I didn't watch it, but I did scan the transcript.
This is just weird. One of the favorite lines from the Left is that we've been in Iraq longer than our involvement in World War II. That annoys me.
It's just plain stupid to compare the extent of our military operations in Iraq with the scale of U.S. activities during World War II. The length of the conflict isn't the only issue to consider. World War II and Iraq are apples and oranges.
I wasn't surprised that Kennedy used the tired, old WWII comparison; but it did surprise me when Kennedy brought up how long we were in Vietnam.
KENNEDY: Since the Hamilton report has been issued, 40 Americans have been killed. Our military has been in Iraq longer than in World War II, World War I, longer than the Vietnam War.
Wallace didn't point out that Kennedy said something that was false. I suppose he had enough other things to follow up on.
The fact is the war in Iraq has not lasted longer than the Vietnam War, not even close.
Something else that I found interesting was when Wallace told Kennedy that his Dem colleague Harry Reid said that he would go along with a "troop surge" in Iraq.
Teddy disagrees with Reid:
WALLACE: Senator, I am told that your leader, the new Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, has just said this morning that he would support a temporary surge of U.S. troops into Iraq.
KENNEDY: Well, I respect Harry Reid on it, but that's not where I am.
WALLACE: You think that would be a mistake.
KENNEDY: Well, I agree with the generals who have appeared before our Armed Services Committee and think an enhanced — just as we saw the enhanced troops in Baghdad didn't quiet Baghdad down, the generals who have testified before the Armed Services Committee think that we would add to being a crutch for the Iraqi civilian government in not making the right judgments and decisions. I think that is a persuasive case and is one that I support.
Do the Dems have a plan for Iraq or not?
There seems to be some confusion as to what the plan entails, if there is one.
We don't know the plan, but we know that Reid and Kennedy have a difference of opinion when it comes to troop levels in Iraq and the proper course of action to take.
On ABC's This Week, Reid said that he would find it acceptable to send more troops to the region for a brief time. He would be on board with an increase in troop levels.
Kennedy doesn't like that idea, splitting with Reid on the issue. Why isn't the discord among these top Senate Dems big news?
Of course, the only discord worth reporting seems to be that which occurs within Republican ranks, following the usual lib media template. Last week, when Republican Sen. Gordon Smith was bashing Bush and calling for troop withdrawal from Iraq, that split was considered seismic.
The big news from this Sunday's talk shows came on Face the Nation. (Yes, it's still on.)
Colin Powell wanted everyone to know that "We are losing in Iraq."
That's the quote that's getting splashed.
Powell says we're losing.
But there's more to his comments than that.
Yes, he thinks we're losing and he doesn't agree with Reid that a troop surge will help.
Powell is not as pessimistic as the media are reporting.
He said, "We haven't lost. And this is the time, now, to start to put in place the kinds of strategies that will turn this situation around."
Why don't the media jump on the "We haven't lost" quote?
Bias.
Although Powell isn't as defeatist as he's being made out to be by the lib media, he certainly isn't optimistic about the situation.
Powell says:
"The current active Army is not large enough and the Marine Corps is not large enough for the kinds of missions they're being asked to perform," Powell said. "We need to let both the Army and the Marine Corps grow in size, in my military judgment."
Asked directly what the U.S. should do in Iraq, Powell said:
"I think that what we should do is to work with the Iraqi government, press them on the political peace, do everything we can to provide equipment, advisers, and whatever the Iraqi armed forces need to become more competent, and to train their leaders so that those leaders realize their responsibility to the government."
Powell, who as a member of the Bush Administration pushed the international community to sanction the invasion of Iraq, said that we are not safer now after nearly four years of fighting.
"I think we are a little less safe, in the sense that we don't have the same force structure available for other problems," Powell said. "I think we have been somewhat constrained in our ability to influence events elsewhere."
I can understand why Bush doesn't watch a lot of TV or personally monitor the media.
Being bombarded with constant critiques and advice from armchair commanders in chief posing on TV would be terribly distracting.
I really don't know why anyone would want to be President of the United States.
No comments:
Post a Comment