Weather Forecast: Liberal Blizzard of Icy Air
The next twenty-four hours will be rich with poltical rhetoric as the screeching liberals scream for an exit strategy or redeployment from Iraq. Leading Democrats have been trying to pre-empt and upstage the President since last week. These hysterical liberals and their allies in the mainstream media will fail to point out that there was never an exit strategy in any of the successful wars of the twentieth century. In fact, the loyal opposition never asked for an exit strategy in World War II. The United States remains in Germany today, more than sixty years after the highly successful conclusion to that war.
My good friend, Kevin Hurley has a well stated comment on this blog worthy of printing in this blog post:
The American Left has been hysterically crying for an “exit plan” since the day we invaded Iraq. (Democrats have been about “cutting and running” since day one) But I have yet to hear one Democrat demand to know how the US plans to win. The truth is the Left does not want us to win. This strange obsession with an “exit plan” shows that Democrats are not serious with their criticism of the way the war has been managed. The final proof is that no democrat has been able to come up with any suggestion for what should be changed in order to win in Iraq. Running away from a difficult situation is a sign of poor character and cowardice.
Tom, please name for me any other war in American History where we went into it with an “exit plan”. The exit plan in every war, including Iraq and the War on Terror, is to kill the bad guys until they give up…and then go home. Do you think that Roosevelt knew how we were going to get out of WWII from Pearl Harbor? How about the Revolution, Washington knew from the beginning that France was going to enter the war at the 11th hour and help us defeat the British?
To answer your question above, No of course not…things have not gone as well as we had hoped for. I’m sure if given the chance the administration might change a few things. But, your question really doesn’t have anything to do with the problem we face today. We have to focus on what is the best for the situation as we find it now. The will be plenty of time to cry over spilled milk and lament that tragedies of war after we have tamed Iraq and are firmly established with our new military bases on Iran’s door step.
you say that a surge won’t help. Ok what then would help us win? Do you contend that Democrats want to WIN in Iraq? Their suggestions for what to do in Iraq (get out; redeploy; wave the white flag) will most assuredly lead to our defeat and a weakening of our position in the Middle East. Not to mention the sectarian violence will be allowed to explode when we leave before the Iraq Police and Army are capable of keeping it suppressed. If Democrats are so worried about the “millions” of Iraqis that have died supposedly due to our intervention in Iraq, shouldn’t they be able to see two feet in front of their redeployment strategy to see the chaos that would be unleashed if we left now with the Iraqi government in its fledgling condition.
Finally, you quoted my line about our new military bases which puts us in a stronger position to deal with Iran. After we finish the job in Iraq and have not only freed it free of tyrannical rule of Saddam, but have also brought it to a place of stability; surely we will not be perceived as occupiers. We will just be the US with new basing rights given to us by the Iraqi Government which will be happy to keep us around to deal with Iran. Do the Japanese consider us occupiers…Hell Murtha wants us to “redeploy” to Okinawa. Do the Germans consider us occupiers or how about the South Koreans? No. And we have been in those countries for 60 and 50 respectively.
God Bless George W. Bush and the United States of America.
Stop the ACLU has details Hot Air reveals that Teddy Kennedy still wants to cut and run now!



With all due respect to Kevin Hurley, his argument is full of looping logic that falls back upon itself. He poses his question “Do Democrats want to win or lose in Iraq?” Clearly in his mind there are only two answers that can apply, but the situation has moved beyond so simple a definition to needing a much more complex answer.
Bill O’Reilly is so fond of screeching (and Kevin has much more intelligently put): “Iraq is a matter of win or lose.” Kevin himself writes, “The truth is the Left does not want us to win.”
Unfortunately, it seems America has become stuck in a very bad situation where neither win nor lose is an option. (Now, don’t try to tell this to Republicans — if you get past their screeching of “So you want to LOSE in Iraq?” — you’ve gotten a lot further than many other people)
What exactly is a “win” according to Republicans? They can spew on and on about what “losing” is, but no one (as far as I’ve seen) is able to clearly define (or even go beyond saying “not cut and run”) their idea of a victory. The “win or lose” argument is set up in such a way that anyone who disagrees with this unclear notion of winning is by association “cut and run” and doesn’t care if American’s power is weakened. According to Republicans, Democrats want to lose.
So what do Democrats want? To do what’s best for the country, I hope (and this just what I hope. It’s not like Nancy from San Fran and I talk all the time or anything). I hope we want to get our troops out, and to leave Iraq as a somewhat stable country. I hope we want to focus on America and be content to not always stick ourselves into situations prematurely.
But because Republicans demand a “way to win” . . .
Tell me what “winning” is in the Republican view, please. Explain it me. Break it down so simply this Iraq situation can be either win or lose. I would hope at some point the Republicans are able to get past all their circle-talk and clearly define what they think “winning” is, and maybe then the Democrats will be able to say “this is how we win” or “this is what we need to do.”
President Bush has repeatedly talked about and explained the meaning of victory in Iraq: A stand alone democracy that is an ally in the global war on terror. The Iraqi people must be safe in ther own country. Iraq should have a stable and functioning society. Iraq can not be a training gound for terrorists.
The defeatocrats have never been for any definition of vicotry in Iraq. They seem to only understand War as is was defined in the 1940’s, and even then they tried to appease Hitler. The Iraqi surrender group did not come up with any real policy options either.
What is the Pelosi/Murtha/Ried plan? Cut and run? Then what happens in Iraq? Are they serious about surrendering the middle east to the terrorists?
The “cirlce talk” defines modern liberlism….complain about everything, but offer no real solutions. President Bush stepped up to the plate last night, and hit one out of the park. At least he has a plan that includes victory. Too bad Pelosi and Reid can’t say the same. They might be on their way to Okinawa for a victory celebration.
With all due respect to Brett, he has said nothing in his comment that address my original comment which was quoted by Thespis in this post. I have looked over my writing several times now and I still have yet to find the “circular logic” that Brett refers to. Often I think the best writing is that which is internally consistent and uses itself for support.
The point of my comments were to try to provoke someone from the left to produce a coherent, thought-completely-through, explanation for how a cut-n-run strategy (i’m sorry redeployment strategy) would make us safer, improve our position in the Middle East, or accomplish any of our goals in the region.
But I as figured, the response I got was from a Liberal who wanted to give me an English lesson.