« I DO feel sorry for the hostages | Main | Yes, Nancy, I do question your patriotism »

November 30, 2005

Reading the 'National Strategy'

I haven't gotten there yet, but Jeff Harrell has.

The obvious question that springs to mind when the White House releases a document like this is, “Why the heck didn’t we see this three years ago?” The answer is on page two, right inside the snazzy, The Shape of Days-inspired cover page: “The following document articulates the broad strategy the President set forth in 2003 and provides an update on our progress as well as the challenges remaining.” And then there’s a quote from a speech the President gave in February 2003, before US troops ever even crossed the line of departure. He said, “Rebuilding Iraq will require a sustained commitment from many nations, including our own: we will remain in Iraq as long as necessary, and not a day more.”

The subtext is pretty clear, and infinitely amusing to your humble narrator: "We did tell you our strategy three years ago; 48 percent of y’all were just too stupid to wrap your ‘American Idol’-softened noodles around it. So we’re gonna tell you all again, and again, and if necessary again until you get what we’ve been saying all along."

Hee hee. That’s bad ass.

Sure is. Not that it will make a gnat's ass worth of difference to the ninnies and curs that blather Bu$Hitler lied about Iraq as an imminent threat Certainly, John "Don't you know who I am?" Kerry decided to go with the usual, insulting script.
"The truth is that the president draws a false line in trying to make his case to America.
Which false line is that?
The troops don't belong to his point of view, they belong to America
Huh? Can someone translate here?
... and the best way to protect the troops, the best way to stand up for the troops is to provide the best policy for success.
And anything less than victory is not success. Not that Nancy Pelosi (Leftcoast Kerry-in-drag, just more botox) has paid any better attention for the last few years.
The American people expected that the president would do more today than put a new cover and 35 additional pages of rhetoric on old sound bites.
Another female that embarrasses the shit out of me.

Not one of these nancies can explain how much BETTER America would be to cut-n-run from Iraq right now. Obviously even the anti-American stance of the "peace" activists in Iraq didn't protect them from terrorist predations, in what strange corner of greymatter in Kerry, Pelosi, Boxer and traveling ilk lurks the thought that "If we just tell the insurgents 'so sorry, we're leaving now! please play nice and don't hate us' all will be skittles and beer? They question GW's credibility? What's the credibility of the "I voted for it, before I voted against it" schtick? How is calls to give a timetable (yeah, like terrorist don't read or use the Internet) supposed to HELP achieve anything but the same ambiguous ending as in the first Gulf war that will leave bigger problems ten or fifteen years hence?

You can do what's right or what's easy.

Jeff sums it up:

I don’t think any of us predicted, back in 2001 and 2002, that the hardest battle yet of the war on terror would be the battle waged on the front page of The New York Times. I’m glad to see that the White House is as serious about winning that battle as it is about winning the war in Iraq and the broader war against fanaticism and fundamentalism and terrorism everywhere.
Bravo.

Posted by Darleen at November 30, 2005 12:53 PM

Comments

Nancies? Haven't heard that term in years. Except in BBC dramas.

No Nancy me.

Vietnam era Veteran. 1964-1968

I rarely carried a M-16, I did, however, drive a typewriter.

That's what they called word processers back then....

Posted by: Carl W. Goss at November 30, 2005 02:32 PM

"I don’t think any of us predicted, back in 2001 and 2002, that the hardest battle yet of the war on terror would be the battle waged on the front page of The New York Times."

What everybody except the Curveball Crowd predicted was, the hardest battle would be the "battle" to maintain peace after Saddam was toppled. And that has been EXACTLY. THE. CASE. The war critics have been unfailingly, predictably, depressingly correct from the moment Saddam was ousted.

Posted by: JDCasteleiro at December 3, 2005 12:16 AM

Oh, and I just noticed that you slammed the minority leader on her looks again. (Well, "again" in reverse chronology.) Since we're in that mode of judging people, I remind you, Darleen . . . Nancy Pelosi is hotter than you.

Posted by: JDCasteleiro at December 3, 2005 12:34 AM