeah, right. Posing as a "hard, cold-eyed and even brutal" realist is one way of covering up one’s irrational panic.

 

 

The troops who have to fight this war surely deserve better than such lily-livered hand wringing. Thanks for nothing, Ms. Noonan.


Posted by tmg110 at 9:23 AM CST
Updated: Wednesday, 17 January 2007 7:55 AM CST
Post Comment | Permalink
Friday, 12 January 2007
Calculated Hysteria
Topic: Iraq War

While of course it’s true that the situation in Iraq is serious, the hysteria on display among pundits and politicians hardly seems warranted. People are moaning and wringing their hands as if the greatest catastrophe in human history has occurred. Americans used to be a lot more stoic.

 

A square look at the situation reveals that winning the war requires the pacification of two areas of Iraq: greater Baghdad and Anwar province. Are critics really intending to suggest that America is incapable of doing that? Come on. It wouldn’t be easy, but it’s hardly a mission impossible.

 

It’s fair enough for critics to assert that the war in Iraq just isn’t worth it. I happen to think that they’re 100% wrong about that; still, it’s an arguable point. But to imply, as many of them do, that America can’t win shows bad faith. The can’t-win position is a way of dodging around the inarguable point that if the US were to withdraw from Iraq, the consequences would be catastrophic. If there’s no upside, what’s the point of harping on the downside?

 

Thus the hysterical behavior of Democrats and their media allies has as its real source the lurking fear that America might win in Iraq after all. Because the war was seen to be going badly, Democrats prospered politically. There’s nothing for them in an American victory. To get the White House back, they need a debacle. And they’ll do what they can to make sure that a debacle occurs.

Posted by tmg110 at 1:03 PM CST
Post Comment | Permalink
Thursday, 11 January 2007
Iraq: The New Course
Topic: Iraq War

President Bush had finally gotten it right.

The plan he laid out last night can bring victory over Islamofascism in Iraq. The additional troops—more than 20,000 of them—should be sufficient to pacify the Baghdad region. But that will happen only if we take the gloves off and fight as if we mean to win. The enemy doesn't respect multicultural sensitivity or restraint. The enemy respects power. If we want to prevail in the war on terror, me must show the mailed fist.

Recent events in Somalia, along with the President's pointed references to Iran and Syria, suggest that he understands the realities of the situation very well. A big part of our problem in Iraq derives from the fact that the enemy has ceased to fear America. It's time to put that fear back into their black hearts.

President Bush said the right things. Let's hope that he and his Administration have the fortitude to do the right thing at this, the moment of balance in a war America has to win.


Posted by tmg110 at 7:58 AM CST
Post Comment | Permalink
Wednesday, 10 January 2007
Congressional Cowards
Topic: Iraq War

They say the war is a lost cause, they insist that more troops can't turn things around and they wield the power of the purse. So what is the response of the Democratic congressional majority (and a handful of turncoat Republicans) to the President's plan for victory in Iraq? A "symbolic" vote of no confidence.

For all their big talk, Democrats simply haven't got the guts to take risky political action against a policy they insist is bound to fail. Their nonbinding vote against the troop surge represents an attempt to throw a bone to the party's antiwar base without alienating mainstream America. That it might make the country look weak in the eyes of the enemy, or that it might damage the morale of our troops, is of no importance to this bunch of belly-crawling poltroons.


Posted by tmg110 at 7:28 PM CST
Post Comment | Permalink

Newer | Latest | Older