the surge is working!

Irvine511 · 07-09-2007, 05:00 PM

finally, someone has the courage to speak truth to action and demand that President Bush stand up to the Defeatocrats!

[q]Moment of Truth for the President

by William Kristol
07/09/2007 12:20:00 PM

The New York Times leads today with David Sanger's story, "In White House, Debate Is Rising On Iraq Pullback; Political Considerations; Not Waiting For Sept. 15, Aides Seek to Forestall G.O.P. Defections." The piece is tendentious, as one would expect--but THE WEEKLY STANDARD has confirmed that there are real discussions going on at the White House, with advocates of what is being called "The Grand Bargain" pushing hard for the president to move soon to announce plans to pull back in Iraq. So this week will not only be a week of (mostly silly) debate on the Hill; it will also be an important moment of truth for the president, who will have to decide whether to give Gen. Petraeus and the soldiers a chance, or to accept the counsel of some of his advisers and begin to throw in the towel on Iraq.

Let me be clear: The president ordered the "surge," which only recently came to full strength and whose major operation has been going on for less than a month. If he were not to give it a chance to work, he would properly be viewed as a feckless, irresolute president, incapable of seeing his own strategy through a couple of months of controversy before abandoning it. He will have asked our soldiers to go on the offensive, assuming greater risk of casualties--and then, even though the offensive is working better than expected, will have pulled the plug on their efforts.

Indeed, the White House is living in a fool's paradise if they imagine that "compromising" now and in this way buys them anything. Even the New York Times editorial page has abandoned the pretence that its preferred strategy will lead to anything other than catastrophe in Iraq, and in the very near term. If the president gives in now, he will not be credited with a statesmanlike compromise. He will be lambasted by the left for fighting a bad war, and by the right for fighting it badly, recommitting us to the fight, and then losing it. The remainder of his term will be mired in congressional investigations as the waters fill with blood and the sharks go in for the kill. The Democrats will be emboldened to press him on every front, especially since Iraq is virtually the only position he's actually been defending. Lame duck does not even begin to describe where President Bush will be if he does this.

What's more, the president will lose any ability to mitigate the effects of the withdrawal or control it. The pullout will become a wild hell-for-leather race for the exit, and the result will be a triumph for al Qaeda and Iran, and a moral and geopolitical disaster for the United States.

The best strategy for the president is to hold firm. There is every reason to believe that he can survive the current calamity-Janes of the Republican party (does anyone really imagine that a veto-proof majority will form in the Senate this week or next?). This nonsense will pass, Congress will go on recess, and Petraeus will have a chance to continue to produce results--and the president and his allies will have a chance to gain political ground here at home. Why on earth pull the plug now? Why give in to an insane, irrational panic that will destroy the Bush administration and most likely sweep the Republican party to ruin? The president still has a chance to emerge from this as a visionary who could see what the left could not--but not if he gives in to them. There is no safety in the position some in the Bush administration are running towards.

Here's what I gather is a basic lesson of tactics: When you find yourself in an ambush, attack into the ambush. Don't twist and turn in the kill zone, looking for a way to retreat. Especially when the ambush is not a powerful one, and the Democrats' position (to mix military metaphors) is way overextended. The Democrats are hoping the president will break and run. They will not allow him a dignified retreat or welcome him with compromise. They will spring to finish him off completely. It doesn't matter what the president's motives are. Some of his advisers are trying to persuade him that he needs to go for a grand bargain now so as to build bipartisan support for his policies when he's gone. But the only way to do that is to hold firm now--and to counterattack. Those who try to convince him otherwise offer nothing but defeat, for the troops, for the mission, and for the president. [/q]

anitram · 07-09-2007, 05:12 PM

Quote:

The best strategy for the president is to hold firm.

I honestly don't know how anyone can type this or the rest of that dreck with a straight face.

But hey, Kristol is also a big fan of the Iran war, so really, is it any surprise.

struckpx · 07-09-2007, 05:13 PM

It is sad that our country won't even give it a chance to succeed. We want to fail in this war, just like Vietnam. We want to lose. We could win this war if we really wanted too, its just we don't have big enough balls to handle the sacrifices that it will cost to do that. We are at war with an idea that involves the death to all of us who believe in the idea of freedoms. Those of you that aren't able to realize that should have been in school in Manhattan when the two planes flew into our towers. Tell the people that lost their lives b/c of barbarians who felt it necessary to fly commercial jetliners into buildings. Those are the type of people that want to take over Iraq, and 1/2 of our country wants to let them do that. Well, shame on us. If those 1200+ died for nothing, so be it. Let us shrivel up and live in our cacoons and wait for the next event to motivate us to do the same thing again. But, Bush should not pull back. He at least owes it to us who lived through the terror.

BVS · 07-09-2007, 05:15 PM

Struck, do you really think Iraq is about 9/11? You still buy that?

struckpx · 07-09-2007, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
Struck, do you really think Iraq is about 9/11? You still buy that?

yes. any fighting regarding al-qaeda is related 9/11.

BVS · 07-09-2007, 05:16 PM

Hold firm bitches!!! You cowards just don't want to win...

anitram · 07-09-2007, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by struckpx
We could win this war if we really wanted too, its just we don't have big enough balls to handle the sacrifices that it will cost to do that. W

When are you enlisting?

BVS · 07-09-2007, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by struckpx

yes. any fighting regarding al-qaeda is related 9/11.

How much of Al Queda was in Iraq before we invaded? How many on those planes were from Iraq?

A_Wanderer · 07-09-2007, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by struckpx
It is sad that our country won't even give it a chance to succeed. We want to fail in this war, just like Vietnam. We want to lose.

Then why the fuck get involved to start with? The 3 year rule was completely ignored and now when it is politically impossible they try and go after the insurgency and consolidate the Iraqi government, moving forward in Anbar years too late cleaning up a mess that never should have started. The politics of it is pretty damn plain since 2004 and 2006 couldn't have any major operations due to the elections just leaving those groups to fester.

Bush should rightly be drummed out given his cocking up since 2003 and obliviousness towards the so-called war on terror (yeah funding the PLO against Hamas won't bite you in the arse).

And yes I supported the removal of Saddam and I still do, but I don't think that Bush was the one to do it on the basis of results; too few troops to start with, no commitment to liberty leading to a democratic dictatorship and the manipulations involved in pushing it too quickly.

And the most fucked up thing is that at the end of the day it isn't America that pays the price for staying or leaving it will be the Iraqi people who were fucked over the first time around being left to the slaughter at Saddam and now to nihilistic Islamists.

struckpx · 07-09-2007, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar

How much of Al Queda was in Iraq before we invaded? How many on those planes were from Iraq?

so now you are saying that you agree that saddam hussein should be in power still?

struckpx · 07-09-2007, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by anitram

When are you enlisting?

when the time calls, i will serve my country proudly.

phillyfan26 · 07-09-2007, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by struckpx
It is sad that our country won't even give it a chance to succeed. We want to fail in this war, just like Vietnam. We want to lose. We could win this war if we really wanted too, its just we don't have big enough balls to handle the sacrifices that it will cost to do that. We are at war with an idea that involves the death to all of us who believe in the idea of freedoms. Those of you that aren't able to realize that should have been in school in Manhattan when the two planes flew into our towers. Tell the people that lost their lives b/c of barbarians who felt it necessary to fly commercial jetliners into buildings. Those are the type of people that want to take over Iraq, and 1/2 of our country wants to let them do that. Well, shame on us. If those 1200+ died for nothing, so be it. Let us shrivel up and live in our cacoons and wait for the next event to motivate us to do the same thing again. But, Bush should not pull back. He at least owes it to us who lived through the terror.

This war isn't about 9/11 and never was, because Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq till the US was. This war was about, GASP!, W tryin' to finish his Daddy's work. I'm sure he's hated Iraq since his Dad's reign, and he can't look at it with reason because of that.

This war isn't accomplishing anything. The goal has never been clear. To fight terrorism, you can't fight nations, because it's not nations that do these things! It's radical groups! It doesn't make sense at all.

If we pull out of Iraq, it won't end the fight against terrorism. We're not saying to shrivel up and live in our cacoons, but you can't fight wars like this anymore. It's much more small-scale, with covert missions and such. Unfortunately for W, that doesn't bring the publicity. So, he went to war.

Iraq is not the enemy. Radical terrorist groups are.

anitram · 07-09-2007, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by struckpx

when the time calls, i will serve my country proudly.

You're turning 18 soon, right? Well guess what, good news! Your country needs you. They can't get enough people to enlist and you're just the right age.

After all, you don't want to lose, right? And as you said:

Quote:

We could win this war if we really wanted too, its just we don't have big enough balls to handle the sacrifices that it will cost to do that.

A_Wanderer · 07-09-2007, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by struckpx

when the time calls, i will serve my country proudly.

Empty verbiage, although the criticism is a bit duplicitous since it could be taken as an argument in favour of military dictatorship. After all what did Truman do compared to MacArthur.

phillyfan26 · 07-09-2007, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by struckpx

so now you are saying that you agree that saddam hussein should be in power still?

It's possible to disagree with the war and with Hussein.

It should never have been about the US vs. Iraq. It should have been the UN against Iraq. But again, Bush can't look fairly upon the situation because of his grudge since Desert Storm.

A_Wanderer · 07-09-2007, 05:30 PM

The sanctions gouging would make that option pretty unlikely.

anitram · 07-09-2007, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Empty verbiage, although the criticism is a bit duplicitous

When you have 17 year olds spouting off about how people are not WILLING TO SACRIFICE, then please, make the sacrifice yourself. How easy it is to live in some upper middle class pampered suburb and dictate to the rest of the population they should send their sons and daughters to die for this lost cause. You want to preach to the world about sacrifice, well, go and fucking sacrifice yourself.

It's really actually rather disgusting to have to read.

BVS · 07-09-2007, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by struckpx

so now you are saying that you agree that saddam hussein should be in power still?

I just don't pretend it had anything to do with 9/11.

So you can't answer the questions, huh?

A_Wanderer · 07-09-2007, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by anitram

When you have 17 year olds spouting off about how people are not WILLING TO SACRIFICE, then please, make the sacrifice yourself. How easy it is to live in some upper middle class pampered suburb and dictate to the rest of the population they should send their sons and daughters to die for this lost cause. You want to preach to the world about sacrifice, well, go and fucking sacrifice yourself.

It's really actually rather disgusting to have to read.

At least he doesn't have the vote

yet

struckpx · 07-09-2007, 05:37 PM

i am a child of the revolution.

its the idea. not the soldier.^^

07-09-2007, 05:00 PM	#1
Irvine511 Blue Crack Supplier Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 32,208 Local Time: 07:21 PM	the surge is working! finally, someone has the courage to speak truth to action and demand that President Bush stand up to the Defeatocrats! [q]Moment of Truth for the President by William Kristol 07/09/2007 12:20:00 PM The New York Times leads today with David Sanger's story, "In White House, Debate Is Rising On Iraq Pullback; Political Considerations; Not Waiting For Sept. 15, Aides Seek to Forestall G.O.P. Defections." The piece is tendentious, as one would expect--but THE WEEKLY STANDARD has confirmed that there are real discussions going on at the White House, with advocates of what is being called "The Grand Bargain" pushing hard for the president to move soon to announce plans to pull back in Iraq. So this week will not only be a week of (mostly silly) debate on the Hill; it will also be an important moment of truth for the president, who will have to decide whether to give Gen. Petraeus and the soldiers a chance, or to accept the counsel of some of his advisers and begin to throw in the towel on Iraq. Let me be clear: The president ordered the "surge," which only recently came to full strength and whose major operation has been going on for less than a month. If he were not to give it a chance to work, he would properly be viewed as a feckless, irresolute president, incapable of seeing his own strategy through a couple of months of controversy before abandoning it. He will have asked our soldiers to go on the offensive, assuming greater risk of casualties--and then, even though the offensive is working better than expected, will have pulled the plug on their efforts. Indeed, the White House is living in a fool's paradise if they imagine that "compromising" now and in this way buys them anything. Even the New York Times editorial page has abandoned the pretence that its preferred strategy will lead to anything other than catastrophe in Iraq, and in the very near term. If the president gives in now, he will not be credited with a statesmanlike compromise. He will be lambasted by the left for fighting a bad war, and by the right for fighting it badly, recommitting us to the fight, and then losing it. The remainder of his term will be mired in congressional investigations as the waters fill with blood and the sharks go in for the kill. The Democrats will be emboldened to press him on every front, especially since Iraq is virtually the only position he's actually been defending. Lame duck does not even begin to describe where President Bush will be if he does this. What's more, the president will lose any ability to mitigate the effects of the withdrawal or control it. The pullout will become a wild hell-for-leather race for the exit, and the result will be a triumph for al Qaeda and Iran, and a moral and geopolitical disaster for the United States. The best strategy for the president is to hold firm. There is every reason to believe that he can survive the current calamity-Janes of the Republican party (does anyone really imagine that a veto-proof majority will form in the Senate this week or next?). This nonsense will pass, Congress will go on recess, and Petraeus will have a chance to continue to produce results--and the president and his allies will have a chance to gain political ground here at home. Why on earth pull the plug now? Why give in to an insane, irrational panic that will destroy the Bush administration and most likely sweep the Republican party to ruin? The president still has a chance to emerge from this as a visionary who could see what the left could not--but not if he gives in to them. There is no safety in the position some in the Bush administration are running towards. Here's what I gather is a basic lesson of tactics: When you find yourself in an ambush, attack into the ambush. Don't twist and turn in the kill zone, looking for a way to retreat. Especially when the ambush is not a powerful one, and the Democrats' position (to mix military metaphors) is way overextended. The Democrats are hoping the president will break and run. They will not allow him a dignified retreat or welcome him with compromise. They will spring to finish him off completely. It doesn't matter what the president's motives are. Some of his advisers are trying to persuade him that he needs to go for a grand bargain now so as to build bipartisan support for his policies when he's gone. But the only way to do that is to hold firm now--and to counterattack. Those who try to convince him otherwise offer nothing but defeat, for the troops, for the mission, and for the president. [/q] __________________

07-09-2007, 05:37 PM	#20
struckpx Acrobat Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 485 Local Time: 11:21 PM	i am a child of the revolution. its the idea. not the soldier.^^ __________________

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

07-09-2007, 05:13 PM	#3
struckpx Acrobat Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 485 Local Time: 11:21 PM	It is sad that our country won't even give it a chance to succeed. We want to fail in this war, just like Vietnam. We want to lose. We could win this war if we really wanted too, its just we don't have big enough balls to handle the sacrifices that it will cost to do that. We are at war with an idea that involves the death to all of us who believe in the idea of freedoms. Those of you that aren't able to realize that should have been in school in Manhattan when the two planes flew into our towers. Tell the people that lost their lives b/c of barbarians who felt it necessary to fly commercial jetliners into buildings. Those are the type of people that want to take over Iraq, and 1/2 of our country wants to let them do that. Well, shame on us. If those 1200+ died for nothing, so be it. Let us shrivel up and live in our cacoons and wait for the next event to motivate us to do the same thing again. But, Bush should not pull back. He at least owes it to us who lived through the terror.

07-09-2007, 05:15 PM	#4
BVS Blue Crack Supplier Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: between my head and heart Posts: 41,226 Local Time: 05:21 PM	Struck, do you really think Iraq is about 9/11? You still buy that?

07-09-2007, 05:16 PM	#6
BVS Blue Crack Supplier Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: between my head and heart Posts: 41,226 Local Time: 05:21 PM	Hold firm bitches!!! You cowards just don't want to win...

07-09-2007, 05:30 PM	#16
A_Wanderer ONE love, blood, life Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: The Wild West Posts: 12,518 Local Time: 09:21 AM	The sanctions gouging would make that option pretty unlikely.