Unwinnable

I’m confused, why did Democrats vote for an unwinnable war? The job the troops have now is exactly the same whether or not WMD was ever found. In fact, wouldn’t it be much worse with WMD? So why did Democrats vote for a war that they say has never had a plan for victory?

"The President did not have a plan for victory when he went into his war of choice in Iraq, and he did not have a plan for victory today. Nancy Pelosi

What kind of political courage does it take to vote for a war that +70% of the people are in favor of even though you later admit that you have no idea what the mission is, how long it will take, or why we even needed to go?

The party of 'Duck and Run'

After years, literally years, of publically demanding that the President "admit his mistakes", what do the Democrats do? Pass all of the responsibility onto the President. "I never would have voted for the war if Bush hadn't lied... manipulated intelligence... exaggerated the threat... in fact, we were bamboozled! Harumph! Hustled! Harr-rrummph! Hornswaggled! ...and played like a cheap violin! That's why we are demanding that troops be pulled out now!"

If only voters had known that Democrats were so easily duped (by the chimp President and his Rovian brain!) maybe we could have avoided electing them altogether. Dems are obviously outclassed by Bush and I think I know why. Bush hasn't wavered.

Bush hasn't changed his strategy or his rhetoric. He hasn't changed the goal or the mission, and he continues to say, "Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead!" In contrast, Democrats have been maneuvering this way and that, triangulating, testing the waters, hemming and hawing, trying to have everything both ways and constantly yapping at Bushes heels for some sign of weakness they could exploit.

In essense, they keep asking for Bush to save them. Demanding that Bush agree with their spineless short term political calculations. But Bush keeps disappointing them and it seems to make them angry.

Immediately following the speech, Senate Minority Leader Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nevada, said Bush "recycled his tired rhetoric of 'stay the course' and once again missed an opportunity to lay out a real strategy for success in Iraq that will bring our troops safely home."

Reid said: "Our troops, their families, and the American people deserve a clear strategy with military, economic and political measures to be met in order to successfully complete our mission."

Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, said Bush failed to lay out a "coherent, detailed plan" to stabilize Iraq in a "reasonable time." cnn

Q and O Blog points out that Democrats don't even know what they're asking for when they demand a new Iraq 'strategy'. Strategy is exactly what Bush has reiterated over and over. Specific details about how you achieve that strategy is commonly referred to as 'tactics'. Something the President has said repeatedly that he trusts his commanders, who have the experience and capability, to devise and execute. Democrats, of course, are demanding to take the wheel. (I will try to resist mentioning what happens when Massachusetts Senators are behind the wheel.)

Intelligence hypocrisy

There is more than enough documentation to establish that the Bush Administration was fully aware that a major attack was coming from Al-Qaeda, by air, aimed at symbolic structures on the U.S. mainland, and that among mentioned targets were the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, the White House, the Congress, Statue of Liberty. (According to Richard Clarke, the White House's National Coordinator for Anti-Terrorism, the intelligence community was convinced ten weeks before 9/11 that an Al-Qaeda attack on U.S. soil was imminent.) commondreams.org

There's a word we've seen before: Imminent? I like how non-specific and speculative theories in intelligence reports become imminent threats and mountains of intelligence and twelve years of evading sanctions and inspections are suddenly figments of Bush's imagination.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser. usatoday, 1998

And of course no one ever thought that we should remove Saddam and make Iraq a democracy before Bush made it up after the WMD claims fell short.

"A democratic Iraq is certainly in our interest," Sen. Bob Kerrey, D-Neb., said in floor speech. "But it is above all for the sake of the Iraqis that we must replace Saddam." New York Times, 1998

The insurgency has won. They have all too easily prevailed against the resolve and committment of the left.

Posted by Eric Simonson at December 1, 2005 7:14 PM