Peggy Noonan blasts today’s pathetic Republican Party. She’s not saying anything new. She just has a way with words, and her essay sums up the problems nicely.
These problems, however, have been apparent for years, and even Peggy has been late to the party. In Kansas in 2006, old Republicans bolted from the party and won seats as Democrats.
The Republicans deserve to get crushed in the fall. If that happens, it will be the best possible result for the party (and the country).
I’ve had MSNBC on all day and I’ve heard virtually nothing about the situation in Iraq, despite the developing story regarding the increase in violence and the battles in Basra.
Of course, they’ve given plenty of air time to Barack Obama’s bowling score and the Monica Lewinsky questions lobbed at Chelsea Clinton.
This story in the Washington Post shows how low we’ve been willing to sink to restore “security” in Iraq. We’ve basically turned Fallujah over to a thug from Saddam’s regime, and he’s happily using Saddam’s tactics to control the city.
Why are our soldiers dying for this?
The reduced death toll from Iraq is a mirage. What price are we paying to reduce the death toll numbers just to convey the impression of improved “security”?
Over the past several days, John McCain has twice repeated a ridiculous statement about al Qaeda in Iraq, saying that Iran (a Shiite nation) was training al Qaeda terrorists (who are Sunnis). This is almost as ridiculous as his recent statements that al Qaeda would take over Iraq if we left, as if the majority Shiites would ever let that happen.
Now we know what we’ll hear from those like John McCain who support open-ended war. They will argue that leaving Iraq is surrender. That we are emboldening the enemy. These are the mistaken and misleading arguments we hear from those who have failed to demonstrate how the war in Iraq has made us safer. Just yesterday, we heard Senator McCain confuse Sunni and Shiite, Iran and al Qaeda. Maybe that is why he voted to go to war with a country that had no al Qaeda ties. Maybe that is why he completely fails to understand that the war in Iraq has done more to embolden America’s enemies than any strategic choice that we have made in decades.
Murtha’s endorsement is a huge win for Hillary in Pennsylvania. She already has a big lead in the state, and this will help even more. He also helps her with the Iraq War issue as well.
On the other hand, Murtha is known as one of the biggest earmark spenders in Congress. He knows how to play by the old rules and he’s cozy with the lobbyists. I’m sure Obama’s reform agenda does not sit too well with him.
“And my friends, if we left, they (al-Qaida) wouldn’t be establishing a base,” McCain said Wednesday. “They’d be taking a country, and I’m not going to allow that to happen, my friends. I will not surrender. I will not surrender to al-Qaida.”
They’d be taking a country? Last time I checked, Iraq has a Shi’ite majority. McCain thinks the Shi’ites–the Mahdi Army, the Badr Corps (and yes, the Iranians)–would allow a small group of Sunni extremists to take over? In fact, as noted above, the vast majority of indigenous Iraqi Sunnis aren’t too thrilled about the AQI presence in their country, either. (The usual caveats apply: AQI is barbaric, dastardly and intent on violating the Qu’ran by engaging in the annihilation of innocents. We can’t get rid of them fast enough.)
Joe Klein deserves credit for addressing this point, and hopefully the Obama campaign is paying attention. Bush and McCain have been justifying the continued presence in Iraq by playing the Al Qaida card, but Klein points out the obvious. They will never “take over” Iraq.
One of the most compelling arguments against the Iraq War at the time was that it would divert our efforts in Afghanistan and against Al Qaida, the ones who actually attacked us.
In the debate on Thursday, Obama made this point in response to Hillary’s ridiculous claim that only she is ready on day one to be commander-in-chief. He pointed out that she voted for the Iraq War, and that the war had disastrous consequences.
One of those consequences was a diversion from the war in Afghanistan. Obama cited a situation involving an Army camptain in Afghanistan.
“You know, I’ve heard from an Army captain who was the head of a rifle platoon — supposed to have 39 men in a rifle platoon,” he said. “Ended up being sent to Afghanistan with 24 because 15 of those soldiers had been sent to Iraq. And as a consequence, they didn’t have enough ammunition, they didn’t have enough humvees. They were actually capturing Taliban weapons, because it was easier to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current commander in chief.”
Just another set of facts demonstrating the stupidity of this war and the incompetence of the Bush administration. Hillary supported this policy, and she can’t spin that fact.
With President George W. Bush, we had a president who made sweeping promises about the importance of fostering democracy around the world, to the point that many of his speeches reminded listeners to the utopian goals of Woodrow Wilson. Unfortunately, Bush and his advisors had no clue about the challenges facing those trying to bring democracy to places like the Middle East. Just as in Iraq, lofty goals were not backed up with preparation or hard work. Instead we had utter incompetence.
Joe Klein reports the following from the U.S,-Islamic World Forum in Doha:
The distress was deeper than exhaustion. Many of the Muslim delegates seemed stunned, finally, by the rush of history unleashed by the Bush Administration. “Everything the United States has favored is now radioactive, especially democracy,” said Rami Khouri, a Lebanese journalist. The Administration had pushed for elections in places like the Palestinian territories where the essential components of democracy—a free press, a free economy, the rule of law—did not exist. Religious parties had won, or gained momentum, in most of these elections, and the U.S. had backtracked, refusing to accept the Hamas victory in the Palestinian territories, re-embracing autocrats like Hosni Mubarak in Egypt. “Our indigenous democratic reformers,” Khouri said, “are in retreat across the region.”
This isn’t about conservative or liberal foreign policy. It’s about common sense. Conservatives like George Will and Pat Buchanan saw the folly of Bush’s policies, as did liberals like Ted Kennedy. The greatest tragedy is that real efforts to bring democracy to the world have been set back by this administrations incompetence.
Jim Webb is exploring all options to prevent the Bush administration from making any long-term military arrangements with Iraq without congressional approval.
This is the “government” we are protecting in Iraq. It’s simplistic and misleading to argue that just because violence between the different ethnic and religious groups has declined we are somehow improving the situation in Iraq.
The images in the Basra police file are nauseating: Page after page of women killed in brutal fashion — some strangled to death, their faces disfigured; others beheaded. All bear signs of torture.
Police chief Gen. Abdul Jalil Khalaf holds a book cataloging the dead.
1 of 3 The women are killed, police say, because they failed to wear a headscarf or because they ignored other “rules” that secretive fundamentalist groups want to enforce.
“Fear, fear is always there,” says 30-year-old Safana, an artist and university professor. “We don’t know who to be afraid of. Maybe it’s a friend or a student you teach. There is no break, no security. I don’t know who to be afraid of.”
Her fear is justified. Iraq’s second-largest city, Basra, is a stronghold of conservative Shia groups. As many as 133 women were killed in Basra last year — 79 for violation of “Islamic teachings” and 47 for so-called honor killings, according to IRIN, the news branch of the U.N.’s Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.
We have created a situation where religious extremists on both sides, Shia and Sunni, can impose their brutal rule over women and other Iraqis. It’s a disgrace.
Lincoln Chafee, former Republican Senator from Rhode Island, discusses the vote t authorize the Iraq War in his new book:
“I find it surprising now, in 2008, how many Democrats are running for president after shirking their constitutional duty to check and balance this president,” writes Chafee…
“They argue that the president duped them into war, but getting duped does not exactly recommend their leadership. Helping a rogue president start an unnecessary war should be a career-ending lapse of judgment.”
Exactly. In my view Hillary’s war vote is a deal breaker. The fact that she stuck by that vote for years when it was obvious to everyone that the war was a tragic mistake only compounds her error.
I’m looking forward to seeing Chafee hit the talk shows and explain his disdain for Democrats who supported this war.
As America marks the first anniversary of the troop escalation in Iraq, at least one thing has become clear. Although the “surge” is failing as policy, it seems to be succeeding as propaganda. Even as George W. Bush continues to bump and scrape along the bottom of public approval, significantly more people now believe we are “winning” the war.
We have helped the Sunnis go after Al Qaida, and that’s a good thing, but what happens to the armed Sunni militias? The Iraqi government wants them to eventually disarm, but we know that will not happen.
The religious and tribal conflicts in Iraq will take years, if not decades, to resolve. It’s a fantasy to think we can keep thousands and thousands of soldiers in Iraq until they work this out. Even if they manage to negotiate an agreement, it’s a fantasy to think it could hold without the presence of our Army.
The one that is the most problematic is (John) Edwards, who voted for the Patriot Act, campaigns against it. Voted for No Child Left Behind, campaigns against it. Voted for the China trade deal, campaigns against it. Voted for the Iraq war … He uses my voting record exactly as his platform, even though he had the opposite voting record.
When you had the opportunity to vote a certain way in the Senate and you didn’t, and obviously there are times when you make a mistake, the notion that you sort of vote one way when you’re playing the game in Washington and another way when you’re running for president, there’s some of that going on.
In an incredible appearance on Meet the Press, Hillary Clinton argued that she was not voting for war in 2002 when she voted for the Iraq War resolution but was instead a vote to put inspectors back in so Saddam would not remain unchecked.
This effort to spin her vote for the war is pathetic. Everyone in the country knew George W. Bush was determined to go to war. She was either terribly naive or she’s now being dishonest.
Barack Obama responded quickly today to Clinton’s absurd arguments, saying “[Hillary Clinton] suggested that I didn’t clearly and unambiguously oppose the war in Iraq when it is absolutely clear. And anyone who has followed this knows that I did. I stood up against the war when she was voting for it, at a time when she didn’t read the intelligence reports or give diplomacy a chance.”
The Obama campaign also put out a detailed memo demonstrating that his position was not identical to Hillary’s position after he joined the Senate as Mrs. Clinton claimed. He was arguing for withdrawel and a timetable and Clinton continuously expressed her opposition to setting a timetable for withdrawel.
