|
|
January 10, 2007Dems: Bush is for it, so we’re against it UPDATED(Captain Ed, btw, is liveblogging Bush’s speech tonight.) :::SEE UPDATE BELOW::: The Democrat philosophy of the past 3-4 years has essentially been, “whatever it is, if Bush is for it, we’re against it. If Bush is against it, we’re for it!” So, as recently as December 2006, Dems were calling for more troops and acknowledging that we can’t afford to lose. 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.” There is this, also. Now that Bush is doing exactly that…well…now that’s no good. The Dems don’t like that. They only like whatever Bush ISN’T doing, whatever he IS doing is bad. They’re against it. Proving the point, Iowa Voice gives us Nancy Pelosi: She was for the surge, before she was against it. I’m sure someone with a little time can find some more “we need more troops on the ground” noise from the ‘06 Democrat model. Biden? Dean? ***See Update Below, Kim at Wizbang has found more*** Leadership can never be born from a reactionary position of obstruction, obfuscation and second-guessing. You might win an office that way, but you won’t keep it. As Blue Crab points out here, America did not vote the Dems in by giving them “a mandate to lose the war.” I think Jules Crittenden agrees with that and he has some thoughts about the irony of Ted Kennedy declaring Iraq “Bush’s Vietnam” even as he works to do all he can to create that Vietnam, all over again. Meanwhile, as the Dems prepare a “symbolic” vote to get just how much they hate the president on some kind of record and appease their base, (c’mon, you knew they had no real plan when you voted for them) AJ says the president holds all the cards. Something to that. The Dems will not want to be “the party that lost Iraq.” On the other hand, who knows if the president yet realizes that - given how much the press hates him and the Dems work against him - he has nothing to lose by going “all in.” We all have a great deal to lose by dithering, though. And what do you know - someone in the press admits that the Dems do not have a mandate for pulling out. UPDATE: Kim at Wizbang has found more links to Dems calling for an increase in troops (aka a “surge”) prior to the president adopting that position. 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. Lists Kim: Now, of course…they’ve flip-flopped. What exactly do the Dems stand for besides “being against Bush.” Related: Maliki says“Shiite’s give up or the US is going to go all Samuel L. Jackson on you…”. Second Hand Conjecture says the Iraq Study Group Report - so beloved by some on the left - was “for” a surge. He links to the pdf.file. Don Surber has more thougths on Ted Kennedy and his outburst. And Democrat Durbin is asking the Koskidz what they, the Dems, should do. If that’s the case, maybe the president should take advice from this FDNY Firefighter. WELCOME: Instapundit readers. Blogging has been rather light as I complete a project, but to keep everyone amused I’ve revealed 5 things about myself, posted the great footage of Olga Korbut in 1972, and reluctantly addressed a misquoting situation and a a mischaracterization situation, too. http://theanchoressonline.com/2007/01/10/dems-bush-is-for-it-so-were-against-it/trackback/ 34 Responses to “Dems: Bush is for it, so we’re against it UPDATED” |
January 10th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
[...] The Anchoress has a good roundup of conservative reaction to Ted’s raising of the white flag. [...]
January 10th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
A New Wave of Troops Heading to Iraq
***Bumped and Updated*** The report comes from the AP: The first of up to 20,000 additional U.S. troops will move into Iraq by month’s end under President Bush’s new war plan, a senior defense official said Tuesday. House Speaker Nancy…
January 10th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
Great minds and all that.
I suggested earlier this week that we pay congresspeople NOT to show up and work.
‘They are hell bent on destroying each other as opposed to representing their constituents…and they deliberately place their own interests and the interests of their party ahead of the best interests of the nation.’
Screw the bastards.
January 10th, 2007 at 2:09 pm
At least Ted Kennedy is consistent. He has ALWAYS been FOR negotiation and AGAINST going to war - the whole time he has been in the Senate. He is the most leftwing kook around - his brothers would be so ashamed of his stupidity. However, the rest of the Defeatocrats are anything but consistent. But people have been buying their line of bull for years and years - what I still cannot understand is WHY they are able to get away with it. Completely stumps me. Their mantra is so transparently anti-American, anti everything for which this nation is supposed to stand. Is it cowardice? Is it socialism? Is it brainlessness?
January 10th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
Democrats for the Surge Before They Were Against It:
The Anchoress compiles a handy list of links to Surge-supporting Dems before Teddy Kennedy rolled them over. (Anchoress)…
January 10th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
The lies continue…
Not about sound policy…
But about the bigotry and hatred for Republicans or Conservatives.
Undermining anything and everything for personal political gain.
Meanwhile, some have enabled this folly, losing focus on the larger picture.
It is truly sad…
January 10th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
[...] The Anchoress: Dems: Bush Is For It So We’re Against It Iowa Voice: Pelosi Was For A Surge Before She Was Against It Jawa Report: Dem War Plan Gateway Pundit: How Democrats Lost Vietnam and How They Plan On Losing In Iraq Jules Crittenden: On Reflection Mitt Romney supports the surge. Captain’s Quarters, who will be liveblogging the speech,: The Last Best Chance [...]
January 10th, 2007 at 4:43 pm
Pelosi’s Reversal On “Escalating” Troops In Iraq
By now you are probably aware that Speaker Pelosi’s current position that we should not increase the number of American troops in Iraq is quite inconsistent with her criticism of President Bush in May 2004. Appearing on NBC News’ “Meet The Press,” …
January 10th, 2007 at 4:57 pm
[...] UPDATE 2: From the comments, ChrisB alerts us to this: In related news: For the surge, before they were againstit. [...]
January 10th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
[...] Hat tips: Iowa Voice, The Anchoress [...]
January 10th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
Well, here we are. We had our choice in the 2006 elections, and we bent over and self-plumbed … we voted in the DHIMMIcRATs. You can’t say we were not warned.
I feel badly for America, but given a choice between corruption-embracing, power-grabbing Republicans, or divided government mandated to punish those Republicans, what can I say. I hope the experiment works out, and I hope the Republican leadership learn, and that we don’t have to spend more than 2 years teaching them. And, I hope America doesn’t loose another war in the 2 year interim. That’s what happens when you roll the dice.
Now, given the behavior of the Republican leadership so far (terrible!), I’d say it probably will take more than 2 years. And if so, I’d bet American will lose another war.
What can you do? Seriously, what can you do? F’d if you do and F’d if you don’t.
January 10th, 2007 at 7:44 pm
This mini-surge doesn’t even look like a serious attempt to win. The joint chiefs opposed it, before they were ordered to accept it. It is far below the levels that the army manual on dealing with insurgents would suggest would be necessary. The Iraq Study Group opposed it. And so on, and so on.
It’s a small surge simply because that’s the number they can come up with without doing something politically unpopular like reinstating the draft. It’s about politics, not actually about winning. There’s no more of a viable plan for winning now than there was two years ago, when a substantial increase in troop strength (more than this mini-surge that’s supposed to repair a situation far worse than before) might actually have helped.
January 10th, 2007 at 8:00 pm
[...] By: Sister Toldjah in: Grandstanding, Congress, Buffoonery, Clueless Wonders | EMail This Post | Print This Post | Trackback URI for this post:http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2007/01/10/playing-games-with-the-iraq-war-democrats-supported-troop-surge-before-they-were-against-it/trackback/ » [...]
January 10th, 2007 at 8:37 pm
The Political Brilliance of a Troop Surge
January 10th, 2007 at 8:39 pm
Bush Speech Live Blog
I will live-blog the President’s speech, which starts as 8 pm CT, at this link. 7:32 PM CT - I will appear on CHQR’s The World Tonight with Rob Breakenridge at 8:40 pm CT. We’ll be discussing the speech and…
January 10th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
As the war turns
Finally getting serious with the militias?
January 10th, 2007 at 9:02 pm
The Dems Were For the Surge Before They Were Against It
As we prepare for the president’s speech, and the continued malevolent Dem rebuke of the plan, the Anchoress has beautifully detailed the collective flipping of the Dems, replete with links and analysis. Dems were indeed for a ’surge’ before being…
January 10th, 2007 at 9:39 pm
Analysis of Bush Speech
This was a serious speech for a serious situation. Even though the media and Democrats are focusing on the number of troops that may or may not be required, the real key isn’t the number of troops, but the rules of engagement that our forces operate …
January 10th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
The best reaction thus far…
… to the President’s new Iraqi plan comes via Pajamas Media and the lips of Rudy Giuliani:“Success or failure in Iraq is not a matter of partisan politics but a matter of national security. All Americans should be hoping, praying
January 10th, 2007 at 10:25 pm
[...] Others : Hot Air, Captains Quarters, Stop The ACLU, Ace Of Spades, Right Wing News, Sister Toldjah, A Blog For All, The Anchoress, Don Surber [...]
January 10th, 2007 at 11:19 pm
Great links. Clinton supports making the army larger. Pelosi called for more international troops in Iraq two years ago. None of them support your argument but who’s going to bother to click through the link anyway? Clearly not these yahoos who trackback to you. Hell, you and Kim link to each other and provide the same misquotes; it looks like twice as much information but really it’s none at all.
Oh, by the way, care to make a list of Bush and company flipflopping on the number of troops required to succeed in Iraq? You might get some actual traction there and it wouldn’t be nearly as difficult.
January 10th, 2007 at 11:26 pm
[...] Asymptotic once again: STACLU, Strat-Sphere, Greg Tinti, Blackfive, Captain's Quarters, Don Surber, Gateway Pundit, Dan Riehl, Amboy Times, Sensible Mom, Sister Toldjah, Suitably Flip, A Blog for All, Anchoress, Webbloggin, Seven Stripes, TMV, Hot Air, Right Voices, [...]
January 10th, 2007 at 11:28 pm
[...] Ace of spadesLittle Green Footballs Jay at Stop the ACLUThe AnchoressMary Katharine HamWizbang [...]
January 10th, 2007 at 11:57 pm
The politicians daudle, the “experts” pontificate….
….and the has-beens provide unwanted advice. Why not ask someone who has been there and done that. “Twenty-th…
January 11th, 2007 at 6:06 am
[...] 7:34 - The Anchoress sends a link to this Newsweek item showing a Democratic flip-flop on the surge. I agree with her that the Democrats seem to use the automatic-gainsay strategy with Bush about Iraq, but I do recall this article — and it was remarkable because Silvestre Reyes came out so strongly opposed to the Democrats’ policy of defeat and retreat. Has Reyes repudiated his support for the surge today? I haven’t heard. Also, Sister Toldjah has more thoughts along these lines … [...]
January 11th, 2007 at 6:40 am
Bush’s New Iraq Plan: America’s Role ‘Not Open-Ended’
center> Full speech (text and video) @ WhiteHouse.gov. Fact Sheet with the highlights of The New Way Forward in Iraq and Summary Briefing slides (pdf) @ White House website Liveblogging: Captain’s Quarters, Jay Reding, PoliBlog, Tammy Bruce. Stop the …
January 11th, 2007 at 9:18 am
The President’s Plan for Iraq - Blogger’s React
I’ll continue to update this post for a while as bloggers post their thoughts…
Blue Crab Boulevard: Having now read the speech, which I was not able to watch for a very good reason, I really think it did a good job of describing the situati…
January 11th, 2007 at 9:35 am
[...] More cowardly finger-in-the-wind “leadership,” from guess who. And Ace has a surprise surge endorsement, as well as some absolutely elegant Photoshoppery of noted liar, chickendove, and all-around internet laughingstock Rick Ellis Ellisonberg. [...]
January 11th, 2007 at 11:14 am
“The Responsibility Rests With Me” Presidential SpeechRoundup
Last night President Bush addressed the nation to discuss the United States’ involvement in and continuing plans for Iraq. I could summarize his words, but I won’t - primarily because I prefer to send you to the primary source. The transc…
January 11th, 2007 at 11:45 am
[...] Also, while I understand that a political party is made up of individuals with differing opinions, this is amusing. [...]
January 11th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
Did anyone notice how tired and sad President Bush looked last night. and how weary he looks all the time. What a burden it must be to carry the weight, and maybe the fate of the world on your shoulders and get nothing but hate and criticism, insults and lies thrown at you. You could not pay me enough to carry that. I think it’s time we put aside our personal opinions and ideas on how to run the war and put up a united front to the world. we can contuine our disagreements in private. Perhaps we should all just be quite for a little while and calm down, step back and learn to look at things from a different perspective and most of all, Pray for our service men and women, OUR President and most of all for OUR COUNTRY. May God bless us all because we really need it right now.
January 13th, 2007 at 2:30 am
[...] Link to The Anchoress » Dems: Bush is for it, so we’re against it UPDATED [...]
February 14th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
[...] funny thing I found is the list of Democrats for the surge before they were against it. As soon as Bush was for the surge they changed their [...]
April 22nd, 2007 at 5:51 pm
[...] the original strategic goals”). Not long ago many Democrats were calling for more troops. There’s a great roundup of quotes at The Anchoress, including Nancy Pelosi in May of last year, and Silvestre Reyes of the House Intelligence [...]