OWNING A WAR is tough for Democrats and Republicans alike. Hillary Clinton is owning up to her vote for the war and still thinks we need to finish what we started. Donald Rumsfeld who went to war with the army he had, not the one he wanted, seems to think he can dictate who the enemy is he wants, not the one he has. The war and its beginnings are part of the battle still even as George Bush tomorrow makes a first step how United States involvement might end. Reality is the war will sooner or later be left to the Iraqis to win or lose.
Fantasy begins and will not end in the coming days with how the politicians write and rewrite their stories of the war’s beginnings and how they think it will end. Clinton plays the deceived party. [story]"Given years of assurances that the war was nearly over and that the insurgents were in their 'last throes," this administration was either not being honest with the American people or did not know what was going on in Iraq," she wrote.
Clinton's allies billed the letter as her most comprehensive statement on the war to date.
"It is time for the president to stop serving up platitudes and present us with a plan for finishing this war with success and honor," she wrote.NOTED HERE IS how Clinton attacks the President’s platitudes with platitudes of her own. As she begins to stand for the inevitable run for president, her party runs past her toward the ground Murtha staked, the ground the brave Democrats refused to beach themselves on as their ship sank in an undefined policy sea.
RUMSFELD IS DELUDED a man who had previous mastery of the press with every word, who now has words that press with desperation. The presumption with which the master of transformation Rumsfeld entered the war continues now in his view of insurgents. Rumsfeld had an epiphany over the weekend and calling the enemy insurgents “gives them a greater legitimacy than they seem to merit." To call the enemy that [story] [DOD transcript]
I think that you can have a legitimate insurgency in a country that has popular support and has a cohesiveness and has a legitimate gripe. These people don't have a legitimate gripe. They've got a peaceful way to change that government through the constitution, through the elections. These people aren't trying to promote something other than disorder and to take over that country and turn it into a caliphate, and then spread it around the world. This is a group of people who don't merit the word "insurgency," I think. But I'll look it up. You look it up for me, too. I'm sure you will.”
RUMSFELD MAY NOT be able to dominate the enemy, but he would still like to be master of the terms that define the foe. Next up will be defining victory. Bush bravely will appear before midshipmen at the Naval Academy. Look for Bush to redefine Iraq and its great progress. Will the latest rewrite of Misssion Accomplished reunite Americans or will it mean further division? Will the war change form or will Bush?
The rewriting begins even before Bush starts. The story continues.
VIETNAMIRAQ UPDATE
IFINALLYHAVE ANOT SOSECRET PLAN TO WIN THE WAR [MSNBC]The administration is under pressure to convince increasingly skeptical Americans that the president’s strategy for Iraq is headed in the right direction nearly three years after the U.S.-led invasion. The president is to give a speech on the subject Wednesday at the Naval Academy and the White House is to release a 35-page document titled “Our National Strategy for Victory in Iraq.”
The document is a public version of a classified strategy of military, political and economic efforts that are being implemented by Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, and Zalmay Khalizad, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq. The document defines the enemy in Iraq and discusses experiences and lessons learned during the conflict, a senior White House official said.THE HERETIK CAN ONLY imagine why we are getting this information now. Cynics will have their say. At last "victory"
or somethingis assured.WAR OF WORDS UPDATE [MSNBC] Are the insurgents responsible for such insubordination?
Even Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who stood beside Rumsfeld at the news conference, found it impossible to describe the fighting in Iraq without twice using the term “insurgent.”
After the word slipped out the first time, Pace looked sheepishly at Rumsfeld and quipped apologetically, “I have to use the word ‘insurgent’ because I can’t think of a better word right now.”INSURGENT LANGUAGE and most likely insurgents will continue on. If Rumsfeld cannot get even Pace to go along, the war of words is lost. The other of course waits for "victory" however it is newly defined.
RECOMMENDED ADDITIONAL READING
WRITE ON FROM THE RIGHT Tom Maguire's take on Hillary's take. Take it or leave it.NOTE CLINTON’S SHADING [NY Times] "I believe we are at a critical point with the Dec. 15 elections that should, if successful, allow us to start bringing home our troops in the coming year, while leaving behind a smaller contingent in safer areas with greater intelligence and quick strike capabilities," she wrote. "I call on the president both for such a plan and for a full and honest accounting of the failures of intelligence - something we owe not only to those killed and wounded and their families, but to all Americans."
In the past few weeks, Mrs. Clinton has voted in the Senate to move toward a phased withdrawal of troops as early as next year, and has called for a smaller American "footprint" in Iraq and the region, according to her spokesman, Philippe Reines.
Recent Comments