XDA

First the left said that the change of tactics in Iraq (called the surge because troop escalation evoked too many bad memories from Viet Nam) was a failure because American casualties had not fallen. They've fallen--not to zero, more's the pity, but a lot. They the left said the surge had failed because violence against and among Iraqis had not been reduced. Violence between Iraqis has been reduced by 80% in Baghdad and to near zero in other places, like Fallujah and the rest of Al Anbar. Then the left said that the surge had failed because the Iraqi legislature had not passed enough legislation to 'reconcile' the nation and share the wealth. The Iraqi legislature recently passed a lot of needed legislation and made even more progress just short of actual agreement regarding the sharing of their ever increasing oil revenues. With all that progress, it was very difficult to see how the left could continue to say the surge had failed. I underestimated them. Michael Kinsley, who only thinks he's a bright bulb in the Democrat sign, has found a way. Here's his argument in a sentence: The surge has failed because 7 months after full deployment of the 30,000 extra troops, they're still there.

You probably think I'm kidding. No, really. Enjoy his column which would fit right in with the parodies in the Onion.

My favorite part:

It is now widely considered beyond dispute that Bush has won his gamble.
The surge is a terrific success. Choose your metric: attacks on American soldiers, car bombs, civilian deaths, potholes. They're all down, down, down. Lattes sold by street vendors are up. Performances of Shakespeare by local repertory companies have tripled. Skepticism seems like sour grapes. If you opposed the surge, you have two choices. One is to admit that you were wrong, wrong, wrong. The other is to sound as if you resent all the good news and remain eager for disaster. Too many opponents of the war have chosen option No.2.

Potholes, lattes and Shakespeare, Michael? Bitter any? Clearly Mr. Kinsley has himself chosen option No. 2.

Here's a telling metric for Kinsley and his ilk:

The proper comparison isn't to the situation a year ago. It's to the situation before we got there. Imagine that you had been told in 2003 that when George W. Bush finished his second term, dozens of American soldiers and hundreds of Iraqis would be dying violently every month ...

I hate to break this to you, Mike, but hundreds of Iraqis were dying violently every month before we got there, in fact, many more than that. It was not the kite flying paradise under Saddam you lefties seem to think it was. It is difficult to get accurate figures on how many people Saddam Hussein murdered or even on the number of dead Iraqi soldiers his great military leadership caused. Some Iraqis claim that a million were murdered over the quarter century he ruled. Most 'human rights' groups put it between 500,000 and 600,000--it's certainly 600,000 if you include the Kurds and Shia who treated him as ousted after Gulf War I. The butcher's bill for the 8 year war he started against Iran was probably 700,000. Some say a full million. The Iraqis admit to only a few hundred thousand. I'll stick with the probable. And his invasion of Kuwait ultimately cost his people 100,000 dead once the senior George Bush's coalition got busy. Let's see: 500,000 plus 700,000 plus 100,000 equals 1 million 300,000. Divide that by the number of months (285) he was 'in office' and the average violent deaths were about 4,500 per month. Not the hundreds per month now (which is still much less than our murder rate here in the states) but thousands per month--month after month after month, year after year, decade after decade.

Is it possible that Mr. Kinsley doesn't know this? Could he be that ignorant? Nah, I don't think he's that ignorant, he's just that intellectually dishonest.

I liked Michael Kinsley on Crossfire a few decades ago and I hope he recovers from his Parkinsons and he has a long and happy life and better success than he had during his short, troubled tenure at the dying LA Times. But I'm not sure I'm ever going to read him again. Well, maybe for a laugh.

Labels: Democrat Defeatism, Michael Kinsley

Here is the video I can't embed.

Here's the crux of his argument:

And let me be clear, the violence in Anbar has
gone down despite the surge, not because of
the surge. The inability of American soldiers to
protect these tribes from al Qaeda said to these
tribes we have to fight al Qaeda ourselves. It
wasn't that the surge brought peace here.
It was that the warlords took peace here,
created a temporary peace here. And that
is because there was noone else there
protecting.

Here's a 'to the quick' translation: Our lying, worthless troops have taken credit for wiping out al Qaeda in Iraq in al Anbar province when it was the tribes who did it and they did it only because we were too incompetent to do it.

But don't question Schumer's patriotism or his support of the troops.

*Asshole

Labels: Democrat Defeatism

Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC), a Majority Whip, made some statements yesterday that perhaps he regrets in the cold light of morning. As reported in the Washington Post, Clyburn said, "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." Clyburn also said that positive news from Iraq would be a real big problem for us. The 'us' in the previous statement was the Democrats.

So let's review: Good news of success of our military forces in Iraq is a real big problem for the Democrats.

Can I question their patriotism now?

Labels: Democrat Defeatism

Surrender.

No matter how they phrase it, that's what the Democrats, who want to "bring our guys home" without regard to our enemies' ability and willingness to fight, are willing, perhaps eager, to accomplish.

And their leadership is proposing just that--both in the House and Senate.

Just because you refuse to fight, it doesn't mean the war is over. You end the war by making the other guys unwilling or unable to fight.

Labels: Democrat Defeatism