Surrender Is As Surrender Does
Surrender enthusiasts may finally be surrendering. Dem candidates say getting out of Iraq may take years:
John Edwards, the former North Carolina senator, would keep troops in the region to intervene in an Iraqi genocide and be prepared for military action if violence spills into other countries. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York would leave residual forces to fight terrorism and to stabilize the Kurdish region in the north. And Senator Barack Obama of Illinois would leave a military presence of as-yet unspecified size in Iraq to provide security for American personnel, fight terrorism and train Iraqis.
This think piece from the NYT would appear to be part of the growing campaign to get on the right side of this war and support a Democratic congressional surrender in September. They have finally figured out they can’t pull the rug out from under the troops in the field, particularly when they are winning. Now, they need to make it look like it was their idea. They being the candidates, NYT, etc. There isn’t much time:
These positions and those of some rivals suggest that the Democratic bumper-sticker message of a quick end to the conflict — however much it appeals to primary voters — oversimplifies the problems likely to be inherited by the next commander in chief.
No kidding! But then there’s this weird sentence:
Antiwar advocates have raised little challenge to such positions by Democrats.
NYT, meet Cindy Sheehan. Also, these uninhibited old bats. This really is a fascinating article. Let’s keep reading:
Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico stands apart, having suggested that he would even leave some military equipment behind to expedite the troop withdrawal. In a forum at a gathering of bloggers last week, he declared: “I have a one-point plan to get out of Iraq: Get out! Get out!”
Ha! I love it when they parody themselves! Sounds a lot like the NYT plan. Not that far removed from the Obama plan, now that I think of it. But this is getting really interesting. Look at this:
In political terms, their strategies are a balancing act. In her public appearances, Mrs. Clinton often says, “If this president does not end this war before he leaves office, when I am president, I will.” But she has affirmed in recent months remarks she made to The New York Times in March, when she said that there were “remaining vital national security interests in Iraq” that would require a continuing deployment of American troops. The United States’ security, she said then, would be undermined if part of Iraq turned into a failed state” that serves as a Petri dish for insurgents and Al Qaeda.”
She’s the frontrunner. Polling much better than Congress is at present. But primary candidates typically play to their extremes, and the extremes have been baring their boobs in anger and heckling Hillary. But if your average congressman has highly tuned political senses, your average presidential candidate has a staff and pollsters devoted to same. And I’d suggest they are beginning to sense that withdrawal at all costs, the congressional plan, is not going to survive September. The talk about withdrawal is being replaced by practical concerns, which give everyone an out and ultimately, give them the opportunity to side with the generals. By “they,” of course I mean the presidential candidates, a few of the smarter congressmen, and not least the NYT.
A couple more good graphs:
“Of course we would like to get them out right now. That sounds wonderful,” said Sue Dinsdale, who leads the Iowa chapter of Americans Against Escalation in Iraq and has seen nearly all of the Democratic candidates. “I don’t think that people realize what their specific plans are and what they are saying about it, but just that they are working to end the war.”
That may be because they don’t actually have plans. None that are worth a damn, anyway. That has never been an obstacle to the anti-war crowd. What may be changing is that, in a shift from outrage at their ineffectual mandated majority congress, they’re willing to be satisfied lip service. Here’s another signal from NYT, the actual reporters and editors as opposed to the editorial board, that they may fear what they have wrought:
… they (candidates) all discuss a mix of vigorous diplomacy in the region, intensified pressure on the Iraqi government and a phased withdrawal of troops to begin as soon as possible. But their statements in campaign settings are often silent on the problems of how to disengage and what tradeoffs might be necessary.
Welcome Opinion Journal, Instapundit, Mudville, et al. It’s Monday, fraught with perils. You may want to pull up for a minute, get your bearings. Whatever you do, don’t go the wrong way. Stop and read the IMs. Never forget that America is a great country. So why do schmucks like this want to kick the crap out her? Gotta hurt when even your own pet turncoat turns on you. Some people don’t know how good they have it. But these Filipino prison inmates do. Meanwhile, some required reading, cousin Danielle’s wicked literary innovation, “The President’s Secret IMs.”
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 9:09 pm on Saturday, August 11, 2007
10 Responses to “Surrender Is As Surrender Does”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
August 11th, 2007 at 10:08 pm
he would even leave some military equipment behind to expedite the troop withdrawal
Dumbass. We’re going to leave a huge amount of stuff behind for the IA and IP’s under any circumstances.
August 11th, 2007 at 10:25 pm
Not to put too fine a point on it, but I’ve been reading this in the wind for 2 months now. There are some acerbic and accusatory conferences going on at various Dem legislators’ summer retreats right now. New scripting is being defined, written, discarded, rewritten, redefined, refined, and polished.
The turnaround when congress reconvenes is going to be dramatic, and not just about Iraq. It’s finally occurring to Pelosi, Reid, the presidential hopefuls - all and sundry - that Bush is a lame duck and there’s little to be gained going after him directly and much to lose.
In some ways, the worst thing that could have happened to the Dem hope to take the White House in 2008 was winning such a slim majority in 2006. They’d have been better off carping from the minority and insulated from the looney left holding them responsible for any consequences.
August 11th, 2007 at 10:26 pm
Heads must be exploding among the Kos Brigades. How else to explain that sulfur smell?
As for the boob-baring bats, my only response to them would be: Good God, women! Have some dignity.
August 11th, 2007 at 10:49 pm
Now, they need to make it look like it was their idea.
But of course. Spin doctoring this is their only real hope of surviving as a party, and as individuals. But the same techniques that saved Ted “I can swim!” Kennedy (and even helped him prosper) will work nicely here, especially as their target audience tends towards tunnel vision anyway.
August 11th, 2007 at 10:51 pm
And before I forget……
I’m expecting that one of those exploding heads belongs to the THE ALPHTARD™. After all, He was counting on the Dhimmicrats to save His jihadi brethern. Alas, that appears not to be the case.
August 12th, 2007 at 1:47 am
I know it’s politics, but I wish like hell that these people would get serious and actually see the damage they do, as opposed simply bending with the wind. We desperately need some intelligence applied to the problems we face, not just in the Middle East, but here at home. It won’t do us much good to win on the field, if we allow a creeping Shari’a here at home, and the continued radicalization of our own Muslim population by the Saudi’s well-financed Wahhabis. Those problems won’t be taken care of until we finally confront the gross fallacies (and peril) of the collectivist ideology of multiculturalism and political correctness, with all their culture killing off-spring.
If the ant’s head explodes, Jeff, I don’t think the collective will even notice. They are all interchangeable, after all–egalitarianism, and all that.
August 12th, 2007 at 5:44 am
saltydog:
The people you refer to will not comprehend anything any deeper then the bottom of their own bellies, or of any farther reach than their own genitals.
They are damaged goods, incapable of rational reaction to anything that does not directly feed them or scratch what itches in them.
August 12th, 2007 at 9:21 am
My very thoughts, saltydog. “Spin doctoring this is their only real hope of surviving as a party, and as individuals”, said The_Real_JeffS. I agree here too. But my hope is that the communication revolution will keep WHAT THEY HAVE SAID and where they have not renounced their previous position without an explanation (fat chance) will keep such information in front of the voters and they will be skewered. Any politician who changes his position and does not explain it to his constituents needs to be thrown out of office at the next election, regardless of party. The time for politicians getting away with saying to separate groups what they want to hear, hopefully, are over and the blogosphere is in the forefront of pushing just that as this article demonstrates.
August 12th, 2007 at 11:51 am
The sense of betrayal in Kosland will be a thing of beauty to behold. However, for Giuliani and Thompson, they are the ones who are sitting pretty, imho.
The Times is merely prepping the Democrats for a shift in memes. In the long run, however, the President was smart, as were the Republicans, to hold their nerve.
August 12th, 2007 at 4:43 pm
Web Reconnaissance 08/12/2007
A short recon of whats out there that might draw your attention updated throughout the dayso check back often. This is a weekend edition so updates are as time and family permits.