I Love The Anchoress, But...

I love the Anchoress but I, uhh, not-love this post (no one is calling me a hater!).

Her broad theme seems to be that Democrats who now oppose Bush's troop surge in Iraq were calling for more troops there a few years ago.  Well - times change, and maybe these folks have simply concluded that the situation has become irretrievable ("the situation" may refer to Iraq, or to the relationship of Dem leaders with the anti-war left - you make the call!).

And I have a specific objection to this link:

Check out these news articles that reported how the Democrats were for an increase troops in Iraq at a time when President Bush was not:

Senate Democrats Call for Increase in Troops - The New York Times

Folks who follow the link to the Times story will learn that Dems were calling for an increase in the size of the standing Army, not for more troops in Iraq.  Although Rumsfeld opposed that at the time Bush is now on board, so a lesser (or greater) man might ask, who is the flip-flopper?  But I won't!

UPDATE:  Now this I love:

Dec. 5. 2006 - In a surprise twist in the debate over Iraq, Rep. Silvestre Reyes, the soon-to-be chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said he wants to see an increase of 20,000 to 30,000 U.S. troops as part of a stepped up effort to “dismantle the militias.”

The soft-spoken Texas Democrat was an early opponent of the Iraq war and voted against the October 2002 resolution authorizing President Bush to invade that country. That dovish record got prominently cited last week when Speaker-designate Nancy Pelosi chose Reyes as the new head of the intelligence panel.

But in an interview with NEWSWEEK on Tuesday, Reyes pointedly distanced himself from many of his Democratic colleagues who have called for fixed timetables for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. Coming on the eve of tomorrow’s recommendations from the bipartisan Baker-Hamilton commission, Reyes’s comments were immediately cited by some Iraq war analysts as fresh evidence that the intense debate over U.S. policy may be more fluid than many have expected.

“We’re not going to have stability in Iraq until we eliminate those militias, those private armies,” Reyes said. “We have to consider the need for additional troops to be in Iraq, to take out the militias and stabilize Iraq … We certainly can’t leave Iraq and run the risk that it becomes [like] Afghanistan” was before the 2001 invasion by the United States.

Reyes also stressed that there needed to be greater “political accountability” demanded of the Iraqi government. But on the core issue of the U.S. commitment, Reyes—a Vietnam War veteran who partially lost his hearing in that conflict—even compared his position to that of another Vietnam vet, Sen. John McCain, a staunch supporter of the Iraq war. Like Reyes, McCain also has called for an increase in U.S. troop strength. When asked how many additional troops he envisioned sending to Iraq, Reyes replied: “I would say 20,000 to 30,000—for the specific purpose of making sure those militias are dismantled, working in concert with the Iraqi military.”

The Anchoress has that in an update, so I am stealing shamelessly.  Obviously, that is not a flip-flop unless Reyes has changed since.  What it is is a suggestion of trouble in paradise - Jane Harman, former senior Dem on the House Intel committee, was passed over for the top spot in part (or in whole) because of insufficient partisan Bush-bashing.  Is Reyes headed the same way?  Or is he ready to flip-flop?  Here is a report from a Texas paper following Bush's speech:

"We don't have the capability to escalate even to this minimal level," said U.S. Rep. Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas, referring to the availability of troops. "The president has not changed direction, but is simply changing tactics."

Reyes, who met with Bush on Tuesday to review the plan, said sending more troops removes any incentive the Iraqi government had to take responsibility for the safety of its own citizens. He added that Bush was continuing his "go-it-alone" approach, rather than trying to find diplomatic solutions.

...

In the Tuesday meeting, Reyes said, the president assured him that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki had promised to supply soldiers in support of the effort and not to tolerate interference from militias, even those that support his Shiite majority in the government. Al-Maliki has failed to keep similar promises for past stability operations in Baghdad, Reyes said, which ultimately led to their failure.

"I asked them (Bush and other administration officials at the meeting), What if this isn't successful? What are the benchmarks? Where is the accountability?" Reyes said. "There is none."

Interesting evolution.  Reyes could be a disappointed hawk, a faux hawk (but why?), or a hawk whose wings were clipped.

Comments

[clarice]

Sweetness & Light notes that the ISG which the Dems insisted be followed calls for just such a troop surge.
How's them potatoes?

[Sue]

who is the flip-flopper?

Sounds like that label could be aptly applied to both Bush and the democrats. But I like it better on Kerry. It doesn't really fit on anyone else. We will have to come up with a new term for Bush "flip-flopping".

[clarice]

An "evolver"?

[Sue]

I don't think that word evokes the same passion that flip-flopper did.

[cboldt]

President Bush leads changes in policy, the Democrats flip-flop against the President's policies.

[sbw]

This is the perfect opportunity for the diplomacy called for by Democrats. Diplomacy could remind Syria and Iran that we are not about to make the mistake made in Vietnam where we defined some territory off limits for attack when those countries were engaged in defeating American troops.

diplomacy such as this would be the perfect opportunity for Democrats to show their support for the troops.

[Extraneus]

Very good point, sbw. They could even note that, notwithstanding all the politics here at home, there's no outcry over the widening of activities into Somalia.

[clarice]

Ahem--there is--Taranto cites to left bloggers complaining that Somalia (the WOT) is distracting from the war In Iraq.

Moving the goalposts again.

[Extraneus]

Ha. Yeah, I saw that, but still decided to go with "no" in my comment rather than impugn their insignificance.

[Terrye]

I like the Anchoress and most of the time I agree with her.

And I call the Democrats flip floppers, liars... whatever.

Hell, just try getting them to admit to their own policy in the late 90's and see what kind of resistance you get. They say whatever is expedient at the time. I don't care if the subject is troop numbers, Saddam and his weapons, the need to fight global terrorism whatever. They are all over the place.

[Don]

Good one TM. I've long been surprised that your penchant for sniffing out vile hypocrisy and downright stupidity never ventured into right wing blogistan.

Good luck. And now that simply adding 20,000 troops counts as a "whole new strategy" in the Iraq occupation, you'll have much happy hunting.

[Terrye]

If you actually go look at the post the Anchoress has other examples for her statement than the one Tom mentioned.

[MayBee]

Yes, the Anchoress gave a lot of examples.

I never care much for the argument that someone changing their mind is, by iteself, a bad thing. The problem is *why* they've changed their mind. I may be wrong, but I feel I've seen a pattern of whatever-Bush-wants-I-don't-want-ism in this war (and the Afghan war befor Iraq, and when news from Iraq is slow).

I loved Taranto's bit, clarice.

[The Anchoress]

Tom, would you love me better if I'd included this link:

Dec. 5. 2006 - In a surprise twist in the debate over Iraq, Rep. Silvestre Reyes, the soon-to-be chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said he wants to see an increase of 20,000 to 30,000 U.S. troops as part of a stepped up effort to “dismantle the militias.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16062351/site/newsweek/

Well, I included it, because I want you to love me more! :-)

[clarice]

Some people are shameless in pursuing Tom.*wink*

[topsecretk9]

Harry Reid: More Troops to Iraq!
By Alexander Cockburn
Dec 21, 2006, 01:23

This last Sunday Harry Reid, the incoming Democratic majority leader in the US Senate, went on ABC's Sunday morning show and declared that a hike in U.S. troops in Iraq is okay with him....

...Next, House Democrats welcomed the Iraq Study Group report of James Baker and Jim Hamilton by promptly reaffirming the Palestinian Terror Bill 2006", written by AIPAC...

...Then Nancy Pelosi, chose Silvestre Reyes as House Intelligence Committee chairman. Reyes promptly told Newsweek, "We're not going to have stability in Iraq until we eliminate those militias, those private armies. We have to consider the need for additional troops to be in Iraq, to take out the militias and stabilize IraqI would say 20,000 to 30,000-for the specific purpose of making sure those militias are dismantled, working in concert with the Iraqi military."...

Then, on December 17 the Democrats' Senate leader, Harry Reid, said it was okay with him to send more troops to Iraq. This was the same Sunday morning that Colin Powell, appearing on CBS, said a troop increase "cannot be sustained" and that the thousands of additional U.S. soldiers sent into Baghdad since the summer had been unable to stabilize the city and more probably could not tip the balance, Powell said.

http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_23586.shtml

[BumperStickerist]

For someone locked in a tiny room in a church, the Anchoress sure gets around a lot.

God: The Ultimate Wi-Fi Connection.

.

the new motto for Bush

Bush Decried: People died.

-

[topsecretk9]

Reid

"If it's for a surge, that is, for two or three months and it's part of a program to get us out of there as indicated by this time next year, then, sure, I'll go along with it," Reid, who will become the majority leader when Democrats take control of the Senate next month, told ABC's "This Week" program.

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2006-12-17T192410Z_01_N17432969_RTRUKOC_0_US-USA-IRAQ.xml

[maryrose]

Dems don't like any idea that isn't a misguided one of their own. They will disavow being for an increase in troop levels just like they reject their own statements about Bin Laden years ago when Clinton was president. They have selective amnesia and their fingers are frozen from holding them up to see which way the wind is blowing. They do not stand on principle.I have no respect for them because they don't stand for anything.

[PeterUK]

Amir Tahiri said this,

"So, what should Mr Bush do? The last thing to do is to seek a bipartisan policy. Too many Democrats have invested too much in the hope that Iraq fails for them to agree to help Mr Bush to ensure success."

Edward Kennedy sais this

[PeterUK]

Prime Minister al Maliki tells Sadr to disarm "or Else"

[Terrye]

Don:

Pot kettle black

[Don]

Else

[MayBee]

But Reyes and Reid spoke before they received the new truth that the November vote was clearly the American People saying "Out of Iraq! Now!"

You just can't go having Bush do what you said you want him to do, because that might make you responsible. So you go look for new truths.

[r m flanagan]

He's doing a bush flop.

[PeterUK]

"Good one TM. I've long been surprised that your penchant for sniffing out vile hypocrisy and downright stupidity never ventured into right wing blogistan."

Mainly because there are richer pickings on the left.

[Terrye]

Well the problem the Democrats have is that they might get their way, if we lose Iraq they will want to blame it on Bush..but that might not be how people see it in the future.

And the election was not all about Iraq. Most polls make it plain that while people are tired of the war, they are not ready to surrender for heavens sake. The problem the Democrats have is that if they see a poll that says people are worried about Iraq they assume that means run for the hills, when in fact most Americans still state they want to win. Shocking to Democrats to hear that I am sure. They like to win elections and lose wars. That is how they operate.

That is why Clinton called for the removal of Saddam from power, but left the dirty work for someone else.

[TexasToast]

Waiting for the speech. Whist;ing in the dark.

[Extraneus]

Victor Davis Hanson:

During our own Civil War the Confederate propagandists proclaimed that Yankee industrials and city dwellers were no match for Southern martial courage. They erred since there were more yeomen farmers in the North than in the old South—as William Tecumseh Sherman’ s Army of the West demonstrated as it split apart Georgia and the Carolinas.

Hitler and the Nazis, along with the Japanese imperialists, laughed that American ‘cowboys” and “gangsters” were not up to fighting fascism’s ideological warriors. But they erred too—not realizing that a generation who came out of the Great Depression knew something about sacrifice and hardship.

The Soviet Union and Mao’s China made a similar complaint about the running-dog capitalists who would rather profit than sacrifice for their ideas. But the World War II generation that had endured Normandy Beach, the Bulge, and Okinawa proved them wrong in Berlin, Korea, and Cuba. So when the Cold War ended Russia and China both ended up trying to emulate our success rather than we aping their failures.

Now that the jihadists have taken up the tired age-old cry that America can’t fight, they become more barbaric as we seek to remain refined. Will bin Laden, like those in the past, find himself severely mistaken?

The verdict is out—not on our military that, as pointed out, crushes like a bug any jihadist who climbs out of his hole—but on our citizenry in general. So far, when we used overwhelming force in deposing the Taliban and Saddam, or retaking Fallujah or routing the Mahdists we were successful. In contrast, every time we have temporized—first Fallujah or pardoning Sadr—we have emboldened our enemies by perceptions of weakness, not won over their hearts and minds through magnanimity.

The American way of war has never been to be vicious or savage. Rather past success was always found opposing slavery, fascism, communism, or extremism by explaining to our enemies the choices before them, and then using overwhelming force to preserve our culture and values. Let’s hope that the surge follows that pattern, as President Bush warns that the gloves are coming off, and new rules of engagement are now geared solely toward victory.

[lurker]

You're right. We have to come across STRONG.

After all, we won WWII.

[clarice]

I'm listening to weasely Clark. How that man was made a general I'll never know. Why anyone books him for an expert view is even more mysterious.

[MayBee]

Yeah, you would think being fired fired by Clinton would diminish his expertyness, at least for the left. But no.

[PeterUK]

Clarice,Clark does have the distinction of nearly starting WWIII or was it WWIII.V and he did exchange hats with the genocidal murderer Ratbag Mladic,what else do you need for a left wing pundit?

[lurker]

Wesley Clark has no problems with the International Criminal Court and having ICC try our own soldiers and all. After all, he says that he was interrogated by NATO.

He wouldn't also have problems handing over our sovereignty rights to United Nations.

Hope he won't go far in the Democratic primaries.

Can't stand the grandstanding of the Democrats after Bush's speech.

Thought Bush was stiffer than before but his speech was great. Hope American will remember this speech as things will get bloodier the next several months. (Hope not!)

[lurker]

Love mac ranger's "Letter to the troops" from the traitorous Democrats.

[lurker]

Love mac ranger's "Letter to the troops" from the traitorous Democrats.

[Terrye]

Well Bush gave his speech and it was interesting.

[SteveMG]

One of the Iraqi bloggers has noticed that Kurdish troops are now in Baghdad engaging in military/security operations.

So, the 20,000 figure apparently will be augmented with additional troops from outside.

Not sure how the various sects in Iraq will respond. The Kurds are mostly Sunni but I guess they'll be willing to go after those insurgents since they have had a not especially cordial relationship with the Baathist Sunnis over the decades.

But will the Shi'a fight along with Kurds?

SMG

[Terrye]

SMG:

Not all Shia are the same. In fact I think we assume there is more division than there is.

[SteveMG]

Note: The Peshmerga - Kurdish fighters - are 100-150,000 strong (source: Wikipedia).

We could borrow, say, 50,000?

It'll be interesting to see how many are being sent to the region.

[RichatUF]

I'm listening to weasely Clark. How that man was made a general I'll never know. Why anyone books him for an expert view is even more mysterious...

The ultimate FOB-Clark was a Rhodes scholar and Magdalen College grad Aug. 1968...not too important for a military career unless the President is also a Rhodes scholar (not to take away from his military career)

\\not a Clark fan

RichatUF

[SteveMG]

Not all Shia are the same. In fact I think we assume there is more division than there is.

Right; I'm writing/thinking in generalities and especially about the more "hot" Shi'a areas.

How will they "welcome" Kurdish troops?

[Rick Ballard]

The Peshmerga are busy - there's work to be done just east of their current location and they're eager to lend a hand.

The Kurdish majority brigades that are visiting with the Sunnis in Baghdad are all national troops. There really won't be any difficulties between them and the Shia. As long as they're both killing Sunni Arabs, of course. They may also prove to be effective against the Sadrists, after all the Sadrists are all Arabs and that's what really counts to the Kurds. They'll be working on keeping the number of arrests held down to the lowest number possible - they don't want to put a strain on the Iraqi justice system.

[PaulL]

There *will* be action taken against Iran and Syria. The only question is how much.

The President wasn't about to say explicitly, but the obvious reading is that the gloves are coming off in fighting Iran. Exhibit 1 is the sending of another aircraft carrier battle group to the Persian Gulf.

[clarice]

Rick:"They'll be working on keeping the number of arrests held down to the lowest number possible - they don't want to put a strain on the Iraqi justice system."
HEH

[SteveMG]

Rick:
They'll be working on keeping the number of arrests held down to the lowest number possible - they don't want to put a strain on the Iraqi justice system.

Thanks.

Is this a new action on their part? I've not heard much about their deployment in Baghdad before (or anywhere outside of the north).

If they've got 150,000 troops, a nice 50,000 deployment would be quite helpful (if they can spare them).

SMG

[Rick Ballard]

Steve,

They really are integrated Iraqi Army brigades. The ones that went to Baghdad are absolutely not Peshmerga - just brigades raised and trained in Kurdestan northern Iraq. The Peshmerga are like a Kurdish militia regional defense force and if they operate in the south the Sunni and Shia are going to whine about disarming them.

They're going to be very useful in the spring - if we can get a decent civil war in Iran fired up. If the Kurds can team up with the Azeri (they're not exactly kissing cousins, although neither are Persian) and the Baluchs revolt in southern Iran (they're not Persians either) then Ahmanutter and the ayatollahs will have their hands more than full.

[clarice]

Somalia:
[quote]MOGADISHU, Somalia, Jan. 10 — Mogadishu exploded in violence on Wednesday morning after unknown insurgents attacked a transitional government barracks during the night and soldiers responded by sealing off large swaths of the city, searching house to house for guns. The weapons raids immediately provoked stiff resistance, and squads of Ethiopian soldiers and troops loyal to the transitional government poured into the streets, where they battled outraged residents and a handful of masked insurgents. [/quote]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/11/world/africa/11somalia.html?ei=5094&en=b9e74525fbe3d835&hp=&ex=1168491600&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print>And not a local AP or Reuters stringer in sight

The Somalians seem to have made a critical error, not setting up local stringers to work for the "Western" press.

[Terrye]

Well hopefully if the number of suicide bombers goes down the militias will have less support and it will not be necessary to kill a bunch of people.

[SteveMG]

They really are integrated Iraqi Army brigades.

Iraq the Model (here) has noted the "controversy" over the apparent presence of Peshmerga in Baghdad engaging in security operations.

The Iraqi government is insisting that they're operating under the IA.

If we've got a Kurdish card, now's the time to play it.

SMG

[Rick Ballard]

Steve,

The other thing is that the Peshmerga are the reason the north is so quiet. Persians and Arabs passing through northern Iraq do so at a rather brisk clip. Interrogation by the Peshmerga is really a once in a lifetime sort of occurence.

With the national government brigades sent south they are also the main defense force. I'm sure that the Kurd brigades went south as part of the oil revenue sharing plan - driving the Arabs out of Kirkuk (where they really don't belong) is paramount to controlling the oil revenue stream from the area.

I imagine the Peshmerga will be busy in Kirkuk while the federal troops are occupied in Baghdad.

[clarice]

The kurds are in Baghdad now--but apparently although called the Peshmerga they are brigades of the national army, not the militia..Iraq the Model has a lot-Here's some:
[quote]
Wednesday, January 10, 2007

Did the operation actually begin?
The sounds of furious battles filled Baghdad's skies for the past two days. In the largest battle Haifa street and its surroundings were the field in which all sorts of guns were used.

Actually yesterday was the first time in months that I hear the familiar characteristic sound of the 30 mm cannon that is usually mounted on A-10's and Apache helicopters. This particular weapon is an indication of the seriousness of the battles even though was fired only a few times. Anyway, military aircrafts are still roaming the skies above us occasionally at low altitudes and making significant sounds.

The battles left more than 50 militants killed and more than a dozen captured, seven of whom are Syrians and this supports what we reported in our last post that eyewitnesses said. Meanwhile there have been more clashes in Al-Aamil district in western Baghdad yesterday and we learned that all roads and bridges leading to that area are now closed, with helicopters hovering above.

With all of this going on, the government still insists that the new security operation in Baghdad hasn't started yet according to the spokesman of the government Ali al-Dabbagh who, in a statement to Al-Mada has also denied the news about the Peshmerga or The Badr brigade being involved in the new security operation:

The operation will be conducted by the troops of the Interior and defense ministries supported by the MNF…redeployment of units and relocating them from one area to another within the borders of the nation is a normal action

Al-Dabbagh also told l-Mada paper that this operation would be different:

This one will differ in terms of tactics, supervision, deployment plans and size of the participating troops who are well equipped and prepared… this plan is built on what we learned from the shortcomings of previous ones
[/quote]

http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/2007/01/did-operation-actually-begin.html

[roanoke]

Well as someone mentioned above "times change" and even better Bush leads- Dems just react. That The Anchoress most definitely has right.

So reading The Drudge Report we see Little Red Riding Hood surrounded by other figureheads-like The Stealth Mormon...

They are plotting to isolate The President by voting against his plan to send "symbolic" messages-(the Jung archetype theory fill it in here.}

The Democrats are about to overeach again.

Let me tell you something I've been at Nellis for going on three years now-

That pious fish handed "leader" of the Senate Democrats -Reid never turned up until three days after this past November election.

Guys I trust implicitly couldn't read him, and said he shook hands like a dead fish. They also said they wouldn't want him playing against them-on the other side but that is just where he is....

Disgusting.

The Democrats challenged the votes of the military in 2000 and now they are about to freeze their fate as the party that stealth like {barely} all out hates the military.

They have a core of folks the kind you don't want against you in a Banana Republic that have learned repeatedly that they have sealed their fate as not the anti-war party but- the anti-military party. That "anti-war" polemic is just a ruse to make themselves feel more comfortable. The Anti-war/military platform of the Democratic Party puts the ENTIRE country at risk. Dems with the help of the Buchananite wing have put the fate of the country in the balance and path of the future has been inextricably changed...

The Terrorists are more than tempted to test it.

It's practically sealed.

The national security is being toyed with by Pelosi et al-for their own personal power, and political gain.

Damn the military, their families and their sacrifices all to hell. The Democrats only value when you are a body count to be
"used".

[roanoke]

clarice-

I have nightmares of a Clinton/Clark ticket-with McCain as the Republican "alternative".

Holy-anyhoo about all I can say is the country did survive Carter-we perhaps could get through that reign of the egotists.

I float this duo around as the Dem possibility and one good argument that someone threw out against it is that Hillary would never share the spotlight with Clark...

[Ken McCracken]

Um, if a flip flop means a 'complete reversal on a policy' - wouldn't Bush have to advocate for redeployment out of Iraq to be a flip-flopper?

And . . . shouldn't the spin be that Bush 'listens to his critics' and is 'maturing in office?'

[topsecretk9]

So reading The Drudge Report we see Little Red Riding Hood

HEH...well, it's a better than Galloway's red spandex unitard, but is a bit of an aristocratic choice.

[topsecretk9]

That "anti-war" polemic is just a ruse to make themselves feel more comfortable.?

I dunno...Ace is showcasing chickenhawk Glenn Ellison camamdo in Afghanistan, it's may not really be a ruse....

[topsecretk9]

arghh..hit post in place of 'preview", got really lucky on the html though.

camamdo = commando
it's may = it may

[topsecretk9]

arghh agian, here's the Link, however there are more Here too!

[BTW]

BushCo behaves just like a compulsive gambler. Up'n the bet not because of some rational expectation of winning but simply to get the "gamblers high". But it's intervention time and at this point nobody will be intervening for the sake of saving BushCo. This intervention will be the equivalent of tying BushCo to a gurney and loading it up with Haldol.

Like with every addict the problems that BushCo creates are seen to be the fault of somebody or everybody else. There is only one way this will go at this point. BushCo will destroy itself and take some many of its enablers with it.

[clarice]

Yeah--I figured out what you said and the link and it is hilarious--(I was browsing thru some email including one that says I won $1,950,000. Oh happy days. I accidentally erased that one though..)

[richard mcenroe]

-the country did survive Carter-

Yeah, but how many millions of people in Cambodia, Afghanistan and the Middle East didn't?

[roanoke]

topsecretk9
Ya I was trying to follow the link-hey i'll leave you this-

Nancy does she look more and more like Lon Chaney's Phantom of the Opera or what?

It's the nose job-

Lon Chaney

Hell I think she stole his cape.

They are trying to send a symbolic message what message does that red get up send?

Maybe she thinks she can lull Republicans to sleep by wearing Reagan Red...gad!

As to that "stealth" hatred-I like to fool myself.

I'm off to follow your links.

[roanoke]

richard-

Saw that right before I was ready to go-

Your bursting my bubble-hell I can't believe what is going on right now it's a freakin' waking nightmare...

Ya Democrats-they are so "caring"...

Clinton -Rwanda what a bastard.

[roanoke]

crap-

your=you're

Just when I got all cocky and thought I didn't need pre-view...

[roanoke]

tops-

LOL! Who knew that Ace likes to play dress up with The Sock Puppet.

GiGi's dream come true!

{GiGi is my pet name for Greenwald-OK now tha'ts u-c-o-m-f-o-r-t-a-b-l-e...}

[topsecretk9]

roanoke

I hit your first link before I read your post (I am silly that way, bee to nectar, can't WIAT)

my first reaction was "oooooh, rhinoplasty"

Anyways, how "of the people" is she? Considering that her "set" (i.e. donors) enter the reconstruction unit every other day I am sure they sympathize.

[BTW]

Hey snap out of it. Even this blog doesn't support your delusions any longer. Addicts destroy their enablers without thinking twice about it.

[topsecretk9]

They are trying to send a symbolic message what message does that red get up send?

Before my senses kicked in, I thought she was wearing an crocheted afghan/blanket.

[topsecretk9]

BTW

Here is one of Clinton's successes that you can go pleasure yourself with in the meantime.

[BTW]

Enablers are often cruel when speaking of those who have in the past counseled the addict on what awaits them if they continue their destructive behavior. The cruelity is usually petty as can be seen in the above posts.

[BTW]

Topsecretk9

Get help ... if not for your addiction at least for your inability to form a concise thought and express it in words.

[Uncle Bigbad]

Nightline just had the most stupefyingly vicious attack on the President that I have ever seen, and I think I've seen them all.

Called the President a liar and a failure-- literally.

[Soylent Red]

BTW:

Are you back up here stumping for the death of Iraqis again?

Why haven't you sent me your info yet? My recruiter is all hot to trot to meet you. Since you are apparently 15 years old, he went ahead and got you lined up with an age waiver (to go along with the moral waiver, IQ waiver, two-left-feet-and-lack-of-rhythm waiver, etc.)

Hop to little man!

[topsecretk9]

Afghanistan could use a BTW. Why hasn't he volunteered to get OBL?

[Soylent Red]

Why hasn't he volunteered to get OBL?

Because he got sidetracked in Iraq? Oh wait, that's not right...

He got sidetracked by his afterschool job at Chuck E. Cheese.

[BTW]

"My recruiter is all hot to trot to meet you."

There are a lot of US troops dying because of your monumental lack of good judgement. Too pretend you are one of them is about as despicable as one can get.

" Are you back up here stumping for the death of Iraqis again?"

What are you? Six years old? One more time BushCo = SaddamCo? Any questions little boy?

[BTW]

Greetings from BushCo

BushCo, formerly SaddamCo, is under new management as of the March 2003 hostile take-over. But don't worry. You will experience no interruptions in your service.

100s of thousands of Iraqis dead? Check
Torture chambers open for business? Check
Sectarian violence? Check

NEW and IMPROVED! NEW and IMPROVED! NEW and IMPROVED! NEW and IMPROVED!

But BushCo will not simply accept the industry standard set by SaddamCo. So BushCo has introduced two new value-added services. Civil War and Dead US troops by the thousands. And how could you go wrong
with propping up a pro-Iranian sectarian government!

Now, how much would you pay for this service? The low low cost of 500 billion U.S. of dollars?!

But wait if you don't act now we'll extend this service for another twenty years at the cost of 5 trillion US dollars and America's reputation.

So don't wait. You can start now by lying your ass off from the privacy of your own home. Don't delay.

[clarice]

A very interesting article on the shortcomings of Centcom and its history v. the successes of Pacom,
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/01/admiral_fallon_and_centcom.html

[Soylent Red]

Too pretend you are one of them is about as despicable as one can get.
To pretend.../snickers

Poor little guy can't stand that he got pwned (to use the internet vernacular of his generation).

Any questions little boy?
Old enough to be your daddy, tiny. In fact, you might ask your mom...I think I still owe her $10.

So my only question remains: Why are you so committed to the deaths of Iraqis?

[Soylent Red]

the successes of Pacom

Another good one Clarice. Especially salient bit near the end regarding India and Iran.

[topsecretk9]

Soylent

Why are you so committed to the deaths of Iraqis?

See ABC documentary and Wallace interview. The left has taken a weird pill wherein American history began when Bush took office. Bush failed to all that Clinton didn't and is doing all that Clinton couldn't bring himself to do - meanwhile every affirmative statement by Clinton, Gore and virtually every Dem. member of congress where impressing on the American "public" what a threat Saddam was top humanity and WMD - Did Reagan talk about Saddam's WMD?

Anyways...when a Dem is elected president I plan to take a page out of their play book - which is to deny everything and just BLAME THEM FOR MY MOST RECENT HANG NAIL!

[PaulL]

Clarice,

Thanks for the American Thinker link on PACOM. It's encouraging to read stuff like this that gets zero coverage elsewhere.

I appreciated how the President in his speech made his decisions clear vis-a-vis Iran and Syria. That is, I'm confident it was clear to Iran and Syria. It won't be clear to the MSM until obvious missions have been completed.

[Terrye]

The Democrats are counting on children like BTW who do not remember the 90's or Clinton's threats against to Saddam to solidify their stance. After all only a drunk or a preschooler could have missed Clinton on the cover of TIME calling old Saddam out.

[Specter]

Maybe BTW isn't old enough to remember even that....just sayin...

I notice though that rather than run down and sign up like he tells everyone else to do, that he reverts to calling people liars...well..."nyaaa nyaaaa nyaaaa nyaaa nyaaa"

[Specter]

And another Gem: OT - Chris "I visited Syria" Dodd plans to announce his run for the Presidency today. Sheesh. 'Course is he doesn't make it the Dems will prolly run someone like...I dunno....Ned Lamont?...against him for his Senate seat. LOL

[Pofarmer]

Nightline just had the most stupefyingly vicious attack on the President that I have ever seen, and I think I've seen them all.

Called the President a liar and a failure-- literally.

Unfortunately, that's nothing new. It's also why ed's propaganda network won't work. Can you imagine what a station set up just to cheerlead for the USA would be called? Goebbels anybody?

Whitehouse.gov
defenselink.mil
centcom.mil

At least you can get 2 sides of the story there.

[lurker]

I wonder if Bush selected November as the deadline because of the fiscal year budgets. That's when the Democrats can "defund" or whatever the military budget to be diverted to social programs.

As for Chris Dodd, all the more for the symbolic votes, if that's the case.

[TCO]

Clarice:

You need a .html to get your link to work. The article was more interesting than I expected, thanks. (Backwards compliments are true ones, from me...just ask smartfer.)

On topic: The article has a nice description of some of the differences in the theaters. Yes. CENTCOM has always had this issue of basically being a trouble spot that we have to surge forces towards. PACCOM has SEVENTH fleets, Korean troops, Okinawa marines, Guam, PI, etc. EUCOM has German occupying troops and SIXTH Fleet. CENTCOM has always been more of a trouble spot, with few forces in theater (of interest, we have had a small Persian Gulf Naval prescense since 1948...many poeople don't know this...pretty amazing actually.)

I'm not sure that the articles main logic supports its final conclusion, though. Yes, PACCOM and EUCOM have always had heavier forces in theater and concomittant de facto diplomatic roles. Changing who runs CENTCOM will not change these facts. The logic of the article says that there is more involved than mindset of the leader. If having Tampa as HQ is the problem, that is a different issue. Same thing with the amount of pre-positioned forces.

Penultimately, we need to be somewhat realistic about limitations. Do we really want to have forces spaced all over the world (noting the costs and lifestyle issues)? Has the world shrunk that much and are we that much the policeman of the whole shebang? Or does it make sense to surge forces into theaters when needed.

Lastly, I still don't get the Fallon choice. There are plenty of Army types with all kinds of EUCOM-related experience dealing with diplomatic issues AND with ground war experience. Remember that all of Africa except the Horn area is under EUCOM. If "winning the GWOT" is the ultimate form of endorsement of a theater commander (and I disagree that it should be) than why not pick the USACOM leader!

***

I honestly wish that it is the case that Fallon choice will live up to this article's elegant intuition. I'm a bit worried though, that it is a simpler issue of human tendancies in power politics. Just deckchair rearranging to grab someone uncompromised (yet) by touching the tar baby of Iraq.

[maryrose]

Hil on the record against the surge. There goes her 08 chance to be prez.

[TCO]

PACOM not PACCOM...and various other textual mistakes. Sorry.

[maryrose]

BTW;
When Bush and the Iraq government emerge victorious you and your dem party are going to be in a heap of trouble come 08. Won't be able to get elected dog-catcher.Repubs go against the surge at their own risk.I admire Thad Cochran- he's not afraid to step up.

[TCO]

mary:

And that's the most important thing, the lens with which you see the world, what colors all your initial inferences: how it affects your team's election chances. Not how it affects the nation's interests.

[boris]

TCO, you are such a moron, read this again for comprehension (if you can) ...

When Bush and the Iraq government emerge victorious you and your dem party ...

That's a description of how protecting the nation's interest AFFECTS the democrat party.

[Sue]

TCO, you are such a moron, read this again for comprehension (if you can) ...

I think it is irony 101. Every move the dems make is geared toward winning an election and making sure Bush goes down as a failed president.

[Rick Ballard]

Clarice,

Thanks for the cite to the Fallon article. The President's decision to replace losers with winners makes sense if the winner replacement can get the message accross quickly that further advancement of those under his command will only occur upon delivery of positive results. Past CENTCOM leadership may have been a bit too focused on dotting i's and crossing t's. (A review of this piece and a careful reading of this one provide a clue as to previous command direction.)

Neither Fallon nor Petraeus would probably have accepted command without strong assurance that they would have a free hand. Petraeus in particular seems egocentric enough to have demanded it. While I have read mixed reports concerning his previous tenure in Iraq I know that he was constrained by CENTCOM policy as dictated by Casey and Abizaid.

It will be interesting to see how the new brooms function.

[boris]

TCO, you are such a moron, read this again for comprehension (if you can) ...

I think it is irony 101. Every move the dems make is geared toward winning an election and making sure Bush goes down as a failed president.

With their MSM allies by sabotaging the war on terror and providing the terrorists a way to win what they can't achieve on the battlefield.

[PeterUK]

"With all of this going on, the government still insists that the new security operation in Baghdad hasn't started yet according to the spokesman of the government Ali al-Dabbagh who, in a statement to Al-Mada has also denied the news about the Peshmerga or The Badr brigade being involved in the new security operation:"

"They've got it,they have really got it"

[lurker]

If Al-Malike met all of the benchmarks AND we quelched 80 to 100% of the insurgencies, what happens in November?

Too bad how the Democrats played the BDS, now they're in power, see how mutely pessimistic they are. Now that they realize that their decisions could backfire on their plans for '08.

So it's very important that Bush wins this one in spite of Democrats and MSM's efforts to prevent us from winning. Last night in Bush's speech, it was clear that Bush knows this.

Perhaps a symbolic vote will help us know which '08 presidential candidate would be a viable one to continue this war on Global Jihadism after Bush.

[boris]

TCO, you are such a moron ...

Nordlinger relates a comment from a friend ...

He said, “The Democrats have to win in 2008 — I mean, the whole enchilada: House, Senate, and presidency.” You ought to know that my friend is a staunch conservative Republican. “Why?” I said. “Why do they have to win?” He answered, “Because that’s the only way they will be fully onboard the War on Terror. They won’t fully support it otherwise, because they will always be trying to trip up the Republicans. If you want the Democrats onboard the War on Terror, they have to be in charge. Period.”

We'll just have to win without them then.