In October of 1986 my father was stationed at Nellis Air Force Base in Las Vegas, and I had to finish my eigth-grade schoolyear in my newfound city of sin. Growing up a military brat, I was no stranger to constantly uprooting myself into unfamiliar schools and neighborhoods, but felt it part of my obligation as a proud citizen as my patriotic father served his country as an intelligence official. I went through eight different schools from first through twelfth grade, at least three of those transferring mid-schoolyear.
While it wasn't an easy process to accept by any standard, I learned to adjust quite early on in the constant changes my life endured. I believe those changes, however disliked or unappreciated at the time, developed my psychological makeup in a profoundly positive way, as, while we all must change to grow, sometimes it takes a while to develop an understanding of that. Change is a positive attribute when viewed proactively; in time, even U.S. Senators such as Harry Reid will learn to accept that.
Ironic thing is, around the time I was a sophomore in High School, Harry Reid first ran for office. The Naval JROTC program I was involved in agreed to participate in supporting the fundraising and awareness of either candidate Reid or Brian, and each student was required, as part of the class credit, to make a choice on who to side with, support, and ultimately endorse through marching with self-made signs on the streets near the local public library.
When I look back on things now, roughly 17 years later, I cringe at the choice I made in supporting Reid, not to mention the unethical violation that must have taken place to force us into such a position to begin with.
Just this past week, the Liberal Leader of the Senate, Harry Reid (D-NV), used a recent attack in Iraq, in which bombers killed more than 200 people in a slew of car bombings in Baghdad, dealing a savage blow to the US security plan which aims to deploy an extra 30,000 troops in the country to quell sectarian unrest; to create a ruckus of media attention with probably the most controversial statement on the war since it began:
"I believe ... that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week," Reid told journalists.
Repeating remarks he made to President Bush during a meeting of congressional leaders at the White House, Reid said the president is hearing only from people who are backing up his view of the war.
“I know I was the odd guy out yesterday at the White House, but I at least told him what he needs to hear... I believe the war at this stage can only be won diplomatically, politically and economically. I did that and my conscience is great,” said Reid, who was one of several lawmakers who met with the president on Wednesday at the White House. Reid added that more people need to tell Bush the same.
Bear in mind, only 60% of the surging forces have even deployed yet.
Congress is seeking to tie funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to a timetable to withdraw US troops from Iraq next year, but Bush has vowed to veto any such bill.Thursday (4/26), as the Bill was voted on and approved, 51-46, there were mixed signals as to its validity and "binding" purpose. Democrats supporting the Bill are clearly aware they don't have the voting support to override a Presidential veto should that occur, and President Bush has made it clear that, should they attempt to cut funding in such a Bill, it would be stricken down the moment it crosses his desk. It is anticipated to occur sometime next week.
The Iraqi government issued a strong statement for the typical "retreat or defeat" Liberal measure:
“We see some negative signs in the decision because it sends wrong signals to some sides that might think of alternatives to the political process,” Ali al-Dabbagh told The Associated Press…
“Coalition forces gave lots of sacrifices and they should continue their mission, which is building Iraqi security forces to take over,” al-Dabbagh said. “We see (it) as a loss of four years of sacrifices.”
Bush on Thursday was addressing an Ohio town hall meeting and defending the war on terror launched in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks.
"It is the most solemn duty of our country, to protect our country from harm," Bush told the invited audience in Tipp, Ohio.
"A lesson learned was that -- at least in my opinion -- that in order to protect us, we must aggressively pursue the enemy and defeat them elsewhere so that we do not have to face them here."
SLOW BLEED STRATEGY
But Reid drew a parallel with former U.S. president Lyndon Johnson who decided to deploy more troops in Vietnam some 40 years ago when 24,000 US troops had already been killed.
"Johnson did not want a war loss on his watch, so he surged in Vietnam. After the surge was over, we added 34,000 to the 24,000 who died in Vietnam," Reid said.
U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, on an unannounced visit, flew into Iraq Thursday for talks with top U.S. military commanders there. He met with General David Petraeus, chief of coalition forces in Iraq, his deputy Lieutenant Colonel Ray Odierno and Admiral William Fallon, chief of U.S. Forces in the Middle East.
The commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, returns to Washington this week, but last week Pelosi’s office said “scheduling conflicts” prevented him from briefing House members. Two days later, the members-only meeting was scheduled, but the episode brings to mind the fact that Pelosi and other top House Democrats skipped a Pentagon videoconference with Petraeus on March 8.
The Democrats did the same thing on April 9: Only one Democratic Senator attended a video conference with Gen. Petraeus which was an update and progress report on the war.
What can be a higher priority than hearing from Gen. Petraeus? Can’t they make Petraeus’ briefings a priority, just for show? Apparently they would rather meet with Code Pink than Gen. Petraeus.
TRUE COLORS?
The Democrats wanted power but didn’t want any responsibility, but in winning power they have also earned responsibility. This war is being fought on their watch now, too. If they support the troops as they always say that they do, the least that they could do is treat the war as a priority worth studying and understanding, and worth hearing about from the man most responsible for its execution. They shouldn’t rely on media reports or groups like Iraq Body Count, a disgustingly grotesque excuse to sensationalize and support defeat; but that’s apparently just what they’re doing.
AJ Strata calls the Democrat’s lack of attention to Petraeus’ briefings "criminal." He’s right, but it’s even worse than that. We’re seeing a complete abdication by the party in power on the seminal issue of our time. They’re running toward defeat now and running on defeat for 2008. We’re seeing a gradual abandonment of the Iraqi people, of American troops in the field, and ultimately of America’s place in the world. The Democrats are making a monumental error that will change the world for the worse. Defeat in Iraq, which is how the Democrats are casting the effort even while they dodge reports from the architect of the American strategy there, will echo for decades to come.
Update: InstaPundit-
"The goal, I think, is to ensure that the war is seen as a failure, but to make sure that Democrats don’t get blamed."
Yep. And that’s called “abdication.”
REID BACKTRACKS
Reid released excerpts from a speech today in which he calls on Bush to abandon his threat to veto the war funding bill and negotiate a compromise. Reid delivered the speech on the war in Iraq at the Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars in Washington at midday.
Reid did not repeat his assertion last week that “this war is lost,” a comment that drew sharp criticism from Republicans, who branded the Senate majority leader as defeatist. But he mixed sharp criticism of Bush with praise for Congress’s efforts to end the conflict and appeals to antiwar voters to be patient.
[“Be patient…we’re losing this war just as fast as we can!”]
Question: If the war is lost, why did Reid invite Petraeus to brief the Senate next Wednesday?CRITICISMS & CONCERNS
"Each bill (by the Democrats) would also set an arbitrary deadline for surrender and withdrawal in Iraq, and I believe that would have disastrous consequences for our safety here at home." -- President Bush.
------
"It is shameful that while our troops wake up every morning and courageously face death in defense of our freedom, the politicians in charge of Congress can't even find the time to meet face to face with their commander." -- House Republican leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, after Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., did not attend a briefing by Lt. General David H. Petraeus on conditions in Iraq.
------
"Instead of fashioning a bill I could sign, the Democratic leaders chose to further delay funding our troops, and they chose to make a political statement. That's their right. But it is wrong for our troops and it's wrong for our country." -- Bush.
------
"I believe myself that the secretary of state, secretary of defense and -- you have to make your own decisions as to what the president knows -- (know) this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday" -- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.
------
"What's most troubling about Senator Reid's comments yesterday is his defeatism. And the timetable legislation that he is now pursuing would guarantee defeat. Maybe it is a political calculation." -- Vice President Dick Cheney.
------
REID'S HYPOCRISY; "CHENEY'S AN ATTACK DOG"
"I'm not going to get into a name-calling match with the administration's chief attack dog. ... I'm not going to get into a name-calling match with somebody who has a 9 percent approval rating."
And he says the President is in a state of denial. This coming from a man who refuses to believe it when the general commanding our troops in Iraq tells him that there’s progress. What a tool.
Who is Reid to call anyone an “attack dog?” He called President Bush a “loser” in front of a bunch of school kids once. And now he’s getting snippy over a little pushback?REID VOWS NOT TO BELIEVE PETRAEUS' REPORTS ON 'PROGRESS'
(AllahPundit- from HotAir.com)
He’s willing to compromise. Unlike some Democrats, he’ll hear Petraeus out; he’ll just simply refuse to believe anything he says that doesn’t fit the left’s narrative. If that “reasoning” sounds familiar, that’s because it’s exactly what Eric Boehlert and various nutroots morons accused the right of doing during the Jamil Hussein episode. Allegedly we couldn’t accept that conditions in Iraq were dire so we concocted a sourcing scandal to explain away a dubious AP report about Shiites lighting Sunnis on fire, which, once discredited, would call into question the totality of reporting from the country. Sheer, unadulterated horseshinola, but that’s What Warbloggers Believe according to non-warbloggers Boehlert et al. Now here’s the Senate majority leader doing precisely the opposite, willfully turning a blind eye to any signs of progress, however “modest,” to protect his own quasi-religious conviction that nothing but nothing good has ever come from the war and nothing ever will. Wouldn’t be the first time the left has done that, either.
It's absurd with the Clintonian semantics he’s resorted to in order to spin his recent declaration of defeat. Petraeus doesn’t believe, as Reid apparently does, that “the war is lost”; he believes that military force alone can’t win it at this point. Reid says he doesn’t grasp the distinction, but of course he does — he’s just worried about losing some of those extra Senate seats he expects to pick up from an American defeat. All other consequences be damned.
(Special thanks to AllahPundit for editorial)
Republicans across the Capitol responded angrily to Mr. Reid’s statement.
“I can’t begin to imagine how our troops in the field, who are risking their lives every day, are going to react when they get back to base and hear that the Democrat leader of the United States Senate has declared the war is lost,” Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, said.
Representative Peter Hoekstra, a Michigan Republican, said: “If Harry Reid believes that this war is lost, where is his plan to win this war?”
Exit Question: Perhaps it's time for Sen. Harry to step down???
No comments:
Post a Comment