Chris Wallace hosted Sen. Diane Feinstein (D San Francisco) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R S.C.) this morning. Feinstein opened with the latest Democrat shift in their canard based demand for defeat in Iraq. Starting with the premise, there is no purely military solution and a political solution is necessary for victory, she quickly moved on to the Democrats’ latest attack line-the lack of national level political process is evidence of inevitable defeat
To digress for a moment, the childish repetition of the tag line “no victory without a political solution” does nothing more than state the obvious. Perhaps the most insightful philosopher of military theory, von Clausewitz, long ago opined that war is a continuation of politics by other means, and every person now formulating Administration policy knows that. What the Democrats ignore is the other premise of victory, military success and control. If one’s enemies are still in the field fighting with a chance of victory, defined by them as US retreat from Iraq, then a political solution is not possible because the cost of the political solution outweighs its benefit. Feinstein simply flees from confrontation with the logical corollary of her argument.
Lindsey hammered out the evidence that we are crushing Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, and the consequences of defeat, (victory for Al Qaeda and expansion of Iranian power). Feinstein promptly acknowledged the military progress and then retreated to a criticism of the al Maliki government. Feinstein, like most of the sane but merely disingenuous Democrats, simply ignores any discussion of the cost of retreat. They know it would be catastrophic for the country but good for them and, well, we know where that story ends.
Wallace quoted or played clips of Dingy Harry Reid and Tricky Dick Durbin, the essentially treasonous Democrat Senate leadership, already saying that Gen. Petraeus and Amb. Crocker will lie when they describe improvement in Iraq. Feinstein certainly tried to distance herself from those two and their campaign of slime. In the end, Feinstein acknowledged that the Democrats will not be able to implement their demand for a surrender date in Iraq. History chalks up another victory for W in the real world-which explains a lot about why the liberals hate him.
Presidential Homeland Security Advisor Frances Townsend stopped by to apply a little Real World to the Democrat claims that the either the War on Terror doesn’t exist (Edwards and the nuttier left) or that we are losing (Clinton, Obama and the merely dangerous left). I find it odd that so few Republicans take the time to itemize the major terror attacks against US facilities that historically occurred about every two years during the two Presidential terms (eight years) before 9.11, but Frannie certainly did not hesitate to remind the viewers of what hasn’t happened since.
Chris pushed hard on Townsend to describe actual operations, which she wisely avoided providing. Townsend did focus on the frequent successes in disrupting terror cells and incipient attacks. Townsend failed to use the very great line-we haven’t had all these successes by accident-but she still drew the political bright line-Democrats want to diminish the tools that have disrupted the plots, lead to the capture of terrorists, and saved thousands of American lives.
You have to wonder whose family the Democrats are willing to sacrifice in pursuit of domestic political power through the venal subversion of public morale and national unity in this long and most difficult War on Terror.
To digress for a moment, the childish repetition of the tag line “no victory without a political solution” does nothing more than state the obvious. Perhaps the most insightful philosopher of military theory, von Clausewitz, long ago opined that war is a continuation of politics by other means, and every person now formulating Administration policy knows that. What the Democrats ignore is the other premise of victory, military success and control. If one’s enemies are still in the field fighting with a chance of victory, defined by them as US retreat from Iraq, then a political solution is not possible because the cost of the political solution outweighs its benefit. Feinstein simply flees from confrontation with the logical corollary of her argument.
Lindsey hammered out the evidence that we are crushing Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, and the consequences of defeat, (victory for Al Qaeda and expansion of Iranian power). Feinstein promptly acknowledged the military progress and then retreated to a criticism of the al Maliki government. Feinstein, like most of the sane but merely disingenuous Democrats, simply ignores any discussion of the cost of retreat. They know it would be catastrophic for the country but good for them and, well, we know where that story ends.
Wallace quoted or played clips of Dingy Harry Reid and Tricky Dick Durbin, the essentially treasonous Democrat Senate leadership, already saying that Gen. Petraeus and Amb. Crocker will lie when they describe improvement in Iraq. Feinstein certainly tried to distance herself from those two and their campaign of slime. In the end, Feinstein acknowledged that the Democrats will not be able to implement their demand for a surrender date in Iraq. History chalks up another victory for W in the real world-which explains a lot about why the liberals hate him.
Presidential Homeland Security Advisor Frances Townsend stopped by to apply a little Real World to the Democrat claims that the either the War on Terror doesn’t exist (Edwards and the nuttier left) or that we are losing (Clinton, Obama and the merely dangerous left). I find it odd that so few Republicans take the time to itemize the major terror attacks against US facilities that historically occurred about every two years during the two Presidential terms (eight years) before 9.11, but Frannie certainly did not hesitate to remind the viewers of what hasn’t happened since.
Chris pushed hard on Townsend to describe actual operations, which she wisely avoided providing. Townsend did focus on the frequent successes in disrupting terror cells and incipient attacks. Townsend failed to use the very great line-we haven’t had all these successes by accident-but she still drew the political bright line-Democrats want to diminish the tools that have disrupted the plots, lead to the capture of terrorists, and saved thousands of American lives.
You have to wonder whose family the Democrats are willing to sacrifice in pursuit of domestic political power through the venal subversion of public morale and national unity in this long and most difficult War on Terror.
3 comments:
Iraq is almost an exact replay of the Viet Nam debacle. Same falling domino rationalizations, same corrupt, disappointing puppet governments, and the same deteriorating local security situatiuons. The surge designed to protect Iraqi civilians is much like the "Secure Hamlet" prgram we set up to protect South Vietnanese caught in the crossfire.
Boggles my mind we replaced the Democrats as the party of war and reckless spending and borrowing.
Next year is the 110th aniversary of the Spanish-American War which launched our addiction to foreign military adventures. Had we stayed out of WWI there wouldn't been the Nazi and Communist scourges leading to WWII and the Cold War.
Iraq is but the latest chapter in the mess behind by collapse of Ottoman Mesopotamia in WWI.
In the White House I plan to restore the prosperity, stability and security America last enjoyed in the Eisenhower Era. Wouldn't be hard to do with genuine budgetary and foreign policy restraint.
I rarely respond to posters but Dr Klein has prompted this response.
Whether the US should have entered the world stage as a somewhat imperialistic nation during the 19th Century Spanish American War is an interesting historical question that has little relevance to the 21st security issues. Similarly, while Iraq is the bastard offspring of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire that observation also has a little more than a minor bearing on our current situation.
While the nature of WW1 gave rise to the resentments and political turmoil that created WW2 it hardly means that the German global hegemony that would have emerged had the US remained neutral in WW1 would have been better. Nor does it mean that other actions in the intervening years, like an immediate Anglo/French invasion supported by American naval and air power when Hitler remilitarized the Rhineland in 35 in violation of the Treaty of Versailles, would have failed to prevent the horrors of WW2 and the Iron Curtain that followed.
However, as a Jew I would think that you would be much more sensitive to the historical tautology that evil prospers when good men do nothing. Western appeasement allowed WW 2 to drown the world in a sea of blood, not American involvement in WW1.
The only non-superficial analogy between Vietnam and Iraq is the consequence of defeat. Osama, Zawahiri and the general Jihadist propaganda line, that you are repeating here, all say that America is weak and will run at the sight of blood. These are people willing to kill and die by the millions. They cite American retreat from a rag tag army and guerrilla force in Vietnam as the primary reason the US will abandon the Middle East if they bloody us up a little bit.
As for spending, while Republicans don’t have a lot to brag about in recent years on this issue, the post office Congress of 2007 has shown that we were pikers when it came to rolling out the pork. The Dems have passed 36,000 earmarks this year, and the year isn’t over. Voters abandoned us because of 10,000 earmarks in 2006.
Neither fact nor historical context support the arguments you made above. Few things in history have had worst consequences than have distortions of history for political convenience. We in America need to avoid that folly.
Dr. Klein,
"So called war on terror"?
You have lost me.
Do us all a favor and do not post here anymore. You are a joke.
Maybe join a circus or something... you can be president of that.
Post a Comment