Bob Owens emails that the surge strategy is now officially underway in Iraq—even as opportunistic Senators weigh whether or not to undercut any actual attempt to stabilize the security situation by voting for a non-binding resolution meant to express, ostentatiously, their unhappiness with a war they seem to think can’t be won…because of our inability to stabilize the security situation.
For more on the surge, see Mudville Gazette, or listen to Michael Yon on “The Glenn and Helen Show.” For more on craven political opportunism, pick up a rock and throw it.
Your chances of hitting someone who fits the bill are roughly 2-to-1.
I’ve tried three or four times to figure out a way to express my displeasure with the majority of our elected representatives. I still can’t think of a nice, compact way to say it.
sub-zero winter
wind blows from here to D.C
may they choke and die
2:1??? Hardly. I spent part of this AM in warm, sunny, nearly waterfront* (see blathering @ the latest IPCC report) D.C.
I’d say my chances were creeping near 100/100 (of course, if I threw the rock straight up…)
J
* of course, it could be, depending on the season
“…but I had ‘paper’…”
We don’t need a surge, we just need to stop Robert Goulet from sneaking into Iraq and moving around the Army’s stuff.
Not that it means jack, but the “official” start of the surge has yet to be announced by al-Maliki, despite what I’ve been told, despite the movement of three Iraqi divisions in Baghdad, etc.
Keep in mind the U.S. wasn’t officially at war at 8:00 AM on December 7, 1941, either.
a combined op did pop a Medhi Army leader last night… not part of any surge, I’m sure.
Robert Goulet stole al-Maliki’s surge annoucement speech.
The Resolution seems to be at least a good statement of self-fulfilling, self-willed Defeatism, otherwise known as Malignant Fatalism, or “It would have been better if I was never born. Vote for me.”
I think this “non-binding” resolution is a craven attempt by our representatives to appear relevant when it is clear that the administration always disregards them. It’s also a waste of time; don’t they have better things to do?
Something to think about:
(1) The Baby Boom generation (those born roughly 1946-1960) is at the zenith of its power, since power and influence in so-called “white collar” correlates positively with age and experience, and most of the previous generations have retired or died.
(2) Modern leftist thought has its genesis with this generation. While the ideas of the modern left predate the 60s, their widespread acceptance into American culture did not begin until the ‘Boomers embraced such beliefs in college. Although many ‘Boomers never embraced the ideas of the radical Left and others abandoned these beliefs as they grew older, many ‘Boomers still retain the same basic leftist views they held in the 60s, even if these views have moderated somewhat.
(3)Consequently, it should come as no surprise that America’s academic and cultural institutions lean strongly to the left, and that cultural templates from 40 years ago still hold such sway. To far too many leaders of our institutions, Iraq is Vietnam, the U.S. is an evil cultural hegemon (or at the very least, no better or worse than its opponents), Socialism is a viable and much more egalitarian economic system, and Marxist notions of class struggle between oppressed and oppressor are an appropriate lens through which to view race, gender and labor relations.
(4)As they retire, the influence of the left-leaning ‘Boomers will change. Although they will no longer be “in charge” of many American institutions, it will take decades for the stamp of their influence to fade. Furthermore, their situation post-retirement will be very similar to their college days: lots of free time and someone else paying the bills. Left-leaning organizations may well see an increase in wealthy, elderly activists who want to do something “meaningful” with their lives before they die. We may well see an attempt at recreating the late 60s/early 70s by people who are themselves in their late 60s/early 70s.
(5)For this reason, the struggle to frame both domestic issues (health care, etc.) and foreign policy (the War on Islamofascism) in more modern and accurate terms takes on a new urgency. American can ill-afford a retread of the late-60s/early-70s and the consequent revival of long-discredited ideas from that period. It is imperative that those of capitalist, pro-individualist, pro-responsibility Right frame their ideas in such a way as to appeal to younger generations, so as to win lifelong converts who may themselves someday grow into positions of power and influence within America’s cultural and academic institutions. It cannot do this through social conservatism alone, but must create a broad-based platform of new and innovative ideas that emphasize both the power and responsibility of the individual, the goodness of American history and society, and the many, many failures of the Left. If the Right allows itself to be dominated by social conservatism to the exclusion of competing ideologies, or allows the Left to frame the ideas of the Right in such terms, it will spend another 40 years in the wilderness.
You lost me at #5. I’m still working on the details, but I’m thinking an approach involving Viagra and Polonium might be much more effective.
Especially the Polonium part. Although KCl is far cheaper, it requries an IV delivery path.
Of course they do Cynn, but you wouldn’t like it much if they got around to them.
I think that blocking a non-binding resolution is just as stupid, pointless, and worthless. Really, shouldn’t the President’s supporters just let a meaningless resolution go forward and save their energy for something more… meaningful? The outrage is going to be hard to maintain in the long haul if there’s going to be a pseudo-filibuster each time a Democrat wants to symbolically make some stand on some very important issue that nevertheless requires no actual governmental action.
And don’t worry, Neocons! Osama probably doesn’t even watch C-SpanII, since he gets far more puff on C-Span Books.
Sure, unless you think the troops’ morale is, you know, important.
If you think the troops are stupid enough to believe that the country is 100% behind the mission if the President’s supporters can stop this idiocy, then I guess this is important. But I think the troops know that the country isn’t solid on the war, so they can handle the truth.
“Morale of the troops” is like spending money “for the children”: a lazy way to try to put political enemies at bay. I hope the troops have good morale if the mission is going well, is going to the toilet, is supported, isn’t supported, has a clear future, lacks any assurances at all, and in every other instance I can think of.
If a non-binding resolution is all that stands between our excellent professional military and a bunch of pouting, underwear-clad children up in a tree because they aren’t proud of the team, then by all means stop the horrifying thing’s progress. But if you think the military is largely made up of adults who understand democracy and freedom, you probably won’t care if the idiotic thing passes, fails, or gets argued for the next ten weeks.