Scrambling Defeatocrats

The Times continues to sound the trumpet that will never blow victory:

As Democrats See Security Gains in Iraq, Tone Shifts

By PATRICK HEALY

As violence declines in Baghdad, the leading Democratic presidential candidates are undertaking a new and challenging balancing act on Iraq: acknowledging that success, trying to shift the focus to the lack of political progress there, and highlighting more domestic concerns like health care and the economy.

Advisers to Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama say that the candidates have watched security conditions improve after the troop escalation in Iraq and concluded that it would be folly not to acknowledge those gains. At the same time, they are arguing that American casualties are still too high, that a quick withdrawal is the only way to end the war and that the so-called surge in additional troops has not paid off in political progress in Iraq.

But the changing situation suggests for the first time that the politics of the war could shift in the general election next year, particularly if the gains continue. While the Democratic candidates are continuing to assail the war — a popular position with many of the party’s primary voters — they run the risk that Republicans will use those critiques to attack the party’s nominee in the election as defeatist and lacking faith in the American military.

If security continues to improve, President Bush could become less of a drag on his party, too, and Republicans may have an easier time zeroing in on other issues, such as how the Democrats have proposed raising taxes in difficult economic times.

“The politics of Iraq are going to change dramatically in the general election, assuming Iraq continues to show some hopefulness,” said Michael E. O’Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who is a supporter of Mrs. Clinton’s and a proponent of the military buildup. “If Iraq looks at least partly salvageable, it will be important to explain as a candidate how you would salvage it — how you would get our troops out and not lose the war. The Democrats need to be very careful with what they say and not hem themselves in.”

What are the odds we will have to endure yet another flip-flop by the leading Dems?

Neither Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama nor the other Democratic candidates have backed away from their original opposition to the troop escalation, and they all still favor a quick withdrawal from Iraq. But Mrs. Clinton, for one, has not said how quickly she would remove most combat forces from Iraq or how many she would leave there as president. Former Senator John Edwards, by contrast, has emphasized that he would remove all combat troops from the country, while Mr. Obama favors withdrawal at a rate of one to two brigades a month. Those plans stand in contrast to the latest American strategy of keeping most American combat brigades in Iraq but giving them an expanded role in training and supporting Iraqi forces.

These are parlous times for the "Victory is not an option" crowd.

Comments

[Topsecretk9]

What are the odds we will have to endure yet another flip-flop by the leading Dems?

A flop of their own making apparently...

Rove's interview with Charlie Rose

[O]ne of the untold stories about the war is why did the United States Congress, the United States Senate, vote on the war resolution in the fall of 2002...This administration was opposed to it...Because we didn`t think it belonged within the confines of the election. There was an election coming up within a matter of weeks. We thought it made it too political. We wanted it outside the confines of it. It seemed to make things move too fast. There were things that needed to be done to bring along allies and potential allies abroad, and yet...There was a vote, and I`m -- I`m...But it happened. We don`t determine when the Congress votes on things. The Congress does...It would have been better for the country had we been able to resolve that issue after the election -- maybe before the new Congress came in -- whatever. But instead -- and the story will be told later -- we didn`t.

[Chris]

Goalposts--moving van. Some (dis)assembly required. They were for victory before they were against it. Insert your own non-sequitur.

[Sara]

The other day in the thread where we were discussing John Kerry, there was some discussion about his DD214. I don't understand why the DD214 that I see published online has a form date of 1955 and an issuance date of 1972. This does not make sense, and where is the final one from 1978? Is it online and I just can't find it? The Kerry website is blank.

I didn't have access to my husband's at the time, but now I have the dates on the ones of the time period we were discussing:

The date of issuance is first, the date of the form is second.

10jan1969, 1jul64 dd14N

1sep1976 1nov1972 dd214N

31may1982 1jul1979 dd214

He says there may have been forms in between, but his were in 6 year increments of issuance. Each form has the "all previous forms obsolete" blurb.

Also, each one only includes the medals and awards awarded during that form's increment of 6 years, until the very last discharge form which lists all awards and medals over his entire 26 year career.

It seems that Kerry's '72 form should have at the very least a date of form of 1964, and the 1978 form should have a form date of at least '72. Am I figuring this right?

[pagar]

My guess, he was not a qualified clerk typist
and just used what ever form he found.

[Cecil Turner]

It seems that Kerry's '72 form should have at the very least a date of form of 1964, and the 1978 form should have a form date of at least '72. Am I figuring this right?

I doubt it's all that significant. I can't find a listing of all the form versions, but the commands' compliance to the admin requirements may vary, and there can be significant gaps between form date and issuance (my latest, for example, is a Nov 88 form for a 2000 retirement). Especially before electronic versions, I'd expect some variance. Also, the forms are apparently a controlled item, which would argue for using remaindered stocks and increase likelihood of erroneously issuing an obsolete one. In the big scheme of admin errors, this would hardly rate a mention.

[hit and run]

OK, did you see that picture in the Times accompanying the article Tom is referencing?

Did you see the photo flashback Michelle Malkin used the other day?

Well, I suppose you got Clinton and persons in uniform, so there are some similarities.

But I like the picture Malkin uses better....
(read the whole thing)
...because the Times' photo obscures any potentially crossed fingers.

[hit and run]

Michael E. O'Hanlon:
“The politics of Iraq are going to change dramatically in the general election, assuming Iraq continues to show some hopefulness,”

Not to nitpick -- and obviously O'Hanlon is much more of an expert on Iraq than I will ever be -- but I would have used "compellingly and astoundingly" rather than "dramatically", being the big fan of Chuck Schumer that I am. And, in fact, I did. And, in fact, I am!

[Sara]

Cecil: I don't want to hijack this thread, but to answer you, my husband reupped in Vietnam in Jan1969, and they managed to have the form from 1964. I can't imagine that in '72 or '78 a form from 1955 was being used stateside or wherever Kerry was in '72 or '78. I can't even find a DD214 for '78, only a letter of discharge issued that year, which also seems to indicate something missing.

It may seem insignificant, but it is those little details that end up sinking a person.

[PeterUK]

Are the Democrats sponsored by Adidas?

[RichatUF]

Sara-

I was looking it over and it appears to me that the DD-214 wasn't prepared correctly.
The blocks that jumps out at me is Education and Training is empty and the "V" device for the Silver Star. The best way to put this issue to bed would be to dig up the controlling regulation from the time and a sample of DD-214's for a few days before and a few days after Kerry's discharge from the same command. This would give an idea of whether they were using obsolete forms for some reason and the quirks in the personnel office [maybe it was standard practice to leave blocks blank].

Make of it what you will.

[Pink Pig]

Can you say: "Moving the goalposts"? Again?

[Topsecretk9]

goalposts

You move them constantly when you are constantly on the wrong side of history.

[Texas]

"they are arguing that American casualties are still too high"

Yeah, In America! I think they would find the number of American casualties is greater here than in Iraq.

For example: Why doesn't Obama or Clinton address the problem about the high number of casualties in America caused by illegal aliens? Death and injury by assaults, robbery, drunk driving, rape, etc. (I never see them arguing, or even caring about those statistics.)

[Deagle]

The DD214 form at either separation or retirement from the military DOES show all activity during your service. It may be shown broken into years/months for each enlistment, but it absolutely show that!

If he ever actually releases his form DD214, then it will show his total service. The question is about his discharge. His 214 will also show this...which is probably why he refuses to release it.

[Deagle]

Form date means nothing...(date form began legal authorization). The issuance date is valid and shows his first actual release date (wonder if this was a general or other release). He must have had a special order later to "update" his DD214 via presidential order - am assuming that his original was less than honorable.

[luagha]

Many people have speculated that Kerry received an other than honorable discharge for his anti-american activities of the Vietnam era which got corrected during the Carter era via Carter's blanket upgrading of such.

It can't be proven until he releases his records to someone willing to look into it.

[Old Bob]

With the 2008 Democratic primaries looming, we're about to witness the Olympics of Goalpost Moving....a competitive event. The rules are still being written, yet the event is already underway!

Speed will be important, but skill moreso. Flash and pizazz will add to the excitement, but a low profile move may be better. Raw horsepower can be easily defeated by good timing. The race will not be to the swift or the strong, but to the nuanced.

In the end, the best narrative will win.

[Dave]

Jimmy Carter's FIRST act in office in 1977 was to rewrite John Kerry's service record. It wasn't just a blanket Vietnam pardon, it was specifically for Kerry, to clean him up and give him blessings for his treasonous acts of a few years before.

[Cecil Turner]

Back to the change in tone on the surge, VD Hanson's response (H/T: Ann) matches mine exactly:

In all these cases, there is dismal pattern: a mediocre functionary keeps quiet about the mess around him, muddles through, senses that things aren't going right, finds himself on the losing end of political infighting, is forced out or quits, seethes that his genius wasn't recognized, takes no responsibility for his own failures, worries he might be scape-goated, and at last senses that either a New York publisher or the anti-war Left, or both, will be willing to offer him cash or notoriety — but only if he serves their needs by trashing his former colleagues in a manner he never would while on the job.

And LTG Sanchez's in particular stands out. To put it mildly, his performance (in the job Petraeus is now excelling at) was not inspiring. His solution appears to be "quick, give up before I look even worse." Even discounting the dubious propriety of a recently retired commander bad-mouthing his former mission (and colleagues) in wartime, this is one of the least persuasive arguments on the war yet.

[Jack is Back!]

I wonder if Kerry ever submitted a SF180 for replacement of the medals he threw over the WH fence or did they save them for Jimmy to re-pin on him once he fixed up the old 214's with the politically acceptable 214? When you look at Carter today and Kerry today do you feel duplicity is at play in words and actions.

[Sara]

Form date means nothing

Deagle: It only means nothing if all who got DD214s from that command in the same time period were also carrying that date. If not, in my mind at least, it means much. It would mean that someone grabbed a form from somewhere and dummied it up and posted it as real.