Yeah, What He Said …
Rep. Todd Arkin, R-MO, is getting whacked by lefty blogs for saying this:
So to say we’re going to support our troops but we’re not going to send them any reinforcements is on the face of it contradictory.
Could you picture Davy Crockett at the Alamo looking at his Blackberry getting a message from Congress? “Davy Crockett, we support you. The only thing is we are not going to send any troops.” I’m sure that would really be impressive to Davy Crockett.
I dunno, makes sense to me. Makes a lot more sense than saying, for example, as House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer did …
If you support the troops, and you want to win this war on terror, then you do not support tactics that don’t work. This is not about Republicans or Democrats winning or losing. This debate is about making sure our country is successful in the war on terror.*
… when you don’t have anything remotely resembling a plan for success in the war on terror. Unless you think talking to Iran and Syria is a good plan, like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi does:
In order to succeed in Iraq, there must be diplomatic and political initiatives. There has been no sustained and effective effort to engage Iraq’s neighbors diplomatically and there has been no sustained and effective effort to engage Iraqi factions politically. … President Bush’s escalation proposal will not make America safer, will not make our military stronger and will not make the region more stable. And it will not have my support.’
Sounds great, until you stop and figure out that the neighbors she’s talking about are primary sponsors of the violence in Iraq and elsewhere, who enjoy killing Americans, and that three elections, a constitution and an active parliamentary government pretty much are a sustained and effective effort to engage (non-terrorist) Iraqi factions politically. And that the surge has nothing to do with making the military stronger … that would be Bush’s proposal to enlarge the military … while she has no proposal to make the region stable at all, at which point you figure out she’s pretty much entirely full of crap.
*not to quibble, but I thought it was a police action on terrorism. Not a “war on turr,” as a certainly chimp-like world leader calls it, or more articulately, “terror,” an emotion one cannot actually make war upon. Come on, people, need to get on board with approved Bush-bash rhetoric!
Topics: Uncategorized, pols
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 1:55 am Comments (9) on Wednesday, February 14, 2007
9 Responses to “Yeah, What He Said …”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
February 14th, 2007 at 2:21 am
But I thought one of the Dhims main talking points was that Bush didn’t send enough troops? So when he takes their advice and sends more troops, they’re unhappy? I’m having a hard keeping up with what they actually want. I know it couldn’t possibly be that they don’t want us to succeed! They are Americans, right?
February 14th, 2007 at 3:08 am
Yeah, What He Said …
Yeah, What He Said … Jules Crittenden Rep. Todd Arkin, R-MO, is getting whacked by lefty blogs for saying this:So to say we’re going to support our troops but we’re not going to send them any reinforcements is on the
February 14th, 2007 at 9:29 am
Nancy Pelosi is full of crap? Who knew?
February 14th, 2007 at 11:21 am
Not to be too much of a pedant, but his last name is spelled, Akin, not Arkin.
February 14th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
Having a plan is HARD!
The Dhimmicrats don’t do hard. Frankly, though, neither do many of our fellow Americans.
February 14th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
Hmm-I tried to put some fake HTML in that last post. It should read:
Having a plan is HARD !
Jules-any chance of adding a preview function?
February 14th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
Rats-just imagine I tried to HTML a whine and /whine in there where it says HARD.
February 14th, 2007 at 11:37 pm
Good luck. I can’t seem to find any sort of FAQ on what are the allowed tags hereabouts. Oh, and “dhimmicrats” is so apt.
February 15th, 2007 at 1:28 am
Sorry guys. total techno-moron. can’t help.