Senators Behaving Badly

Right now John McCain and Joe Lieberman are giving their incredibly serious speeches about how we need to throw more troops into Iraq even though (in McCain's words) "there is no guarantee of success." McCain closes his comments by joking: "We invite the crowd outside for a polite Q&A session." Hilarious! The crowd outside protesting McCain is a segment of the 89 percent of the country that opposes the McCain-Lieberman "surge" plan.

And here comes Lieberman: "It is 1942. We have already had our Pearl Harbor, on September 11." Yeah, let's trust this guy to deal with numbers.

Has anyone proposed shipping these clowns over to a barren patch of desert where they can make their bones as lounge singers? No? Let me be the first to suggest it.

UPDATE: Huh. McCain and Lieberman now inhabit a fantasy world that even Oliver North won't enter.

Comments

[norbizness]

{Hank Hill} Them Senators ain't right {/Hank Hill}

[lunchstealer]

Did anybody else notice that the poll linked up there has support for open-ended occupation jumping from 32% to 42%?

Support for immediate and 12-month withdrawal are actually down between the two polls.

Support for the surge is also down between the two polls, and support for 'I don't know' ticks up slightly, but within the margin of error.

[Eric the .5b]

3% percent margin of error means the actual change could be as little as 4%, but that's an genuine, puzzling blip.

[Shelby]

David's overreaching to claim that 89% opposes a particular "surge" plan. It's true that only 11% are reported saying the US should "send more troops to Iraq," but that's not the same as saying that a planned, temporary "surge" accompanied by a revised emphasis, has so little support.

I don't like McCain or Lieberman any more than he does, but distorting the politics of this doesn't help anyone.

[Guy Montag]

I can not believe the devisiveness exhibited by Mr. Weigel. I have not seen such a display since the post-Watergate Congress turned all of South Vietnam into a society of yatchsmen.

[joe]

Well, you know us objectively-pro-Saddam Bush haters.

If we're not giving aid and comfort to the enemy, we're being divisive.

I guess that's what happens when you aren't concerned about the security of the American people, and want to offer hugs and therapy to the 9/11 terrorists.

It's part of the Bush Derangement Syndrome, just like when we celebrate the deaths of American soldiers.

[kwais]

yeah, I have to say, I don't see what a difference a surge of 30k would do. Would they all be combat troops or would they be the usual 12 support troops to 1 combat troop?

And what is their mission?

I think if you put 30k combat troops in a small area, to train up Iraqis for about 2 years, and they were to build relationships and establish trust and all that stuff, there might be a chance to help that particular small area.

[Cab]

I'm with Shelby. It took my a while to figure out how exactly where the figure "89 percent" came from.

From the provided link, it could just as easily be stated that "at least 75% of Americans would favor a troop surge as long as those troops are withdrawn by 2008."

Come on Wiegel, if the troop surge idea is that bad, misrepresenting polling data isn't necessary. Leave that kind of shit to the likes of Hannity.

[:-]

And yet 67% of Americans think a surge in sarcasm will be beneficial.

[Cab]

It took my a while to figure out how exactly where

should read

It took me a while to figure out where

Also, sorry I spelled your name wrong. Weigel, not Wiegel. I wasn't trying to "pull a John" and spell your name wrong on purpose every time.

[MikeP]

And here comes Lieberman: "It is 1942. We have already had our Pearl Harbor, on September 11."

No, you moron. It is 1946. After turning Japan back at Midway a mere 6 months after Pearl Harbor, and after the Soviets' turning Germany back at Stalingrad in 1943, the US invaded Brazil on the purported fear that they would harbor Nazis fleeing Germany's inevitable defeat. Many more troops are now dedicated to the war in Brazil -- seeing as the Brazilians were rather annoyed with the action -- and the unrest in that nation actually facilitates exactly what was feared.

Nice job.

[Guy Montag]

MikeP,

Brazil! was one of my favorite movies! Was going to use Tom Tuttle for my first online handle until I discovered it was already in use as an anonymous remailer.

Researched a couple of others, then finally remembered that the one I am using now is a favorite movie character of mine too.

[Warren]

Guy,
Did you even consider, Alex de Large?

[Guy Montag]

Warren,

No, I was never a big Clockwork Orange fan.

[joe]

President George W. Bush
The White House
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

The start of the new Congress brings us opportunities to work together on the critical issues confronting our country. No issue is more important than finding an end to the war in Iraq. December was the deadliest month of the war in over two years, pushing U.S. fatality figures over the 3,000 mark.

The American people demonstrated in the November elections that they do not believe your current Iraq policy will lead to success and that we need a change in direction for the sake of our troops and the Iraqi people. We understand that you are completing your post-election consultations on Iraq and are preparing to make a major address on your Iraq strategy to the American people next week.

Clearly this address presents you with another opportunity to make a long overdue course correction. Despite the fact that our troops have been pushed to the breaking point and, in many cases, have already served multiple tours in Iraq, news reports suggest that you believe the solution to the civil war in Iraq is to require additional sacrifices from our troops and are therefore prepared to proceed with a substantial U.S. troop increase.

Surging forces is a strategy that you have already tried and that has already failed. Like many current and former military leaders, we believe that trying again would be a serious mistake. They, like us, believe there is no purely military solution in Iraq. There is only a political solution. Adding more combat troops will only endanger more Americans and stretch our military to the breaking point for no strategic gain. And it would undermine our efforts to get the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future. We are well past the point of more troops for Iraq.

In a recent appearance before the Senate Armed Services Committee, General John Abizaid, our top commander for Iraq and the region, said the following when asked about whether he thought more troops would contribute to our chances for success in Iraq:

"I met with every divisional commander, General Casey, the Corps commander, General Dempsey. We all talked together. And I said, in your professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq? And they all said no. And the reason is, because we want the Iraqis to do more. It's easy for the Iraqis to rely upon to us do this work. I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future."

Rather than deploy additional forces to Iraq, we believe the way forward is to begin the phased redeployment of our forces in the next four to six months, while shifting the principal mission of our forces there from combat to training, logistics, force protection and counter-terror. A renewed diplomatic strategy, both within the region and beyond, is also required to help the Iraqis agree to a sustainable political settlement. In short, it is time to begin to move our forces out of Iraq and make the Iraqi political leadership aware that our commitment is not open ended, that we cannot resolve their sectarian problems, and that only they can find the political resolution required to stabilize Iraq.

Our troops and the American people have already sacrificed a great deal for the future of Iraq. After nearly four years of combat, tens of thousands of U.S. casualties, and over $300 billion dollars, it is time to bring the war to a close. We, therefore, strongly encourage you to reject any plans that call for our getting our troops any deeper into Iraq. We want to do everything we can to help Iraq succeed in the future but, like many of our senior military leaders, we do not believe that adding more U.S. combat troops contributes to success.

We appreciate you taking these views into consideration.

Sincerely,

Harry Reid
Majority Leader

Nancy Pelosi Speaker

[:-]

PS

It would be a shame if anything were to "happen" to your war.

HR
NP

[Thomas]

"there is no guarantee of success."

The only guarantees I know of in life are death, taxes, and maybe gravity. The rest is a crap shoot and seems a bit high of a standard to expect of anything in this life. Not that I have strong feelings about this issue either way, but having that expectation of anything the government does is impossible.

[Happy Jack]

The only guarantees I know of in life are death, taxes, and maybe gravity.

The only guarantee is that there are no guarantees.

Well, that and politicians are guaranteed to say something stupid.