Posted on 11/24/2007 9:43:27 PM PST by krogers58
Eagerly anticipating the defeat in Iraq to which they are so much attached, some on the left have also been preparing for another contingency: the assault that they think they see coming, a drive to pin the whole wretched failure on them. Apparently, this will be "stab in the back" redux, a new iteration of the theme deployed so successfully in interwar Germany by a resourceful, ambitious Austrian corporal, who managed to propel his rise to power with the claim that World War I would have been won by his country, if not for sinister forces at home. Then, it was subversion by Jews and other disloyal elements. This time, in the left's imagining, the blame will fall on the press and the Democrats who, by pulling the plug at just the wrong moment, caused the loss of Iraq. "Nobody I know in a rational condition believes that the United States is going to have any kind of a military victory," Mark Shields said in August. "So the idea is going to be, 'We were on the cusp of victory and the rug was pulled out from under us by these willy-nilly, weak-kneed, nervous Nellies back home.' "
The problem with this is (1) that we may really win, and have no failure to blame upon anyone, and (2) that the nervous Nellies really did try to keep us from winning, indeed fought fang and claw to derail our best efforts. If they had had their way, Iraq would still be the quagmire they are so fond of invoking, and the United States--or George W. Bush, which may be the more relevant factor--would have incurred a definitive and, at least in his case, legacy-blasting defeat. It is unfair of course to call this a stab in the back, as the Democrats have been engagingly open about their intentions. In the course of the past year, they have gone from attacking a plan that had not been effective to attacking one that hadn't been tried yet, to attacking one that exceeded all expectations, while in the process ignoring reality, slandering a commanding general, and denying American forces in battle due credit for what they had done. If not backstabbing as such (see above), it is diverting enough a spectacle to merit a replay. Let us look back at this last year of battle and see how the story played out.
important article ping
“The democrat leadership and their activist base are traitors pure and simple.”
Yes... and we need to try thousands for treason and sedition and build many, many gallows to carry out their sentences!
LLS
There is plenty of political healing going on over there... but like our vast MILITARY VICTORIES... the msm lies and refuses to report the truth about it. This too will become impossible for them to do... IRAQ is WON!
LLS
They laughed at Jesus too.
LLS
Amen brother!!!
LLS
Thanks for the ping.
Oops. Thanks should have been to you. Merci beaucoup!
Thanks for the ping-
I am getting so tired of words : (
I want action : )
YW and mega dittos to these comments. Waaaaaaay past time.
Thanks for the ping.
Yes, the irony is that after they’ve stabbed the nation and her troops in the back like Brutus and the boys going after Julius Caesar, they will most assuredly NOT get accused osf stabbing us in the back. Why? Because we’re going to win, and instead of being blamed for our loss they will be mocked for their stupidity.
What I’m interested in is where all the Freepers who’ve been in with the Dems from the beginning are. Not even the Paulestinians talk about the quagmire in Iraq any more.
Were you saying this same sort of stuff about military progress 6 months or 9 months ago? Do you actually trust the media to report accurately on political developments over there, or will they use the same lens they used when it came to reporting the military and hearts-and-minds aspects?
All we’ve shown so far is that we can force ‘em to occasionally behave in a slightly more civilized manner if we lean on ‘em hard enough.
No, we've shown that at the town and province level they don't need to be leaned on at all. Your picture of Iraq is so out of date it predates Petraeus.
Old Paul Harvey has said something about the Middle Eastern Muslims being unready for, and incapable of, understanding and maintaining fair elections and representative government. I agree with Paul.
Paul Harvey is qualified to judge the success of counter-insurgency strategies in the same way I'm qualified to be the starting quarterback for the Green Bay Packers. In other words, not at all.
Agree with the approach, but I don't think there's any way we're getting the Senate back this cycle. Too many open seats in blue or purple states. However, I think there is very little chance that the Dems will hold the House, especially if they're still the do-nothing 20% approval rating Congress next fall...and I think that's very, very likely. Plus, if we have a House landslide and the White House stays GOP, the momentum from that will keep the Senate from going deep blue. That means we'll still have a Senate where you can't get anything done unless you can convince 10 or 12 Republicans to go along with you. Sweet, sweet gridlock!
One and a half branches firmly in GOP hands and a GOP president appointing at least the next two Supreme Court vacancies...that's enough for me this cycle.
Those guys are the real dead-enders.
And though he won't point to her and say "Traitor" the GOP nominee will use this against Hillary. When national security comes up, he'll be able to ask "Do we really want a commander-in-chief so clueless she thought the surge wouldn't work? Someone who said that the idea that our troops could win required 'willing suspension of disbelief'"?
Great minds think alike. See post 58.
I think Bush will be regarded as a great or very good President someday. I also think that Petraeus’ name will be breathed in the same breath as Patton and Sherman someday.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.