[Peace-discussion] What's wrong with me? Pat Buchannan is...
Joni LeViness
myths16@cox.net
Fri, 15 Dec 2006 09:22:02 -0600
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0046_01C7202A.7B42A930
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
...making more and more sense to me!
Is it that the Tulsa World has deteriorated my standards?
Let me know if i'm alone, i need a reality check.
Please!
Thanks,
joni
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53332
Coming GOP war . over the war!
_____
Posted: December 12, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern
"I believe this is a recipe that will lead to our defeat ... in Iraq," said
John McCain. He has a point.
For what does the Iraq Study Group say?
We are not winning this war. Our situation is "grave and deteriorating." Yet
we may succeed if only we will withdraw all U.S. combat brigades in 15
months and bring Syria and Iran to the table to resolve the political
crisis. This is simply not credible.
Nowhere in this report are there any "disincentives" to cause al-Qaida, the
Sunni insurgents, the militias, the Mahdi Army or sectarian death squads to
call off their campaigns to inflict a historic defeat on the United States
and expel us from Mesopotamia.
The closer one studies the report, the more the truth emerges. These
"realists" think Iraq is a lost cause, that Americans will not pay the price
in blood, treasure and years to win it. And in this conviction the Baker
Commission, too, may be right.
This deepening fissure in the GOP presages a civil war inside the party by
2008, over whether to stay in Iraq - or, if the war has ended in a debacle
or defeat, over "who lost Iraq?"
In urging intensified training of the Iraqi army and an expedited
withdrawal, the Baker Commission is laying down the predicate for the case
that America did not lose this war, Iraqis lost their own war.
This ISG report is less about saving Iraq than about saving the U.S.
establishment from being held responsible for the worst strategic blunder in
U.S. history. It is about giving Bush and Congress a "decent interval"
before Iraq goes down and a Saigon ending ensues.
The neocons are also preparing their defense before the bar of history.
Realizing the Baker Commission recommendations point to slow-motion defeat,
they are savaging Baker and calling for tens of thousands more U.S. troops
to be sent to Baghdad and a new strategy of victory, no matter how much it
costs or how long it takes.
If Bush fails to follow their counsel, they will then say: "It was not our
fault. It was Bush's rejection of our advice that lost the war."
Neoconservative Ken Adelman, on Sunday's "Meet the Press," was calling for
20,000 to 30,000 more U.S. troops, saying Iraq had been a wise and winnable
war, but the administration mucked up what should have been a "cakewalk."
The Democratic establishment, which gave Bush a blank check to take us to
war, "to get the issue out of the way" before the midterms in 2002, is also
preparing its defense of the role it played in plunging us into Mesopotamia,
the "if-only-we-had-known" defense.
"If only we had known then what we know now - that there was no hard
evidence of WMD, no hard evidence of al-Qaida ties to Saddam Hussein - we
would never have voted for the war." "If only we had known how incompetent
Rumsfeld's Pentagon would be in managing the war, we would never have given
Bush a green light."
This Kerry-Edwards defense is a version of the 1967 defense advanced by
Michigan Gov. George Romney to explain his earlier support of Vietnam. Said
Romney, "I was brainwashed" during a trip to Vietnam, prompting the cruel
retort of Sen. Eugene McCarthy, "In Romney's case, a light rinse would have
sufficed."
The Democrats' defense begs these questions: Why didn't you know? Why didn't
you find out? Why didn't you do your constitutional duty and refuse the
president the power to go to war until he had convinced you that only war
could spare the republic worse horrors?
What the Baker Commission is ultimately all about is providing political
cover for a bipartisan retreat from Iraq.
For what was the one issue the Iraq Study Group would not and will not
address? The crucial question: Was the Iraq war a blunder to begin with? The
commission seeks at all costs to avoid the judgment of the nation that
today's establishment that took us into Iraq served America as badly as the
Best and Brightest who marched an earlier generation into Vietnam, then cut
and ran and called it "Nixon's War."
The media are celebrating the ISG for its "bipartisanship" and the
"consensus" achieved. But was it not a bipartisan consensus that produced
the war: a Democratic Senate failing in its duty to ascertain the necessity
of a war to be launched by a Republican president, because Democrats feared
that telling a popular president "no" would reinforce the party's reputation
as being soft on national security?
The people who were right about Iraq were those who rejected bipartisanship
to warn that invading Iraq was an unnecessary, unwise and, yes, even an
unjust war that would inflame the Arab and Islamic world against us.
Unsurprisingly, this group had no representative on the Baker-Hamilton
Commission.
------=_NextPart_000_0046_01C7202A.7B42A930
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dus-ascii">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.5730.11" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D843531815-15122006>...making more and=20
more sense to me!</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN class=3D843531815-15122006>Is it =
that the Tulsa=20
World has deteriorated my standards?</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN class=3D843531815-15122006>Let me =
know if i'm=20
alone, i need a reality check.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D843531815-15122006>Please!</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D843531815-15122006>Thanks,</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D843531815-15122006>joni</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN class=3D843531815-15122006><A=20
href=3D"http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=3D53332"=
>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=3D53332</A></SP=
AN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D843531815-15122006></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN class=3D843531815-15122006><FONT =
face=3DGeorgia=20
size=3D5>Coming GOP war … over the war!<BR><!-- end head --><!-- =
deck --><!-- end deck -->
<HR SIZE=3D1>
</FONT><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" size=3D-1>Posted: December 12, =
2006<BR>1:00=20
a.m. Eastern<BR><BR></FONT>
<P><!-- byline --><!-- end byline --><!--- copywrite only show on NON =
commentary pages as per joseph meeting 8/23/06 ------>
<P><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman"><!-- intelliTXT --></FONT>
<DIV class=3DKonaBody yJQdZ=3D"true"><!-- begin bodytext -->"I believe =
this is a=20
recipe that will lead to our defeat ... in Iraq," said John McCain. He =
has a=20
point.=20
<P>For what does the Iraq Study Group say?=20
<P>We are not winning this war. Our situation is "grave and =
deteriorating." Yet=20
we may succeed if only we will withdraw all U.S. combat brigades in 15 =
months=20
and bring Syria and Iran to the table to resolve the political crisis. =
This is=20
simply not credible.=20
<P>Nowhere in this report are there any "disincentives" to cause =
al-Qaida, the=20
Sunni insurgents, the militias, the Mahdi Army or sectarian death squads =
to call=20
off their campaigns to inflict a historic defeat on the United States =
and expel=20
us from Mesopotamia. </P>
<P>The closer one studies the report, the more the truth emerges. These=20
"realists" think Iraq is a lost cause, that Americans will not pay the =
price in=20
blood, treasure and years to win it. And in this conviction the Baker=20
Commission, too, may be right.=20
<P>This deepening fissure in the GOP presages a civil war inside the =
party by=20
2008, over whether to stay in Iraq – or, if the war has ended in a =
debacle or=20
defeat, over "who lost Iraq?"=20
<P>In urging intensified training of the Iraqi army and an expedited =
withdrawal,=20
the Baker Commission is laying down the predicate for the case that =
America did=20
not lose this war, Iraqis lost their own war.=20
<P>This ISG report is less about saving Iraq than about saving the U.S.=20
establishment from being held responsible for the worst strategic =
blunder in=20
U.S. history. It is about giving Bush and Congress a "decent interval" =
before=20
Iraq goes down and a Saigon ending ensues.=20
<P>The neocons are also preparing their defense before the bar of =
history.=20
Realizing the Baker Commission recommendations point to slow-motion =
defeat, they=20
are savaging Baker and calling for tens of thousands more U.S. troops to =
be sent=20
to Baghdad and a new strategy of victory, no matter how much it costs or =
how=20
long it takes.=20
<P>If Bush fails to follow their counsel, they will then say: "It was =
not our=20
fault. It was Bush's rejection of our advice that lost the war."=20
<P>Neoconservative Ken Adelman, on Sunday's "Meet the Press," was =
calling for=20
20,000 to 30,000 more U.S. troops, saying Iraq had been a wise and =
winnable war,=20
but the administration mucked up what should have been a "cakewalk."=20
<P>The Democratic establishment, which gave Bush a blank check to take =
us to=20
war, "to get the issue out of the way" before the midterms in 2002, is =
also=20
preparing its defense of the role it played in plunging us into =
Mesopotamia, the=20
"if-only-we-had-known" defense.=20
<P>"If only we had known then what we know now – that there was no =
hard evidence=20
of WMD, no hard evidence of al-Qaida ties to Saddam Hussein – we =
would never=20
have voted for the war." "If only we had known how incompetent =
Rumsfeld's=20
Pentagon would be in managing the war, we would never have given Bush a =
green=20
light."=20
<P>This Kerry-Edwards defense is a version of the 1967 defense advanced =
by=20
Michigan Gov. George Romney to explain his earlier support of Vietnam. =
Said=20
Romney, "I was brainwashed" during a trip to Vietnam, prompting the =
cruel retort=20
of Sen. Eugene McCarthy, "In Romney's case, a light rinse would have =
sufficed."=20
<P>The Democrats' defense begs these questions: Why didn't you know? Why =
didn't=20
you find out? Why didn't you do your constitutional duty and refuse the=20
president the power to go to war until he had convinced you that only =
war could=20
spare the republic worse horrors?=20
<P>What the Baker Commission is ultimately all about is providing =
political=20
cover for a bipartisan retreat from Iraq.=20
<P>For what was the one issue the Iraq Study Group would not and will =
not=20
address? The crucial question: Was the Iraq war a blunder to begin with? =
The=20
commission seeks at all costs to avoid the judgment of the nation that =
today's=20
establishment that took us into Iraq served America as badly as the Best =
and=20
Brightest who marched an earlier generation into Vietnam, then cut and =
ran and=20
called it "Nixon's War."=20
<P>The media are celebrating the ISG for its "bipartisanship" and the=20
"consensus" achieved. But was it not a bipartisan consensus that =
produced the=20
war: a Democratic Senate failing in its duty to ascertain the necessity =
of a war=20
to be launched by a Republican president, because Democrats feared that =
telling=20
a popular president "no" would reinforce the party's reputation as being =
soft on=20
national security?=20
<P>The people who were right about Iraq were those who rejected =
bipartisanship=20
to warn that invading Iraq was an unnecessary, unwise and, yes, even an =
unjust=20
war that would inflame the Arab and Islamic world against us. =
Unsurprisingly,=20
this group had no representative on the Baker-Hamilton Commission.=20
</P></DIV></SPAN></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0046_01C7202A.7B42A930--