Say it ain’t so…what did he call Pelosi?
Posted on January 20, 2007
Media Matters, jump to action! “Conservative Media Bias Alert.”
In this ho-hum story about the latest White House-Mimi spat, was a little unexpected nugget.
Reuters: War of words continues over Iraq
Pelosi, a California liberal who earlier this month became the first woman to lead the House, insisted on Friday that Democrats would never deny funding to U.S. forces in wartime.
Mark your calendars folks. Don’t think that will ever get past a Reuters editor again.
Investor’s Business Daily smacks Mimi upside the head with the 2×4 of reality: Not Ready To Lead
Is it unfair to accuse Democrats of being all about surrender and petty political gain? Back in power just two weeks, the party is living up to that caricature.
The Democrats who now make up the majority in Congress know they cannot succeed in cutting off funding for the war in Iraq. They also know that they cannot persuade President Bush to agree to any kind of graceful retreat; he wants to win.
So why pass resolutions in the Senate and House declaring the president’s troop surge in Iraq is “not in the national interest of the United States”? The inescapable conclusion is that those measures, planned for the week of the president’s State of the Union address, have one main goal: to embarrass the commander in chief in the eyes of the world as America wages a global war on terror.
Instead of disagreeing with the White House about how to win effectively, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is upset the administration doesn’t want to lose. Speaking at the National Press Club last week, she said that “ending the war in Iraq” was “one of the great moral challenges facing our nation” — not winning the war there, not defeating terrorists and their enablers worldwide.
She wants to get the losing of this war over with.
» Filed Under News, Politics As Usual, War On Terror
Trackback URL
Comments
13 Responses to “Say it ain’t so…what did he call Pelosi?”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
the reason that Bush is sending out more troops and aircraft carriers is to implement Rumsfelds plan of operation “TIRANNT” (which I respectfully suggest you Google).
Idiot!
The Democrats are losers plain and simple. See Vietnam. Thanks God we didn’t have people like in charge during WWII. These people have never seen a war they wouldn’t lose. Almost French like. See Kerry. The irony is because of War these dolts have the freedoms they have.
I’m standing-up for this last move (increasing troops). The only good idea is to go in and win this thing. We can do this. We cannot walk out. The mainstream Iraqi population, not the power-grubbing militias, deserve a peaceful homeland. It’s a scary situation, but everyone wants to send their children to school and know “Uday” (or whomever is the current day deviant) won’t send a henchman to take your daughter off for a few hours or forever, or strap a suicide pack on your son — everyone wants a safe walk to the market. The bottom-line is: we must stand-up for personal freedoms, and I’m not talking about whether or not a woman wears a veil — real freedoms, like not being tortured because of your beliefs. Everyone — the world-over — wants to just “get on” with their lives, except those despicables who want to control all of us.
The good news is that Al-Sadr’s aide has been arrested. Now, how long will he be detained? And when will others be detained or taken-out? We need to let our military do its job. God Bless our Troops.
Maggie Thornton
If our all-volunteer military thinks we are doing the right thing in Iraq and wants to stay, let them. And if Pelosi don’t like it she can tell it to the Marines.
I have a hard time respecting writers who write like that.
The party has been adamant for the past three months that they don’t even want to.
The implication being that the Democrats want to lose?
I must be really smart, because I managed to escape the “inescapable conclusion.” Maybe, just maybe, they disagree with his strategy and they’re using their majority to file an official complaint. What’s wrong with that? They want it to be clear that they disagree. They’re willing to stake the next election on it. How would you rather they behave?
That’s rich. He calls out the Democrats for not having an honest, factual debate and in the very same sentence he presumes to know Ms. Pelosi’s motives and emotional state?
Whatever. It wouldn’t surprise me if the author had never met Pelosi and yet he pretends to know her motives? Go ahead and analyze their plan or lack thereof. Say it sucks and it will end up in defeat for reasons X Y and Z, but don’t be so arrogant as to assume that there’s only one way to skin a cat.
There are somewhere near a quarter million troops in various parts of the Iraq rotation. It’s a mistake to think that many people agree on anything. It’s an even bigger mistake to presume to know what those well-trained young men believe. They’re not going to question orders openly unless things get really bad.
“It’s an even bigger mistake to presume to know what those well-trained young men believe.”
Jeff–
The overwhelming majority of active duty combat arms troops support the mission.
As a recent member of that cadre of “well-trained” young men, with some of my best friends either in the ME or just recently returned, I can TELL you that these are the facts. Actions say a lot about motive.
Look at the re-enlistment rate among infantry Marines. Phenomenal. 147% over goals right now.
I think that says enough about what the troops think.
“It wouldn’t surprise me if the author had never met Pelosi and yet he pretends to know her motives? ”
Jeff, I have to repeat: “Actions say a lot about motive.”
Are saying that what someone does can never give you an idea about why he did it?
Please. What about the Democrats’ (lack of) alternative solution makes you think “They really want to win this thing”?
Nothing. It’s all about getting out, not winning. Their ACTIONS dishonor every fighting man and woman who has left sweat and flesh on the front. I have not heard one member of the Dem leadership begin a sentence with the words, “To win in Iraq, we need to…” Whether you agree with the war at all or not, it conception and its current conduct, doesn’t mean a damn thing. We are there and we have to win. The Dems however, have given every indication that they don’t care about victory, they just care to score points against the administration. This much is clear…crystal. Do you think we need to win?
Give me some evidence to the contrary. I’d love to hear it.
Listen, folks. There are no good options left in Iraq. We have neither the numbers nor the will to contain this insurgency—and the civil war it created. Winning? You’re joking, right? What is winning in this context? The fact is that chaos and bloodshed will follow our exit from Irag—now, or in six months, or six years. There is a dawning of understanding in America of the breathtaking ignorance which produced this war and the sheer incompetence of the Administration in its prosecution.
I agree that we can’t just leave tomorrow. But throwing away the lives of our soldiers on a fool’s gamble that al-Maliki will step up to the plate is just nuts. Or, in Sen. Gordon Smith’s word, criminal.
Let’s cut our losses, both human and economic. There is no military solution, short of 500,000 troops. We’re not losing—we’ve already lost. Let’s go home.
Thank you for your service. It is important to note, though, that your statements are anecdotal. I am very close to some servicemembers that are less optimistic than you. In order to know which feeling is predominant, we’d have to do a proper survey that takes into account all of the possible variations amongst servicemembers. The problem is that once you do that, you’re going to start getting less than honest answers.
Not in and of itself. You would have to compare that number to peacetime and similar conflicts. You would also have to compare the stated goals to peacetime and similar conflicts. It’s very easy, not to mention an obvious PR move, to set the bar low. It’s also pretty easy, given the massive supplementary appropriations, to throw enough money into the field to meet any goal. Reenlistment bonuses can skew the numbers even further for those servicemen that hail from areas with weak economies.
I’m not asserting that any of that is the case, but you would have to control for those factors (and probably others as well) to do a proper analysis.
I’m sure you also know full well about the bond that develops between soldiers on the battlefield. There are men who reenlist out of a sense of loyalty to their comrades.
Ok, what has Pelosi done that clearly demonstrates she “wants to lose.” Keep in mind that to support that assertion, you have to demonstrate that she has or is advocating a strategy that she expects to fail.
I’m not as pessimistic as Alan, but he’s right when he says “What is winning in this context? The fact is that chaos and bloodshed will follow our exit from Irag—now, or in six months, or six years.”
The dictator is dead. A sovereign government is in place. Unless we really are trying to build an empire, we are going to leave at some point. And as Bush said in his address, “Victory will not look like the ones our fathers and grandfathers achieved. There will be no surrender ceremony on the deck of a battleship.” The violence isn’t going to just stop; it will peter out over time.
So when do we leave Iraq? The answer is simple: when the Iraqis can provide their own security. I don’t think anyone disagrees over this. The hard questions are, “What is the best way to get them ready?” and “How will we know when they are?”
The Democrats answer appears to be a form of “tough love.” They believe the Iraqis are already close enough and they’ll figure out how to steer the ship as the responsibility is transferred over a 6-12 month period.
Is that the best strategy? I don’t know; my crystal ball broke last week. It is risky in that it limits your options if it doesn’t work, but the administration’s plan isn’t without its own risks.
For the record, I’m not against the administration’s plans. I don’t mind trying a new force structure because it doesn’t really narrow your options, but if the situation doesn’t improve much over the next year, you can expect to find me moving towards the “tough love” corner. At some point, the Iraqis need to take responsibility for their country.
“your statements are anecdotal.”
Yes Jeff, I began with my experience, but I followed it with a solid number (current re-enlisted goals exceeded when the Iraq war is looked at as “hopeless” by many who are not fighting it) that points to the FACT that the actions of troops fall on my side, not yours. My “side” being that you can measure ones motives by their actions.
The fact is that if the disaffection you unsupportably assert is widespread, there would be far fewer retentions. That is simple logic Jeff.
EVERYTHING you’ve presented is anecdotal or just plain ridiculous.
All the other “requirements” you’ve set out simply to believe the obvious shows that you have no interest in reassessing a ridiculously easy to disprove statement about the viewpoint of the troops, measured by their conduct.
“It’s very easy, not to mention an obvious PR move, to set the bar low.”
This is one of the most laughable things you’ve ever written Jeff. You think that no one would notice if prior to releasing its numbers, DoD decided to shave off about 1/3 of its projected numbers in order to give a false number??? Jeff, get real. When Intel reduces its projections by a freaking penny, CNBC reports it, you think the NY Times would let DoD would get away with what you implying it did?
“Reenlistment bonuses can skew the numbers even further for those servicemen that hail from areas with weak economies.”
Hasn’t this stupid urban myth been shown false enough times for you Jeff? The fact is, members of the armed forces are more educated and come from wealthier background than the average American. There were more re-enlistment bonuses paid in the Marine Corps last year, but that is because we are trying to increase the Marine Corps from its current 174,000 to 202,000 Marines. Many MOSs that traditionally carried a bonus are being beefed up, so there were more opportunities to take those bonuses. Traditionally, the limits for each occupational specialty (boat spaces) would cause many Marines who wanted to stay in to lat move, because the number of jobs in that field were not sufficient. Now they can stay in their original field AND take a bonus. You really just don’t know what you are talking about here Jeff.
Moreover, surveys show that very few enlist or re-enlist “for the money.” Jeff, not everyone looks at the world in Marxo-Randian economic terms. Some people think there is more to life “getting yours,” that there are some things worth more than Bose speakers.
Fewer than what? Fewer than 2003? 2000? 1995? 1945? No, it’s not an historical number. The 147% number is just based on an internal projection.
Of course, but a cheat wouldn’t shave it all off at once. Besides, I’m sure they have different retention targets for peacetime and wartime, so they would have had carte blanche to understate their projects for 2002. From there, they could have shaved a few more percent each year.
I’m not asserting that they did this. I would be interested to see the annual goals for the past 50 years, but I don’t know where to find them. All I’m saying is that this is the kind of thing that your chosen stat is vulnerable to.
No, it hasn’t. And don’t paint me with the John Kerry brush. I’m not saying our military is filled to the brim with poor idiots. Of the people I know that have enlisted since the “war on terror”, every one of them has been capably educated and came from a middle/upper-middle class family.
BUT, none of them had any sort of career going. They were all taking an occasional class and work various odd jobs. If you ask any of them why they joined, they would tell you about the prestige, honor, and duty, but it’s foolish to think the financial stability wasn’t a sizable factor. If it weren’t, you would find that the percentage of elisted personnel that left a career-path would be exactly the same as the percentage of all people in that age group that are on a career-path. I haven’t seen any studies take that angle, but I highly doubt that’s the case. ‘
Yeah, and surveys of Miss America contestants show a high degree of concern for the environment and world peace. As you’ve pointed out several times, action speaks louder than words. If a bonus doesn’t encourage reenlistment, why offer it? If the amount of the bonus doesn’t affect reenlistment, how did they pick any given amount?
One last thought, in case you still disagree with everything I’ve said: Per USA Today, our 500,000 member active-duty army has a goal of reenlisting 64,162 members this year. Assuming that average enlistment duration is 36 months in the army ( I think it’s actually closer to 24), that means they expect about 100,000 servicemembers to decline reenlistment.
I’m sure the vast majority of those 100k make their choice for personal reasons that have no bearing on their opinion of the war, but I point this out to illustrate that the number you highlight focuses on such a small portion of the military. When you also factor in the lack of historical context and lack of controls for variables such as duration of combat activity, intensity of combat activity, and financial incentives, it is impossible to statisticly infer the morale of the troops based solely on the retention rate.