Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Wednesday, on the floor of the US Senate, Chuck Schumer uttered the most despicable, insulting lie that I have heard directed at US troops from anyone (even AQ!) in a long time:

"Let me be clear: the violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge. The INABILITY OF AMERICAN SOLDIERS to protect these tribes from Al-Qaeda said to these tribes, "We have to fight Al-Qaeda ourselves." It wasn't that the surge brought peace here. It was that the warlords took peace here, created a temporary peace here."

And if you do a google news search on any key phrase along with "Schumer" you will find exactly THREE returns. One of course being Rush Limbaugh. Not even Fox is exposing this despicable, traitorous liar.

So far the only democrat to denounce what Schumer said is Joe Lieberman.

So Bill White, you going to make excuses for your party again?

Posted by Cecil Trotter at September 7, 2007 08:02 AM

Cecil,
that's harsh, calling out Bill like that. Accurate, though. Expect several other regulars to make exceptions for Chucky too.

Posted by Steve at September 7, 2007 09:02 AM

I realize I'm walking on an eggshell here, Cecil, but help me out. What's the lie?

I mean absent the context or emotion of Chucky speaking; I'm not sure I see something totally wrong with the line "The inability of American troops to protect against Al-Qaeda..." Example, if a AQ sets off a bomb killing Iraqis somewhere; then by fact, US troops were unable to protect those Iraqis. Indeed, this is pretty much the same argument of pro-gun advocates who note that police are not always able to protect people from criminals. Alas, US troops are not omnipresent.

Still, what Chucky said will play well to AQ recruiters, who will point out how easy it is to get US Senators to turn on there own troops:

"Young jihadi, we can succeed... you only need to plant one bomb and kill those who would help the infidels. That will be sufficient to convince the infidel leaders they cannot win. What!? no, no, no, not the Dora market, you'll get caught there. Just plant it somewhere else, and I'll call are friends at Reuters to have a camera ready."

Posted by Leland at September 7, 2007 09:18 AM

"our friends" even... ack, preview is your real friend.

I do get tired of the Progressive line that goes, "Bush lied us into a war". It's amazing how easy it is to find the Progressives lying about everything from what Bush said with the "16 words", to what "Mission Accomplished" meant, to "Bush order Abu Ghraib", and now most recently "Bush is manipulating General Petraeus's report".

Before Bill (and gee has been absent recently, pretty much since Hsu ran, but now that Hsu is caught...) does comment, I wonder if he will keep in mind that the law passed by Congress for General Petraeus to provide the report actually said for the "White House to provide the report". They are going to get what they asked for, again, and they still won't like it. It really is a shame that Progressives loath US success in Iraq.

Posted by Leland at September 7, 2007 09:25 AM

What is the lie?

Violence gone down IN SPITE of the surge, not because of it?

Denying that US troops had anything to do with bringing peace to Anbar and instead giving the credit to "warlords" who were tired of the ineptitude of US troops.

If he actually believes any of this he is an idiot.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at September 7, 2007 09:39 AM

As I recall, Aussie David Kilcullen reported that the Sunni chiefs grew angry with al Qaeda over demands for inter-marriage. In one episode, a chief refused to approve of marriages between al Qaeda operatives and certain daughters in his tribe.

al Qaeda killed the chief. The chief's family killed some al Qaeda. Al Qaeda massacred kin of the chief.

Thereafter, a number of Sunni chieftans decided to expel al Qaeda from Anbar province.

= WE = had very little to do with any of that.

= = =

All that said, Chuck Schumer (D) is a weenie.

But then Larry Craig (R) is a moron.

So what's your point?

Posted by Bill White at September 7, 2007 10:06 AM

Follow up -- if Andy McCarthy is correct and our mission in Iraq is more about staging bases for future conflicts with Iran and possibly Syria -- then "stability" and reconciliation between Sunni and Shia may not be in our interest.

It is far from clear to me that the Iraqis would approve of Iraq being used as a base of operations against Iran or Syria and therefore keeping their army and government disorganized is a feature rather than a bug.

Maliki for example simply is NOT anti-Iranian, let along Hakim and Sadr. If we do decide to attack Iran, a cohesive Iraqi government and army could be our enemy rather than our ally.

= = =

In the late 1940s, the US "stood up" a number Chinese army units to fight Mao. We put great hope and expectations on one talented general and provided him with abundant material support.

Until he decided to switch sides and marched is American trained and equipped troops to a location where he pledged his loyalty to Mao and transferred all that equipment bought and paid for by the US taxpayers.

Posted by Bill White at September 7, 2007 10:16 AM

A letter General Petreaus sent to US troops -- It's a pdf file so cut-n-paste quoting is out.

In essence, I read the letter as saying progress is being made in eradicating al Qaeda operatives but very little or perhaps no political progress has been made in Shia & Sunni reconciliation.

Which comes back to defining the mission.

And I agree with Andy McCarthy. The Republicans should openly declare that the mission is to establish and maintain certain valuable bases for future conflicts with Iran and Syria. Make that case and let the American people decide if they favor that policy. Or not.

If that policy is openly approved of and supported by Congress, now, and by the 2008 elections, then that shall be the legitimate policy of the United States thereafter.

= = =

If that is to be the mission going forward then WE may need to undermine the current Iraqi government, which being Shia, may not prove sufficiently anti-Iranian for such plans.

Posted by Bill White at September 7, 2007 10:30 AM

The Krauthammer suggests (OK, remorsefully admits) that partition, which is already underway is the best option for Iraq now.

Is this winning or losing?

Did Petraeus set the stage for this by arming the Sunnis? Maybe he believes in partition as well.

Big question is how to spin the eventual partition as winning.

Regarding all the stats showing the surge is working, every other analysis, including that of the GAO contradicts this. The other fabulous piece is that car bombings are excluded in the stats! So the 500 Yazidis who died were not included in sectarian killings!

Over time, as refugees stream out of Iraq (2-4 million is it now?) there are less mixed areas where sectarian killings are occurring or possible.

So if we can keep the refugees moving, eventually all the stats should show that killings are down.

Posted by Offside at September 7, 2007 11:32 AM

All that said, Chuck Schumer (D) is a weenie.

But then Larry Craig (R) is a moron.

So what's your point?

Indeed, what is your point, Bill? Another non-sequitor? Calling politician names based on scandalous activity? So what is Hillary for taking Hsu's money? What is Patrick Kennedy for refusing to give it back?

What's Larry Craig doing in a discussion about Democrats being upset about the own commissioned report on Iraq?

Posted by Leland at September 7, 2007 12:36 PM

Thereafter, a number of Sunni chieftans decided to expel al Qaeda from Anbar province.

= WE = had very little to do with any of that.

I agree, Bill. But = WE = (you have a very strange posting style) had a great deal to do with their ability to actually do so. In fact, they couldn't have done it without us. So Schumer remains full of shit. And a schmuck.

Posted by at September 7, 2007 12:57 PM

Hey Cecil, if it helps any... apparently Bin Laden is upset by "the inability of the Democrat Congress to stop the war against Al Qaeda". It's a quagmire and they should withdraw. The Texas Democrats did it once (actually twice) and fled to Oklahoma. I guess the federal Democrats will withdraw to Okinawa.

Posted by Leland at September 7, 2007 01:08 PM

Perhaps the Sunni chiefs could have defeated AQI without us and perhaps not. But once AQI is defeated what does the mission become, going forward?

Anyway, Chuck Schumer is not my favorite Senator and neither is that other Senator from New York.

I won't cry too much if a Hsu-nami removed Hillary Clinton from her perch as prohibitive favorite for the Democratic nomination.

Posted by Bill White at September 7, 2007 01:39 PM

Thus, you elected the Democratic Party for this purpose, but the Democrats haven’t made a move worth mentioning.

I think the Repubs should use this in their campaign next year. Maybe Osama should be on the GOP payroll. His appearances are so conveniently timed. Like, you know, right before an election or before delivery of the Petraueus-Bush report.

Maybe every move we make should be for the express purpose of making Osama unhappy. If only he would send us more tapes, we would have more ideas about what he doesn't like.

For instance, is he or is he not for Universal Health Care. I bet he is. And I absolutely bet he doesn't like Mountain Biking.

Maybe Obama attacking Pakistan will make him very, very unhappy or even dead. Oh but that is such a naive way to treat such a great source of inspiration, isn't it?

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at September 7, 2007 04:45 PM

In the late 1940s, the US "stood up" a number Chinese army units to fight Mao. We put great hope and expectations on one talented general and provided him with abundant material support.

In the 1960's, John Kennedy "stood up" a number of ex-Nazis to Conquer Space. He put great hope and expectations in one talented engineer and provided him with abundant material support. And the US completely failed to conquer space.

Yet, I don't see you calling for an end to the "war" on space because of that failure. You aren't even willing to consider a change in tactics. You just keep saying the United States should pour more and more money into the same strategy that failed to conquer space once before -- Project Apollo.

What about the war on poverty, the war on drugs, and all the other domestic "wars" that have been complete failures and cost more money and more lives than the war in Iraq? Why isn't your party calling for an end to those "wars" instead of an endless cycle of escalation?

Why the double standard?

Posted by Edward Wright at September 8, 2007 02:49 AM

Perhaps the Sunni chiefs could have defeated AQI without us and perhaps not. But once AQI is defeated what does the mission become, going forward?

The same as it's always been. To defend the Constitution and people of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

That is the first duty of government. Not to provide old age benefits or free prescription drugs or to operate a national space transportation system, but to provide for the common defense.

Posted by Edward Wright at September 8, 2007 02:57 AM

In my mind we can only be winning in Iraq when the 2-4 million refugees feel secure enough to return to their homes. Homes which are now Shia captured territory or to a lesser extent Sunni captured territory, or bombed out shells.

What are we doing for the Iraqi refugees? We need to (obviously after careful vetting) bring them here at least temporarily.

All of you who talk about moral responsibility as a reason to stay and fix things in Iraq, how about some action right now on behalf of those whose lives we, by our actions (well meaning perhaps) have placed in awful jeopardy?

Surely if we are running up trillions for Iraq, we can find the money to provide these refugees with a home, even if it is temporary, here.

I think liberals and conservatives can find common ground here. At least that is what I hope.

Posted by Offside at September 8, 2007 07:50 AM

To paraphrase Golda Meir, we'll start to win this war when the Democrats learn to love the country more than they hate George Bush and the Republicans.

I wonder if that'll happen before the point-of-no-return regarding the US's own fragmentation and slow drift to civil war.

Posted by Phil Fraering at September 8, 2007 12:33 PM

Let's get back to the first quote. If Gen. Jones is pointedly asking for a major reduction in troop levels in Iraq, he is clearly agreeing with the Democrats isn't he? :

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/05/AR2007090501282.html

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hltkgL6y-O8LWicTGl4JCvNiGPfQ

It has been the position of many Democrats that a light footprint with high capability is an acceptable goal.

So, how exactly is Gen. Jones report good news for the perma-surge crowd over here?

Posted by Offside at September 8, 2007 02:05 PM

Surely if we are running up trillions for Iraq, we can find the money to provide these refugees with a home, even if it is temporary, here.

That's called "lying by implication."

We already spend trillions of dollars a year on the social programs the left wants. We *don't* spend trillions of dollars a year in Iraq.

And a lot of the money we spend in Iraq already goes to help refugees. The left won't admit that because the left never wants to say anything good about the US military.

Organizations like the Red Cross are also helping refugees.

What have you and Bill done? Have you signed up to go to Iraq as volunteers?

Have you even donated money to the Red Cross?

Or are you just taking potshots at the American soldiers who are helping refugees in Iraq and trying to cut off their funding?

“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; because there is not effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly. So that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.”

I think liberals and conservatives can find common ground here. At least that is what I hope.

I doubt that. Bush tried to find common ground by funding every big-spending social program in your agenda, more handouts than any President since Kennedy, and still, you hate him.

I expect the US military will continue to help Iraqi refugees -- and "cold and timid souls" will continue trying to undercut them.

Posted by Edward Wright at September 8, 2007 02:07 PM

I wonder if that'll happen before the point-of-no-return regarding the US's own fragmentation and slow drift to civil war.

There won't be a civil war, or if there is, it won't last long. One side is afraid of guns to the point of hysteria.

Posted by Rand Simberg at September 8, 2007 02:30 PM

Edward, your rant above with it's tangential arguments, is indicative of the wailing of a cornered rat.

Clearly you are not capable of digesting the fact that the Iraq war has created a mass migration of 2 to 4 million people.

It's YOUR baby. Look after it. Think of it as PICKING UP after YOUR dog shits all over the neighborhood. It's not a lefty social program. It's called being accountable.

Posted by Offside at September 8, 2007 02:42 PM

Offside,

In my mind, the Allies will have won World War 2 once German refugees can return to their residences in Prussia and Silesia. Residences that are currently occupied by Russian and Polish people.

--------

The refugees exist because they backed the wrong people. Once Saddam lost the formal offices of power, the tribes could have cleansed themselves of their Baathist thug members.

BUT, they continued to believe their fantasies about being the natural rulers of Iraq. They made common cause with Al Qaeda. And the children suffer for the sins of their parents (paraphrase of Ecclesiastes). Now, at long last, they realize that Al Qaeda is a one-way ticket to Paradise, and their fantasies will remain unfulfilled. All that remains is to get the best deal that they can.

As for financially supporting the refugees -- Saddam's daughter has some billions laying around. That money should be in the hands of the Iraqi citizenry, anyway. The refugees are much more proximate to her, so they are first in line for her largesse.

------------

War sucks, Offside, so it is important to choose the winning side as early as one can. The Sunni tribes made bad decisions. That they still have any residences in Iraq is a consequence of the generous, forgiving spirit and disciplined professional warriors of the United States.

Posted by MG at September 8, 2007 06:30 PM

The refugees exist because they backed the wrong people.

MG, it is very hard to have any respect for you when you lie.

The Iraqi Christian community is decimated and dispersed. Very likely this vibrant Christian community that survived millenia of various rulers will never be resurrected in Iraq.

Obviously in your perverted view of the world they deserved it, much as the Jewish refugees of Europe deserved the Nazis and the death camps.

Shame on you.

Posted by Offside at September 8, 2007 07:31 PM

MG, it is very hard to have any respect for you when you lie.

And I have trouble respecting people who accuse those with whom they simply disagree as "lying." This is a sign of Bush derangement, and a general symptom of being a leftist (and in my experience, also projection).

I know that it may be impossible for someone of your mindset to comprehend, but it is actually possible for someone to express a statement with which you disagree, to actually believe it.

Posted by Rand Simberg at September 8, 2007 07:39 PM

Offside,

Wow! That is a pretty touchy nerve. As in, "you've got some nerve".

Did I write ANYTHING about the Christians of Iraq? No. I wrote about the Sunni tribes. Why? Because YOU mentioned 2-4 million refugees.

Are you proposing the 2-4 million refugees are Christians?

If not, then whence cometh the explosion about them?

What are you projecting, Offside? Your mask has dropped...

Posted by MG at September 8, 2007 07:54 PM

To blame the refugees for their fate on themselves is a lie. This is exactly how Anti-Semitism in Europe is now re-emerging, it was the Jews fault, after all.

Kicking someone when they are down and desperate is not something to gloss over.

Sometimes you have to call a spade a spade. And if someone says something so abominable, a wake up call is needed.

I have never used words like this unless tremendously provoked, which you Rand should know, and I admit that the fate of Christianity in Iraq is a tremendous provocation, especially when someone can so blindly state that the refugees have only themselves to blame for their plight.

Posted by Offside at September 8, 2007 08:02 PM

MG,

So Christian Iraqs are to be excluded from your statement on Iraqi refugees. Nice to know that. At least their backing of Christ wasn't backing the wrong guy. I could ask you what separate plans you advocate for these folks? Refuge in the United States?

Now back to the Sunni or Shia refugees. Can you justifiably propose that the expulsion of millions of people from their homes is somehow justified by who they were, what they believed or whom some of them supported?

What in heavens name are you thinking? If you have any experience at all with refugees you would realize that the vast bulk of such migrations are just miserably afflicted people caught up in a maelstrom of events quite out of their control.

If I lost my temper just now, I simply ask you to reflect carefully when you assign blame on the victim of a crime rather than the criminal.

Posted by Offside at September 8, 2007 08:11 PM

"I simply ask you to reflect carefully when you assign blame on the victim of a crime rather than the criminal.
Posted by Offside at September 8, 2007 08:11 PM"

Who? Saddam Hussein?

Posted by Josh Reiter at September 8, 2007 08:38 PM

Mr. Offside,

War is all hell, and you cannot escape it.

If one lives the life of the tribe, one shares the fate of the tribe. This is because the life of the tribe places very strict limits around the individual identity. Were it otherwise, the tribe would cease to be.

The Sunni tribes bet they could continue to subjugate the Shia majority. They have lost on that bet. The American expenditure of blood and treasure (among other things) gives the Sunni a chance to redeem themselves, and to enter the 20th (or maybe 21st) century.

These aren't MY original observations, and I wish they were otherwise.

On to the Iraqi Christians:

Christians and Jews throughout the Land of Submission have been leaving their historical homelands for centuries. I wish that were otherwise, too, but what can one do but seek refuge, when one's children are fated to be dhimmis?

If the Christians of Iraq participated within Saddam's government (Tariq Azziz, anyone?), then they put the Christian "tribe" at risk of Shia or Kurdish retribution. I wish Iraq had fully emerged from tribalism, and that individuals were judged based on their individual actions. Were that the case, Christians in Iraq need only have acquiesced in the arrest, conviction, and sentencing of Saddam's collaborators. Regrettably, it hadn't, and they weren't.

Once again, Mr. Offside, in war, it is important to be on the winning side. Tribes are subject to utter devastation if they choose unwisely. Those aren't my rules. They precede my life by millennia.

Posted by MG at September 9, 2007 12:53 AM

Post a comment