Wouldn't it be funny if the Sergeant at Arms announced the president with a Sling Blade voice? I think that would be really funny.

Pelosi really looked good tonight, and even though I don't like her, I was touched by the recognition she received.

When Dikembe Mutombo Mpolondo Mukamba Jean Jacque Wamutombo was honored, my boyfriend and I looked at each other and simultaneously exclaimed: "Who wants to sex Mutombo!" It was a very hilarious moment.

In closing, I didn't expect much from President Bush tonight. I was pleasantly surprised. The speech was one of his most enjoyable. I sensed some genuine good feeling in the House, though I know it's only a temporary thing, but I liked it. I also thought he did as good a job of explaining his foreign policy as he's ever done. Of course, as a lame duck, there's no pressure for him to persuade anyone anymore. He either succeeds or he doesn't.

And now that's over, it's time for the biggest tv event of the night: American Idol.

P.S. Oh I forgot to mention Nancy's non-stop blinking towards the end of the speech. What was up with that?

Posted by: annika at 08:49 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 204 words, total size 1 kb.

But, as we all have learned, the trick is not in the capture. It's in resisting the inevitable chorus of idiots demanding that we release the bad guys.

In a major crackdown launched in the past few weeks against the Mahdi Army -- the militia headed by Sadr and now considered the biggest security threat to Iraq by the Pentagon -- more than 600 fighters and 16 militia leaders have been detained, the military said.

"There are currently over 600 illegal Jaish al-Mahdi (JAM) militia in detention awaiting prosecution from the government of Iraq," a statement said.

It said Iraqi and US forces had also detained 16 high-level militiamen and killed one commander in a series of operations against the Mahdi Army, known for its fierce anti-US stance.

"The detainees are responsible for attacks against the government of Iraq, Iraqi citizens and coalition forces," the military said.

Combined Iraqi and US forces have carried out 52 operations in the past 45 days focused on the Mahdi Army as well as 42 operations that targetted Sunni extremists, it said.

The operations against Sunni extremists led to the capture of 33 cell leaders in Baghdad, the statement said, charging that the detainees were mainly involved in facilitating the entry of foreign fighters into Iraq.

The US military has accused the Mahdi Army, which is believed to have up to 60,000 fighters, of being heavily involved in the sectarian killing of Sunni Arabs in Baghdad and other regions of the country.

US and Iraqi forces aim to take down these fighters as part of a Baghdad security plan announced by US President George W. Bush earlier this month to crush the sectarian fighting that killed tens of thousands of people last year.

Posted by: annika at 03:02 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 297 words, total size 2 kb.

I never did trust that guy.

Posted by: annika at 11:56 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 12 words, total size 1 kb.

Hillary sez:

I am going to take this conversation directly to the people of America, and I'm starting by inviting all of you to join me in a series of web chats over the next few days. . . . I need you to be a part of this campaign, and I hope you'll start by joining me in this national conversation.

more...

Posted by: annika at 08:48 PM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 460 words, total size 4 kb.

This was unexpected.

Hillary says, "me too."

Not only does Hillary announce with a video, just like Bronco, she even got the AP writer to include a link to her website, just like Bronco.

Notice that the video shot is not wide enough for you to see the rug? That's because Bronco Bomber pulled it out from under her on Tuesday.

Posted by: annika at 02:25 PM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 71 words, total size 1 kb.

Posted by: annika at 12:21 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 30 words, total size 1 kb.

I find it interesting that so many MSM web stories celebrating Bronco Bomber's formation of an exploratory committee contain a hyperlink to his campaign website. It's interesting because a cursory check of old web stories about other candidates who have formed exploratory committees in the last few months (e.g. Giuliani, Vilsack, Romney, Tancredo) do not contain such thinly disguised endorsements.

But the media is not biased.

Posted by: annika at 04:49 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 72 words, total size 1 kb.

The President has now outlined his new approach for Iraq. Do I think it will work? Really, who cares what I think? I don't care what anybody else thinks. The time for punditry has long passed. This is the time for results. I sense that the President finally understands this.

As I've said before, arguing about whether we should set a timetable for withdrawal is stupid. We already have one, and the deadline is January 20th, 2009. No amount of wishful thinking by war hawks can change the fact that unless there is significant and obvious improvement in Iraq, and soon, the next president of the United States will be elected on a platform of withdrawal.

Therefore, we who long for success should know that this is our last chance to succeed. We have less than two years. Those who oppose us know that this is the endgame for Iraq too. Our foreign enemies will do everything they can to embarrass U.S. forces by creating atrocities or inventing them wherever possible. Our domestic enemies will then do all they can to portray these atrocities as evidence of the failure, futility and immorality of our purpose.

Whether we succeed or not depends very little on what you or I say here at home, given those facts. Our men and women at arms will accomplish everything that is asked of them, as they always have. The question is whether the President and his generals will have the guts to keep fighting when the inevitable criticism hits fever pitch. Based on past experience, I need convincing.

This country is anti-war; our domestic enemies have already won that battle (with the unwitting help, I might add, of Mr. Rumsfeld and the commander-in-chief himself). The President's speech tonight will not magically transform the public's fatigue any more than it can change the Washington press corps into a group of people who love their country. If success is possible at this late hour, Mr. Bush will have to do it without the support of Congress, the media, or the majority of the American people.

But as President Bush explained less than half an hour ago, failure in Iraq would be a disaster. And therefore, I hope he understands above all that now is the time for results.

Technorati: iraq, bush, bush+speech

Posted by: annika at 07:57 PM | Comments (20) | Add Comment
Post contains 391 words, total size 3 kb.

I feel compelled to throw a wet blanket over some of the triumphalism I see in the blogosphere over Saddam Hussein's execution. I don't think it's a cause for Americans to be celebrating. I say this not because I'm ambivalent about the death penalty, but because we did not invade Iraq in order to kill Saddam Hussein.

We invaded Iraq to bring democracy to that part of the world, because doing so will in theory make us safer here at home. Not only have we not yet succeeded in that purpose, but our ultimate success (as well as the very theory our plan is based upon) is very much in doubt right now. No matter how much Saddam may have deserved what he got, I'd just rather save my celebrating for the day our troops return home victorious.

Posted by: annika at 12:53 PM | Comments (40) | Add Comment
Post contains 142 words, total size 1 kb.

Imagine what this nation would be like if the media replaced all their stories about starlets behaving badly with stories about women like Sgt. Kristi J. Artigue.

“I’ve always been a risk taker,” said Artigue, 23, now a medic with the 141st Medical Company [Connecticut Army National Guard].

On Nov. 10, Artigue called upon the skills learned during her six years of National Guard service -- including a recent deployment to Iraq -- to help save the life of a man who may have drowned.

. . .

“Tom,” a middle-aged man, had suffered a seizure and fallen into a section of the West River. Unable to swim, he struggled to remain above the surface with the help of several civilians and two West Haven police officers. The chain was trying to hang on until the local fire department rescue crew could arrive . . .

Then the life-defining event happened.

“He let loose,” said Artigue, “and went under for one or two seconds. Long enough to know he wasn’t going to be coming up again. And he was moving out farther from the shore toward the center of the river.”

At that point, Artigue let her training take over. The nursing student and Iraq War veteran jumped into the freezing water and swam out about ten feet to where Tom was struggling for air.

“It was too cold to talk,” said Artigue, “but I grabbed his vest and tried to keep him above the water. He grabbed a hold of me and started to pull me down with him, but I was able to drag him by his vest to shore.”

. . . On a cold November day, coming out of cold, moving water, communication was difficult, but Artigue was able to keep Tom talking and conscious until emergency crews arrived.

A future trauma nurse, Artigue plans to use her experiences in the Guard and in Iraq to save as many lives as possible.

“Since Iraq,” she said, “I’ve learned to adapt and overcome. I saw what was happening and I had no option but to get involved because of not only my medical training, but also because of my personal responsibility.

“I will always appreciate my military experience. It’s something I would never give up,” said Artigue.

Posted by: annika at 09:06 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 417 words, total size 3 kb.

I'm working through the recommendations now. I've approached the report with an open mind, since it's obvious that the Bush/Rumsfeld plan is not working. However, several descriptive phrases about the Iraq Study Group come to mind as I read. They are as follows:

naïve
not helpful
wishful thinking
too many carrots, no stick

I wish I could say differently. It's almost like a bunch of guys sitting around a table on Saturday night, playing Risk, or Dungeons & Dragons. The panel members imagine a world in which all the players would act rationally if only they talked to each other. With their "New Diplomatic Offensive," they've conjured a mythological universe that sounds nice, but doesn't actually exist.

The Iraq Study Group's major error was their assumption that parties with a strong negotiation position will trade away strength for promises by a weaker adversary. The kind of negotiation that the ISG envisions could only work if the parties shared mutual interests and goals, which is absolutely not the case in Iraq or in the broader Middle East.

The best example of the ISG's naïveté involves Iran:

Our limited contacts with IranÂ’s government lead us to believe that its leaders are likely to say they will not participate in diplomatic efforts to support stability in Iraq. They attribute this reluctance to their belief that the United States seeks regime change in Iran.

Nevertheless, as one of IraqÂ’s neighbors Iran should be asked to assume its responsibility to participate in the Support Group. An Iranian refusal to do so would demonstrate to Iraq and the rest of the world IranÂ’s rejectionist attitude and approach, which could lead to its isolation. Further, IranÂ’s refusal to cooperate on this matter would diminish its prospects of engaging with the United States in the broader dialogue it seeks.

And how does the Iraq Study Group suggest that we persuade Iran to do us that big favor, which the ISG admits they are unlikely to want to do? The report is short on suggestions. But the panelists have no trouble coming up with nice things that Iran can do for us, assuming they can be magically persuaded to ignore their strong negotiating position and act against their own interest.

• Iran should stem the flow of equipment, technology, and training to any group resorting to violence in Iraq.

• Iran should make clear its support for the territorial integrity of Iraq as a unified state, as well as its respect for the sovereignty of Iraq and its government.

• Iran can use its influence, especially over Shia groups in Iraq, to encourage national reconciliation.

• Iran can also, in the right circumstances, help in the economic reconstruction of Iraq.

And of course, my criticism doesn't even reach the fact that Iranian interests are also motivated by a dangerous religious fanaticism that makes their cooperation with the West even more unlikely.

I've seen many objections to the Iraq Study Group's report from several other critics. I can't address that commentary, since I haven't read the whole report. But if the rest of the ISG's recommendations are as unwise as their "New Diplomatic Offensive," and their failure to understand the Iranian problem, I think the panel might have done more harm than good.

Update: And in the "he said what I said, only better..." department, here's a must read digest of the ISG report, by Robert Tracinski. An excerpt:

We should negotiate with Iran and Syria to convince them to help stabilize Iraq, but then James Baker angrily denies that this would mean caving in and allowing Iran to continue its nuclear weapons program, and he angrily denies that it would mean caving in and allowing Syria to re-conquer Lebanon. In other words, he wants to ask Iran and Syria to help us in Iraq--while ruling out the only concessions that might induce them to do so. At the same time, the ISG also rules out any serious military threat that would force Iran and Syria to abandon their current strategy.

This is the pattern of the whole report: to stipulate the achievement of a result, while denying the actual means that might achieve that result.

When you desire a result without enacting the means for achieving it, that's called a "fantasy"which is ironic, considering that James Baker is a dean of the "realist" school of foreign policy.

h/t Chris Roach.

Technorati tag: iraq study group

Posted by: annika at 08:50 PM | Comments (29) | Add Comment
Post contains 897 words, total size 6 kb.

John Bolton was one of the best UN Ambassadors we've had. But a minority of Senators decided he was too tough for the job. So he's out.

Apparently, being tough is not an asset for a UN Ambassador. I might have thought otherwise, but we live in a different era now. John Bolton would have fit in better during some earlier time in our nation's history when standing up for his country's interests was something we wanted our ambassadors to do.

No longer. The key requirement for a UN Ambassador these days is likeability. He or she should be well thought of by the international diplomatic corps. And to be well thought of, one needs to make concessions. Well known anti-American Kofi Annan said so himself:

"I think Ambassador Bolton did the job he was expected to do," Annan said, before launching on a discourse about how important it is for ambassadors to "understand that to get concessions, they have to make concessions."

The question now is, with the above requirements in mind, who should replace Bolton?

The White House gave no immediate signs of its plans for a successor, but people who have been mentioned both inside and outside the administration as possible successors include the American ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad; Philip Zelikow, the State Department counselor; Paula Dobriansky, under secretary of state for democracy and global affairs; and [Senator Lincoln] Chafee.

I have been known to favor celebrities for positions at the UN. Since celebrities have been in the vanguard on the issue of U.S. global likeability, what could be more obvious than that we need a celebrity at the UN Ambassadorship? Almost without exception, celebrities possess the requisite qualities of low intelligence and a desperate desire to be well thought of.

Therefore, I suggest Cameron Diaz and Justin Timberlake as co-ambassadors to the United Nations. The fact that Justin was once in a boy band should be a big advantage in dealing with the hyper-sensitive international diplomatic corps. What could be less threatening than a boy band member? Plus JT is about as dumb as half a stump, so if you team him up with Cameron Diaz, you get an intellectual total that equals about... half a stump. They would make perfect ambassadors under the newer, friendlier, criteria.

Posted by: annika at 04:35 PM | Comments (22) | Add Comment
Post contains 502 words, total size 3 kb.

#1 The most ethical Congress in history.
#2 The draft.

and now

#3 Implementing every single one of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations.

From the Washington Post:

It was a solemn pledge, repeated by Democratic leaders and candidates over and over: If elected to the majority in Congress, Democrats would implement all of the recommendations of the bipartisan commission that examined the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

But with control of Congress now secured, Democratic leaders have decided for now against implementing the one measure that would affect them most directly: a wholesale reorganization of Congress to improve oversight and funding of the nation's intelligence agencies. . . .

. . .

"I don't think that suggestion is going anywhere," said Rep. C.W. Bill Young (R-Fla.), the chairman of the Appropriations defense subcommittee and a close ally of the incoming subcommittee chairman, Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.). "That is not going to be their party position."

It may seem like a minor matter, but members of the commission say Congress's failure to change itself is anything but inconsequential. In 2004, the commission urged Congress to grant the House and Senate intelligence committees the power not only to oversee the nation's intelligence agencies but also to fund them and shape intelligence policy. The intelligence committees' gains would come at the expense of the armed services committees and the appropriations panels' defense subcommittees. Powerful lawmakers on those panels would have to give up prized legislative turf.

. . .

Now Democrats are balking, just as Republicans did before them.

The decision will almost certainly anger commission members, as well as families of victims of the Sept. 11 attacks, many of whom have pressed hard for implementation of the recommendations.

"The Democrats pledged to implement all the remaining 9/11 reforms, not some of them," said former representative Timothy J. Roemer (D-Ind.), who served on the commission.

Carie Lemack, whose mother was in one of the jets that hit the World Trade Center, echoed that sentiment: "It wasn't a Chinese takeout menu, the 41 recommendations. You have to do all of them."

On an unrealted note, why is it that I can get no information from the media about what crawled up Pelosi's butt to make her dislike Jane Harman and Steny Hoyer so much? I know it's personal, but I've looked far and wide and there doesn't seem to be any investigative reporter willing to investigate this question.

Pelosi's beef with Hoyer goes back to her Maryland days, when she was the receptionist and Hoyer was the chief gofer for Senator Brewster in the 60's. I know there must be some interesting anecdotes, which would explain the animosity she's held onto for decades. But the media is hush hush.

And what's the deal with Jane Harman? I know she's not considered dovish enough, but I do suspect there's a personal vendetta there too. Pelosi is well known for holding grudges (and to be fair, suddenly letting go of grudges too), but nobody wants to dig into this story.

If anybody has seen anything interesting, send me a link. I'm just interested in political gossip is all.

h/t Belmont Club

Posted by: annika at 11:37 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 577 words, total size 4 kb.

On October 16, 2006, Army CW3 Lori Hill became the latest female pilot decorated with the Distinguished Flying Cross (the first was none other than Amelia Earhart).

Back in March in Iraq, Chief Warrant Officer 3 Lori Hill, with the 2nd Squadron, 17th Cavalry Regiment, was piloting her Kiowa Warrior when the lead chopper came under heavy fire. She drew the fire away, simultaneously providing suppressive fire for the troops engaged with the enemy on the ground.

A rocket-propelled grenade hit her, damaging the heloÂ’s instrumentation, but instead of focusing on her predicament, she established communication with the ground forces and continued to provide them with aerial weapon support until the soldiers reached safety.

As she turned her attention to the aircraft, which was losing hydraulic power, the helo took on machine-gun fire, a round crashing into one of HillÂ’s ankles. Still, with a damaged aircraft and an injury, she landed at Forward Operating Base Normandy, saving her crew and aircraft.

For her actions she was presented the Distinguished Flying Cross by Vice President Richard Cheney at Fort Campbell, Ky., on Oct. 16.

“[It] was a once-in-a-lifetime thing to get the award and then have the vice president come and award it to you,” she said. “It’s just incredible for any soldier.”

Recalling that day in March, Hill reflected, “I was actually just glad I didn’t pass out and very happy I was able to help the ground guys out, and get our helicopter down safely on the ground.”

Posted by: annika at 09:17 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 285 words, total size 2 kb.

This is what happens when our Universities' social science departments are filled with former radicals.

According to an extremely biased article in the Daily Bruin,

Mostafa Tabatabainejad, a UCLA student, was repeatedly stunned with a Taser and then taken into custody when he did not exit the CLICC Lab in Powell Library in a timely manner. Community Service Officers had asked Tabatabainejad to leave after he failed to produce his BruinCard during a random check at around 11:30 p.m. Tuesday.

But the responsibility for this whole ugly incident lies solely with Mr. Mostafa Tabatabainejad. If you don't have your ID card, go back to your room and get it. If they call the police on you, apologize politely and leave the library. Otherwise, they might just taser your idiot ass.

Plus, when students are indoctrinated by professors who are former radicals constantly reliving the glory days of the 60's in class (I went to Berkeley, remember) it's pretty hard not to view all police interactions as if we lived in Franco's Spain. But we don't.

Update: h/t to TBinSTL for this appropriate PSA, by Chris Rock.

Posted by: annika at 11:27 PM | Comments (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 250 words, total size 2 kb.

I wonder how many people who voted Democrat knew that reinstating the draft was on the Democrat's agenda.

I consider myself pretty well informed politically, I listened carefully to all the Democratic talking points, I'm on a few Democrat mailing lists. Maybe I wasn't paying enough attention, but I don't seem to remember any Democrat mentioning that bringing back the draft was going to be their first order of business once they got elected.

Maybe I'm wrong here, but it seems to me if the Democrats had mentioned that they wanted to bring back the draft once they got control of Congress, they would not have gotten control of Congress!

I'm just pointing it out, is all.

Posted by: annika at 10:09 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 127 words, total size 1 kb.

From Reuters:

The Dutch government agreed on Friday a total ban on the wearing of burqas and other Muslim face veils in public, justifying the move on security grounds.

. . .

"The cabinet finds it undesirable that garments covering the face -- including the burqa -- should be worn in public in view of public order, (and) the security and protection of fellow citizens," the Dutch Justice Ministry said in a statement.

. . .

The Muslim community estimates that only about 50 women in the Netherlands wear the head-to-toe burqa or the niqab, a face veil that conceals everything but the eyes.

Dutch Muslim groups have complained a burqa ban would make the country's 1 million Muslims feel more victimized and alienated, regardless of whether they approve of burqas or not.

"This will just lead to more girls saying 'hey I'm also going to wear a burqa as a protest'," Naima Azough, a member of parliament from the opposition Green Left, told an election campaign meeting for fellow members of the Moroccan community.

Job Cohen, the Labour mayor of Amsterdam, said he opposed burqas in schools and public buildings, and said women wearing one who failed to get a job should not expect welfare benefits.

Posted by: annika at 10:29 PM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 296 words, total size 2 kb.

It's almost a week since the election and the punditry has coalesced into two distinct themes. I'll digest them for you right now, so you can enjoy the rest of the week without having to bother with the news at all.

The Right: Republicans lost because they didn't try to please the conservative base. It had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that most Americans are pissed about Iraq, don't believe the President's "stay the course" line anymore, and think it's time to either win or get out. No, the election was really about prescription drug entitlements.

The Left: Not only is Nancy Pelosi really smart and a grandmother, she isn't liberal at all. She's actually a centrist. All Americans are ecstatic that she's in charge of the country. Except for those Republicans, who are very sad. On the other hand, George H. W. Bush is in charge of the country, which would normally be bad, except we like him now.

Posted by: annika at 10:36 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 185 words, total size 1 kb.

I won't dirty my blog with video of Bill Mahr, but I do want you to check out this clip, on YouTube. It's called "Farewell to Douchebags," and it's a look back at some faces we've probably seen the last of (or not).

Mahre sets it up by noting how they do the same thing during the Oscars each year, with the dead person reel. Some people inevitably get more applause than others, and sometimes there's an audible pause while people decide how much acclamation to bestow. Mar gives an example "they go, oh DeForest Kelly . . . okay we liked him"

Now watch the video and listen to the hearty applause given at Tom Delay's or Karl Rove's pictures and then compare it to the uncomfortable semi-silence at Saddam Hussein's picture. The audience was like "uh uh do we cheer? oh shit, shit whatdowedo?!" It's liberal brain lock.

h/t SharonCobb

Posted by: annika at 12:23 PM | Comments (20) | Add Comment
Post contains 168 words, total size 1 kb.

No one loves and supports this President more than I do. But after yesterday's debacle I have to say it: I blame Bush.

It was a debacle, and don't let anybody tell you different. The voters threw forty Republicans out of office, and they would have thrown Bush out too, if they'd only had the chance. Not a single Democratic incumbent lost, and the carnage would have been much worse if it had not been for Gerrymandering.

Clinton's famous catch phrase was, "It's the economy, stupid." It's pretty obvious that the American people sent a message this year, and the message was, "It's the war, stupid." That there are Republicans out there who failed to hear this message is one of the truly astounding things about yesterday's election.

Hugh Hewitt is the prime example. Don't get me wrong, Hugh Hewitt knows more about government and politics that I could ever hope to learn. His radio show is the highlight of my listening day. And he has done amazing work for the party before, as he will again. But Hugh's Townhall column today was so clueless, I think he must need some time off.

In an essay that's 1,351 words long, Hugh failed to cite the Iraq War even once as a possible cause for the Republicans being thrown out on their asses yesterday. Instead, incredibly, he blames John McCain:

The post-mortems are accumulating, but I think the obvious has to be stated: John McCain and his colleagues in the Gang of 14 cost the GOP its Senate majority while the conduct of a handful of corrupt House members gave that body's leadership [to] the Democrats.

Listen carefully to what I'm saying. The principled base might have been pissed off at Republican betrayals, but the base still turned out yesterday. The middle third, the independents, the swing voters, they're who I'm talking about. They're the ones who led the revolt, and their issue was the War. Any one of you can verify this for yourself by asking a few questions around the water cooler.

I'm not saying that we Republicans lost because Americans want to cut and run. Don't believe that bullshit. I absolutely do not believe that the majority of Americans think their country is engaged in an immoral war. I believe that Americans wouldn't really care whether there were WMD in Iraq, if the war was over and won by now. Most Americans want to win, and they can't understand why we haven't yet. The 2004 election was America's rejection of the hate-America crowd who believe the Iraq War was wrong, immoral, what have you. Those people are a loud but small minority. In 2004, Americans made a different choice and said to the President, "We're sticking with you, now go get it done."

And the problem this time around was that, two years later, the President still had not gotten it done.

We can blame the media all we want. We can blame the Cindy Sheehans and the Michael Moores and the Jimmy Carters and the Kos Kids and the George Soroses all we want. They deserve blame. But the fact remains, George W. Bush was handed a vote of confidence by the American people in 2004, and he did not get the job done. Not only that, he took our patience for granted.

The patience of a Democratic people is a historically fickle thing. It would be nice if it weren't so fickle, but it is. And that's part of the ground that President Bush had to fight on. You can't excuse it by saying, as we've heard for three years now, "It's hard work. Stay the course. Stay the course." Americans demand results. We're willing to sacrifice; we're willing to be patient; we're willing to trust our leaders. But ultimately, we demand results.

And 105 brave souls lost in the last month is not results.

We can say that the media is not reporting the real progess being made in Iraq, and I believe that's true. But at some point you gotta ask, "Can we stop with the building schools and the passing out candy, and just win this thing — and get our people home?"

President Bush's task is often compared by people on my side of the aisle to Lincoln's task during the Civil War. Lincoln is said to have stood firm in the face of vehement opposition. He stayed the course during the darkest days, and won through to victory. But the comparison, as it looks right now, is not an apt one. Lincoln fired a shitload of generals. Lincoln demanded results, and eventually he got results. Look, I love Rumsfeld for the way he talked back to the media. I was willing to support Rummy through thick and thin, despite what the generals thought of him. But the war plan was Rumsfeld's baby, and as soon as he stopped getting results, he should have been gone.

I understand that the enemy adapts. I get it. But to use a football analogy, we're sick of the three and outs. We need to see some first downs here, guys.

I supported the decision to go to war against Saddam. Even knowing what I know now, I still support that decision. But my support is given with the assumption that we're in it to win. We simply must win. As I said before, there is no third way in Iraq.

Victory in Iraq — let's just call it "success" at this point — should be defined like this: any situation in Iraq that would enable us to bring our troops home without everything we've done in the last three and a half years falling to pieces once we leave. I'm not sure that the Democrats have any idea how to accomplish this, but I also know that the President sure as shit hasn't gotten us there yet.

So that's why we Republicans lost the House and Senate yesterday. There's plenty of other reasons you can cite to me, and they're all valid criticisms, I'm sure. Culture of corruption, Foleygate, Delaygate, etc. Dubai Ports, Harriet Meiers, even the Gang of 14, if you like. The Bridge to Nowhere, earmarks, amnesty, Hurricane Katrina, whatever. The list goes on and on. But there's one thing I'll argue 'til I'm out of breath. The American people would have forgiven any of those things — hell, all of those things — if only we knew that our boys were coming home soon, and victorious.

Posted by: annika at 08:32 PM | Comments (36) | Add Comment
Post contains 1171 words, total size 7 kb.