Moving The Goal Post

 

Give a dog a bone... Ahem.

And promptly raise the bar to impossible heights:

Bush took full command of the political stage with his five-hour appearance in Baghdad, just days after the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and used it to showcase a new Iraqi government he hopes to turn the war over to eventually. Yet in the end, some analysts noted, it will matter only if this new government can heal societal schisms and stand up effective security forces.

Let's recap this Administration's success in Iraq:

• Elimination of any WMD threat; Check
• Regime change Iraq; Check
• Liberating Iraqis from murderous tyranny; Check
• Fair elections; Check
• Constitution; Check
• Representative government; Check
• Decimating al Qaeda; Check
• Decimating Insurgents; Check
• Preventing civil war; Check

Not enough, they say; heal societal schisms, if ever anyone could define what that actually means... Well, my middle finger is firmly up, I say.

Let us be proud instead and give credit where credit is due and stop dragging our finest through the mud, who have sacrificed everything to get us this far. Let us congratulate this Administration for it has revived the noble pledge of old, 'The Atlantic Charter', forced to be abandoned throughout the cold war, but valid just the same:

1. no territorial gains sought by the United States or the United Kingdom;
2. territorial adjustments must be in accord with wishes of the people;
3. the right to self-determination of the people;
4. trade barriers lowered;
5. global economic cooperation and advancement of social welfare;
6. freedom from want and fear;
7. freedom of the seas;
8. disarmament of aggressor nations, postwar common disarmament

President Bush has stayed the course against all odds and he still is. For that I want to thank him upon his return from Iraq.

Well done Mr. President; especially for calling the devil by its name: Islamofascists - it's a much needed message to counter Brussel's push for 'Eurabia'.

"If we stand down too soon, it won't enable us to achieve our objectives," the president said.

He said the withdrawal of U.S. and coalition forces would depend on how well the Iraqi people accept al-Maliki's new unity government.

Bush said enough American forces would remain in Iraq "for the government to succeed." [...]

Pulling out too soon "will make the world a more dangerous place. It's bad policy," Bush said.

"My message to the enemy is, don't count on us leaving before we succeed," Bush said.

As to war critics, Bush said, "my message to the critics is, we listen very carefully, and we adjust when needed to adjust."

UPDATE: We'll get there, Gringoman, we'll get there... LOL

Comments

[Darrell]

Elect "peaceful" Democrats? I pray never again. There aren't enough body bags.

Know why Mogadishu happened? Because some Clinton Administration "hump' decided to use minimal force for political correctness's sake rather than using the resources in country--like the AC-130 gunships. Know why Waco happened? Because some Clinton Administration "humps," Janet Reno and most likely, George Stephanopoulis, decided to set aside the recommendations of the panel of consultants they brought in--who wanted to set a 2-week deadline because listening surveillance determined that he was working on his "last gospel" and he mentioned it would take that long, then attack with an elite strike force the next day around 2AM because (they noticed that the BDs always dropped their defenses after previous deadlines). The estimated casualties were put at around 17--most of those with eardrum damage from the concussion grenades. The "humps' would have no part of casualties, so they opted for the tear gas route, even though experts warned them they had gas masks and a suicide "doomsday" plan should that occur. The list goes on and on, especially if you include the lack of counter-attacks for terrorist acts during those 8 years.

Let the Democrats propose tributes to Che and name streets after him on the local level. Let adults run the rest of the country.

[Ghost Dansing]

Great...Dubya's done great things...hooray for him! We're outta there! War over...we won.

* Elimination of any WMD threat; Check
* Regime change Iraq; Check
* Liberating Iraqis from murderous tyranny; Check
* Fair elections; Check
* Constitution; Check
* Representative government; Check
* Decimating al Qaeda; Check
* Decimating Insurgents; Check
* Preventing civil war; Check

Now, let's just elect some nice peaceful Democrats so we can enjoy all Dubya's bravery has brung us.

[Ken Hoop]

Michael van mistakes "selfishness' for a belated realization that the US is trapped in Iraq and does not have the resources
or public approval to maintain an overseas Empire and continue
an aggressively interventionist pro-Israel foreign policy which
Islam is resisting.

[Alexandra]

Main text: UPDATE: We'll get there, Gringoman, we'll get there... LOL

[gringoman]

"Zarqawi 1967-2006." Illustrated by gringoVision.

Here is an image I think many want of George Bush---at least those who voted for him and the 25 million in Iraq who await security and a Baghdad where you can casually step out to a tea house or restaurant or terrace any time you like (as we once did in Saigon before the curfew hour)

[Michael van der Galien]

Oh, I have something to add:

I am noticing more and more that those who say the US should withdraw troops right now are acting solely out of... selfishness. "who cares what happens in the world as long as we're not effected by it" seems to be their

[Michael van der Galien]

The following message needs to be repeated time and time again: the war against islamo fascism is a worldwide war and we cannot afford to withdraw troops from Iraq as long as it has not calmed down there.

Great post Alexandra!

[Jeff Durkin]

Good post. However, you're paraphrased Atlantic Charter (and the original) have some serious flaws. To whit;

1. "Territorial adjustments must be in accord with wishes of the people;"
Which people? The original states "no territorial changes that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned" but this is rather vague. For example, the Kurds have expressed interest in having the Kurdish areas of Iraq to become an independent country. Of course, there are many non-Kurdish Iraqis who do not want to see this happen (along with the Turks, Iranians, Syrians and our State Department). So, who gets the last word? The Kurds are not asking for territory that is non-Kurdish and, given the history of the Kurds in Iraq, it is not surprising that they have little trust in their "countrymen." At the same time, people both in the region and outside of it have various reasons for not wanting to see Iraq break up, even if the split would be into "natural" sub-states. How about Somalia, where we refuse to recognize Somaliland and Puntland? Or, in the Former-Yugoslavia, where we maintain the fiction that Kosovo is ever going back to Serbia?

A vague position on an issue that we will never see the end of is, is probably worse than none at all.

2. "They respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live; and they wish to see sovereign rights and self government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them". Well, I don't know about you, but I don't want to see people choosing to live under Islamic laws. I do not want to see people accepting a one-party state in exchange for some economic freedom. Basically, I want to see us exporting Western ideas of liberal (small 'l') government and capitalist economics, based on a respect for the rule of law as made by representative bodies, not political oligarchies or theocracies. If people don't want to live like this, than we should not respect their choices, because their choices are a danger both to us and to themselves. If I see a child jamming a pencil into his eye, I will stop him; if I see a society deciding to adopt Sharia, I think we should stop them.

3. "freedom from want and fear;" Well, that's nice, but a little want and a little fear are great motivators to do better, to address issues, to strive to excel. Freedom from want and fear is a bit too "socialist utopia" for me.

4. "They believe that all of the nations of the world, for realistic as well as spiritual reasons must come to the abandonment of the use of force. Since no future peace can be maintained if land, sea or air armaments continue to be employed by nations which threaten, or may threaten, aggression outside of their frontiers, they believe, pending the establishment of a wider and permanent system of general security, that the disarmament of such nations is essential. They will likewise aid and encourage all other practicable measure which will lighten for peace-loving peoples the crushing burden of armaments." Well, that's nice, and, maybe, someday when we are all singing cumbayah together, it can happen. What we should strive for is an international system where responsible nations have enough firepower that war becomes unthinkable. Basically, we need global cops. Further, they have to be global cops who have the same investment in the global system, so none of them will want to try and use force to gain more power. The actual level of armaments may either be too high, or too low. The problem is that irresponsible nations or nations that do not have buy-in to the current global system have access to destabilizing levels of armaments and that we have yet to come up with a viable model of global policing that would cow these nations and sub-national groups into submission.

In my humble opinion, of course.

[North by Northwest]

Hear Hear!!

Do I detect a nervous shuffle amidst Democratic hopefuls in November?!?

In the end we shall rejoice, "For You Shall Know the Truth - And the Truth Shall Set You Free".