Reader's Favorites
Media Casualties Mount

Administration Split On Europe Invasion

Administration In Crisis Over Burgeoning Quagmire

Congress Concerned About Diversion From War On Japan

Pot, Kettle On Line Two...

Allies Seize Paris

The Natural

Gore Book Sales Tank, Supporters Claim Unfair Tactics

Satan Files Lack Of Defamation Suit

Why This Blog Bores People With Space Stuff

A New Beginning

My Hit Parade
Instapundit (Glenn Reynolds)
Tim Blair
James Lileks Bleats
Virginia Postrel
Kausfiles
Winds Of Change (Joe Katzman)
Little Green Footballs (Charles Johnson)
Samizdata
Eject Eject Eject (Bill Whittle)

Space
Alan Boyle (MSNBC)
Space Politics (Jeff Foust)
Space Transport News (Clark Lindsey)
NASA Watch
NASA Space Flight
Hobby Space
A Voyage To Arcturus (Jay Manifold)
Dispatches From The Final Frontier (Michael Belfiore)
Personal Spaceflight (Jeff Foust)
Mars Blog
The Flame Trench (Florida Today)
Space Cynic
Rocket Forge (Michael Mealing)
COTS Watch (Michael Mealing)
Curmudgeon's Corner (Mark Whittington)
Selenian Boondocks
Tales of the Heliosphere
Out Of The Cradle
Space For Commerce (Brian Dunbar)
True Anomaly
Kevin Parkin
The Speculist (Phil Bowermaster)
Spacecraft (Chris Hall)
Space Pragmatism (Dan Schrimpsher)
Eternal Golden Braid (Fred Kiesche)
Carried Away (Dan Schmelzer)
Laughing Wolf (C. Blake Powers)
Chair Force Engineer (Air Force Procurement)
Spacearium
Saturn Follies
JesusPhreaks (Scott Bell)

Biting Commentary about Infinity, and Beyond!

« No Problem | Main | Fighting the Last Credit Card War »

Cutting And Running

From cutting and running:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has backed down from demands for a withdrawal of our troops in Iraq by next spring.

Selling voters on cut and run was always tough, but now a new UPI/Zogby Poll finds that 54% of Americans believe the Iraq war is not lost.

Beyond the achievements of our forces, the public is obviously impressed that Iraq's five top political leaders have agreed on a series of compromises, including oil wealth distribution and provincial elections.

Well, that's what happens when you govern by poll instead of principle.

Posted by Rand Simberg at September 01, 2007 06:14 AM

Comments

None of the three leading Democratic candidates for President are calling for immediate full withdrawal from Iraq.

Bill Richardson is but he is simply posturing for votes as he trails badly.

With Hillary calling for Maliki to be replaced, it appears to me, she would like to make yet another serious effort to "win" howsoever we choose to define winning.

Posted by Bill White at September 1, 2007 06:46 AM

Update - Edwards may have changed his position, recently.

Obama has made it very clear that getting out too quickly would be bad, even if getting in was bad in the first place.

Posted by Bill White at September 1, 2007 06:47 AM

"UPI/Zogby Poll finds that 54% of Americans believe the Iraq war is not lost."

Gonna take a lot of tea to choke that burnt toast down!

Posted by Mike Puckett at September 1, 2007 08:19 AM

Americans do not like defeatists. The US Democratic Party leadership has been led around by the short hairs by defeatists in the mooove-on and other organisations. These congressional leaders have made serious mis-steps and are having to backpedal furiously like idiots.

The entire US Democratic Party platform is built upon similar lack of substance fueled by anti-western defeatism. President Clinton employed world-class salesmen and propagandists to re-frame defeatism as progressivism. We'll see how the 2008 crop of candidates can do.

Posted by Al Fin at September 1, 2007 09:21 AM

You've ruined my breakfast, Mr. Puckett. I might just have to move more quickly to the G&T.

To win this so called war we have to heal the rift in Islam. This is simply not within the capacity of the West. I don't see why you don't get this.

We could of course just linger in the area watching the Sheiks do tricks on goats or shaving the underarms of sheep and proclaiming victory .

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at September 1, 2007 09:24 AM

Somehow I can't imagine Winston Churchill ever saying, "To win this so called war we have to heal the rift in Nazi Germany".

I guess they just don't make Brits like they used to.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at September 1, 2007 09:37 AM

We won the Iraq war in 2003. What we're losing now is the Iraq peacekeeping operation.

Posted by Adrasteia at September 1, 2007 09:55 AM

Was that a typo? Surely you meant "We won the Iraq war in 2003. What we're winning now is the Iraq peacekeeping operation."? Not that I'm sure I would call it peacekeeping since that usually only amounts to a bunch of UN soldiers mucking about.

Posted by Habitat Hermit at September 1, 2007 10:18 AM

We don't have to "heal" the Sunni-Shia rift, anyway. They are capable of getting along with each other if they have a reason to. Our job now is to prove to them it's in their best interests to get along with each other. Obviously that's not easy...but the surge is proving it can be done.

Posted by Rick C at September 1, 2007 10:33 AM

Whether we are actually winning or not, Petraeus is certainly not planning to lose the PR battle:

Bravo General

Let's see how all this plays out in reality a few months from now. At least, one has to acknowledge that the man is competent .

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at September 1, 2007 10:46 AM

Thanks for the link T_n_T.

I really enjoyed the denialist clust3rf7^ck after the article. LOL. They are in full moonbat meltdown mode.

Posted by Mike Puckett at September 1, 2007 11:40 AM

I am unclear about the article's complaint.

The media and Congress have been played for YEARS by neck-slicing thugs, without a peep of complaint from them.

Now, General Petraeus is offering data that counters the "impressions" that the uncritical media elites have relayed from the neck-slicers, and those same elites complain about being played?

Yeah, I know, it is naive of me to think American elites would actually WANT the US to win in Iraq, even if it means they have egg on their collective faces.

I just tire of the transparent double standard.

Actually, I think I haven't properly understood the standard, applied consistently. Here it is:

If they are willing to kill you, report what they tell you to report. If they aren't willing to kill you, complain endlessly about being manipulated.

That is a pretty perverse incentive program for news organizations to follow, but at least they are consistently following it.

*heavy sigh*

Toast-n-Tea, you win, and I quit. Where do I sign up for the surveillance society? I am ready for my elites to hand over everything I am to the neck-slicers.

Posted by MG at September 1, 2007 01:07 PM

None of the three leading Democratic candidates for President are calling for immediate full withdrawal from Iraq.

Senator Reid is already the Democrat Majority Leader, so why the non-sequitor?

Posted by Leland at September 1, 2007 01:51 PM

Senator Reid is already the Democrat Majority Leader, so why the non-sequitur?

Because non-sequiturs is what Bill does, incessantly. At least here. Maybe it's a lawyer thing. But I suspect it's a Democrat thing. Kind of goes along with the construction of straw men.

Posted by Rand Simberg at September 1, 2007 02:42 PM

It is unfortunate that when the General sits down at the witness table he can't debate with those questioning him. The results would be like Stormin Norman's trip through the desert. A trained, educated and disciplined General against pompous wind bags. I sure would love to watch.

Too bad the barking moonbats like those on WM seem to believe countries like Iran and Cuba but not a decorated American. What tools.

Posted by Bill Maron at September 1, 2007 02:47 PM

Petreaus 2012

Works best if a Democrat wins in 2008.

If its Hillary, he'd be an early favorite.

Posted by Bill White at September 1, 2007 06:04 PM

Rand writes:
Well, that's what happens when you govern by poll instead of principle.

And Bill thinks:

Hillary

Yes Bill, that's an example. I guess that is why you keep bringing up the Democrat Presidential candidates.

Posted by Leland at September 1, 2007 09:30 PM

Surely you meant "We won the Iraq war in 2003. What we're winning now is the Iraq peacekeeping operation."?

Given that thousands of refugees per week are still pouring out of the country, no, I wouldn't think so.

Posted by Adrasteia at September 2, 2007 02:13 AM

I notice that our Euro friends are eager to tell us that we're doing the wrong thing but that they're too modest to mention their accomplishments in similar situations.

After all, if you're going to run an occupation, what better example than the French in Algeria or Vietnam? Unless, perhaps, it's the Germans. And who can forget the Euros great successes in Rwanda and current triumph in the Sudan.

What? The Euros haven't done anything better?

We all know that the Euros would ask "what about us?" if the US decided tomorrow to just grab the oil fields and pipelines (a much easier problem than dealing with the people).

While the US can do better, there's absolutely nothing about the accomplishments of the Euros that suggests that their suggestions have any value.

Posted by Andy Freeman at September 3, 2007 10:11 AM

"We won the Iraq war in 2003. What we're losing now is the Iraq peacekeeping operation."

No, we did not. A war is won when the enemy gives up, or is annihilated. Neither has happened - Saddam Hussein's capture was a sideshow; although if he had been treated with the proper respect (none whatsoever - shoot him in his hole and fill it in) the situation now might be better.

The enemy is Islam. It was in 2003, it was in 800AD, and it is now. And it always will be, unless one of two things happen; Islam grows up (as Christianity did four hundred years ago) or we kill them all.

Google "Three Conjectures".

Posted by Fletcher Christian at September 3, 2007 04:01 PM

No, we did not. A war is won when the enemy gives up, or is annihilated.

Iraq's national army was crushed within the first month of the US invasion. Mission accomplished. Now after wiping out Iraq's law enforcement we're desperately trying to keep the peace.

New York is 1/1000th the size of Iraq and has a 50,000 strong police force, and they barely manage without trying to contain a 700 year old religious feud. We put less than 125,000 troops in Iraq, it's little wonder we're failing.

The enemy is Islam. It was in 2003, it was in 800AD, and it is now.

Ok, let me do the math. Wiping out the enemy, 1 billion muslims will be, carrying the zero, 100 times worse than hitler.

I know the lunatic left say a lot of bad things about Bush, but I personally don't believe that ethnic cleansing was his rationale for the invasion.

Posted by Adrasteia at September 4, 2007 06:01 PM

Adrasteia is a bit light on "what to do" details.

Should we be looking for a new Saddam? Should we put the Euros in charge of the occupation? (The French and Germans have some relevant skills.) Should we let them kill one another? (A "700 year-old religious feud" surely isn't the result of the US occupation.)

Me - I'd like to see the Euros take a province and show the US how to do things. Basra is available. Shouldn't be a problem for folks as rich, successful, and oh so very good as the Euros are.

What? They only "quarterback" on Monday?

Posted by Andy Freeman at September 5, 2007 10:02 AM


Post a comment

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?