What If We Win?

[Richpo64]

What If We Win?
By Cal Thomas
Thursday, August 2, 2007

Most Democrats seem so invested in defeat in Iraq that they apparently have no "Plan B," which would be success.

Like the character Billy Bigelow in the musical "Carousel," who is dumbstruck when he realizes he has not thought about the possibility that his pregnant wife might actually deliver a girl, instead of the son he wants, Democrats appear unable to conceive of victory, or at least stability in Iraq.

So cynical have our politics become that a spokesman for Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Democratic leaders are "not willing to concede there are positive things to point to" in Iraq. And House Majority Whip James E. Clyburn said that a favorable report from Gen. Petraeus could lead 47 moderate to conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats to oppose a withdrawal timetable, making it virtually impossible for the liberal leadership to pass withdrawal legislation. "(It would be) a real problem for us," said Clyburn.

Is that what the Iraq war has become? Instead of viewing it as a generational war that will determine the future of civilization (because, if we lose, Iraq will become a launching pad for terrorist acts around the world and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis would surely die), is it now just another tool in the Democrat's quest for the White House? Where are the statesmen who put their country and its interests before personal and political interests? Was Harry Truman right when he observed, "A statesman is a politician who has been dead for 10 or 15 years"? Aren't we Americans before we are Republicans or Democrats? And don't we all lose if one political "side" wins and it costs others their freedom and puts America in greater peril?

Much of Washington is buzzing over a recent New York Times column by two scholars from the Brookings Institution, Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack. In addition to their association with a left-of-center think tank, the two have credibility because they have been harsh critics of the way President Bush has directed the war.

Their column, which was titled "A War We Just Might Win," expresses something we haven't heard in several years: optimism. "We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms," they write. This surprised them and they saw "the potential to produce not necessarily ?victory,' but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with."

Testifying last week before the House Armed Services Committee, U.S. Army General John M. Keane said Gen. Petraeus' new offensive has turned the tide against al-Qaida and insurgents alike. "We are on the offensive and have the momentum," said Gen. Keane, citing improved security throughout Baghdad, reduced sectarian violence, and al-Qaida losing ground in Sunni areas.

This is bad news for Democrats; so invested are they in defeat. What would they do; what could they do should pacification, if not unification, set in? It would not be beyond them to ignore the positives and focus only on the negatives. Will the mainstream media support them in such a strategy? Some might, but the "alternative" media, including talk radio, cable TV and the Internet, won't let them get away with it. Democrats may be reduced to asking if the public is going to believe them or their "lying eyes."

On "NBC Nightly News" last week, anchor Brian Williams ignored the column by O'Hanlon and Pollack and instead focused on "a draft U.S. report," saying "there are disturbing new details about corruption at the very top of the Iraqi government." ABC's Terry McCarthy apparently didn't receive, or ignored, the Democratic talking points when he said of the O'Hanlon-Pollack column on "World News Tonight," "the report tracks fairly closely with what we're seeing." David Martin on "CBS Evening News" reported on July 31, "With one day left in the month, American casualties in July are the lowest since the troop surge began in February."

NBC News notwithstanding, these somewhat upbeat assessments on CBS, ABC (and in The New York Times) must be unsettling to a lot of Democrats. Even Sen. Hillary Clinton, who flipped on her "favorite" baseball team when it became politically expedient to do so, will have a tough time selling the line, "I believed in victory from the beginning."


Cal Thomas is America's most widely syndicated op-ed columnist and co-author of Blinded by Might.

[sirs]

FAR too many Dems have invested in out defeat.  Tee's even going around claiming a win over Islamofascist terrorists is a defeat to the entire world because of how we supposedly illegally invaded Iraq.  Reid has already proclaimed the war as lost.  I don't see any way the left can stand for a win............which translates into the continued effort to proclaim we've lost, continue to undermine both the morale of the troops & bleed the funding to our forces, and to ignore any and all gains made in Iraq, and to substantially minimize whatever report General Patraeus makes, if it dares to demonstrate any progress. 

I heard of a recent dialog between the House Majority whip and some reporter asking the Dem policitian what would be the ramifications if we won.  The response was something along the lines of "That wouldn't be good".  Pretty much says it all

[gipper]

Approached from an honest intellectual perspective, this problem is a conundrum. On the one hand, you have diehards arguably invested more in "victory" than vision for the future, and on the other, you have skeptics seemingly undercutting a nation at war. But, as I say, that is the nature of this problem. People can approach it in good faith yet end up blood-smeared or craven, as the case may be, despite their best efforts. That does not, however, excuse any responsible party from engaging in the struggle until the last bit of sanity, prudence and wisdom, if any, can be squeezed from these grapes.

[sirs]

Approached from an honest intellectual perspective, this problem is a conundrum. On the one hand, you have diehards arguably invested more in "victory" than vision for the future,

With all due respect Domer, "victory" is pretty clear cut in this matter, from pretty much anyone who's been supportive of our efforts.  Victory is the Iraqi people and their democratically elected Government taking care of themselves, and defending themselves from enemies both foreign & domestic, without our overt assistance in the matter.  That victory gets closer each day. 

The war on Militant Islam is the one you may be trying to reference with your "vision of the future".  And that vision should include any and all efforts to take out the threat of militant Islam.  You would disagree?  A good many Muslims don't support the radicalization of their religion, and the killing of innocents in the name of Allah.  At least not rationally minded Muslims.

and on the other, you have skeptics seemingly undercutting a nation at war.

Now, that's an understatement

But, as I say, that is the nature of this problem. People can approach it in good faith yet end up blood-smeared or craven, as the case may be, despite their best efforts. That does not, however, excuse any responsible party from engaging in the struggle until the last bit of sanity, prudence and wisdom, if any, can be squeezed from these grapes.

They "can", but most chose not to.  Most chose the asanine false premise that Bush lied us into war, that this is all about oil, yada, blah, etc.  Then perpetuate commentary and "conclusions" based on that pre-disposed mindset   

[_JS]

Cal Thomas.

Was Hans Fritzsche unavailable?

[BT]

Was Hans Fritzsche unavailable?

More Nazi references?

How disappointing!

[_JS]

Was Hans Fritzsche unavailable?

More Nazi references?

How disappointing!

But in this case I absolutely mean it.

Cal Thomas has been published in newspapers in the South for years. Unlike Limbaugh, O'Reilley, Hannity, Franken, Rall, etc Thomas is actually taken somewhat seriously by people with a modicum of intelligence. That makes him dangerous, because he lies, distorts, bullies, demonizes, hates, and is an all around ass.

He passes his hogwash out as the Gospel of Cal and a lot of people who should know better buy right into it.

So yeah, Hans Fritzsche must have been unavailable.

Look at the article itself: it makes grandiose statements about being American before we are Republicans or Democrats blah blah blah, but it is basically an article attacking the Democratic Party.

Perhaps I was being harsh on Fritzsche.

[BT]

Look at the article itself: it makes grandiose statements about being American before we are Republicans or Democrats blah blah blah, but it is basically an article attacking the Democratic Party.

Correct me if i am wrong but doesn't Thomas write independently of  the government, which was not the case with Fritzsche.

Your analogy is flawed.

[Christians4LessGvt]

What If We Win?

it would be bad for democrats if america wins

[sirs]

Look at the article itself: it makes grandiose statements about being American before we are Republicans or Democrats blah blah blah, but it is basically an article attacking the Democratic Party.

Ummm, could that be because it's the Democrat party fighting tooth and nail to lose this war, by way of rhetoric that minimizing any and all gains made, the 24/7 demeaning of the President and most of our actions in Iraq, demoralizing our troops by proclaiming how "the war is lost", minus their consitutional ability to defund it IF they believe its so wrong & lost, and not what the American people want??  Of course it's "attacking Dems", since they're the ones so invested in our losing.  At least most of them it seems

[Lanya]

<<What If We Win?

it would be bad for democrats if america wins>>

Source?

[sirs]

<<What If We Win?  it would be bad for democrats if america wins>>

Source?

I already referenced that Lanya (minus the link, since I simply heard about it on the radio).  It was the Democrat Majority whip, when asked the question about what if America wins.  His response was along the lines "It would be bad for us" (us as in Democrats)

[Richpo64]

>>But in this case I absolutely mean it.<<

Which nullifies anything you have to say.

[Christians4LessGvt]

Lanya: it would be bad for democrats if america wins>>Source?

Demorcat House Majority Whip James Clyburn said Monday that a strongly positive report on progress on Iraq by Army Gen. David Petraeus likely would split Democrats in the House and impede his party's efforts to press for a timetable to end the war.

source - Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/30/AR2007073001380.html

[Plane]

It isn't the winning that would be so bad , it's anticipateing so much gloating.