A realistic assessment of the situation in Iraq reveals significant progress since the implementation of the surge in Baghdad. The highly anticipated report highlights eight pluses, eight negatives and a couple mixed bags: some good and some bad. Inscrutable Democrats, leftists and political neophytes of all stripes, (none of whom are strangers to this blog apparently) will no doubt focus exclusively on the negative. Certainly, grave problems persist and there's a long road ahead; most disappointing is the slow pace at which the Iraqi government is progressing. But military objectives are being met satisfactorily.
Incidentally, I would argue that the Iraqi Parliment is having more success in the arena of legislative activity than the Democrat-led congress. Pelosi and Reid face a conundrum of sorts, as they promised swift action on a host of issues after their elevation to majority status in Congress. Yet, despite all the high expectations, they have failed to deliver on all but one of their much-hyped "Six for '06" campaign promises. They were able to pass a minimum wage increase, tucking it away in a bill already bloated with pork. But on every other goal, they have failed. If indeed their "mandate" for change was so cut and dry, so clear, then overriding a veto shouldn't be a problem. Perhaps their failure to do anything but harry Bush with meaningless resolutions explains why their approval rating is lower than the president's. Maybe it's the US Congress that requires "Benchmarks" to monitor progress.
Here's the link to the report.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070712.html
Pelosi
"significant progress?!!"
ReplyDeleteRight. If you consider going from ground zero to what will probably soon be civil war to be progress.
"grave problems persist and there's a long road ahead?!!"
The point is, (and I know the poster will never agree) that WE NEVER SHOULD HAVE GONE IN THE FIRST PLACE. Even rightwingers like Pat Buchanan (sp?) agree with that, which is why nearly everyone has stopped supporting him.
James,
ReplyDeleteYou are courageous in making this assertion, but while I cannot completely agree with the tone of the prior comment there is something to his statement. Bush has bungled the Iraq ordeal and now he and his cohorts are suffering the political consequences, the minute victories mentioned are of no consequence. That is why virtually every GOP presidential candidate is distancing himself from the Bush clique. Here's how W.F. Buckley described it a few months back:
"[T]here comes a time when rearward legions of a republic feel the need to assert their residual dominance, and we're getting very close to the moment when the people, surveying the policy, weighing its prospects, considering its benefits, step forward with their ultimate supremacy — we are a republic. Scorning revolution, they do so gradually, but definitively.
The voters express themselves in manifold ways. Their representatives are taking small steps toward dissociation from the war, but warning of major steps. We have one-half of U.S. senators disposed to say that in their judgment the time is up. The only quarrel now is jurisdictional, not popular. The authority of the republic needs from time to time to be asserted. Not with the consent of everyone, but with the consent of everyone who accepts the rule of the people."
Iraq is a tough issue, but you've got to admit that the country is better than it was 10 years ago. The stupid arguments over if we should ahve gone are useless because we did go and that's that. We kicked a#$ and now there is democracy in Iraq. Afghanistan is another good mission . . . in my opinion Syria and Iran should be next.
ReplyDeleteBTW: I ahve a cousin in the sandbox as I type this, so its not like this stuff doesn't hit close to home for me.
hilarious picture of pelosi with the whip. Is that real or did you photo shop that on?
ReplyDelete