Gay Patriot Header Image

President on Iraq Critics — Back on his Game

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 4:23 pm - January 26, 2007.
Filed under: Bush-hatred,Liberals,War On Terror

Today, while beginning my day, I had FoxNews on and was delighted to hear the President challenge the critics of his new Iraq policy, saying that it was their “obligation”* to put forward their own plan. It seems he’s following up on his strong State of the Union address where, as I noted earlier this week, quoting Powerline’s John Hinderaker, that the president was “back on his game.”

And he was back on his game asking for his critics to come up with an alternative to his Iraq policy.

For as long as Bush-hatred has been a phenomenon of American politics, it seems that its practitioners are more interested in baiting than in arguing. And, by and large, the president has not done a good job of challenging his angry adversaries. They claim he lied in leading us to war without offering particulars, that is, without pointing to statements the president made in the months before the war — and showing how the president knew them to be false when he made them.

Let’s hope we see more of the combative President Bush I saw today on FoxNews. While he need not adopt the ruthlessness of his predecessor in going after his critics, he should at least bear in mind that part of Clinton’s success stemmed from his willingness to rebut his opponents (or attempt to discredit them). The president and his team should dare to challenge his critics, questioning their assumptions and demanding that they come up with alternatives (as he did today).

Perhaps had he done a better job of defending the mission in Iraq — and done so regularly, we might see greater public support for the war. Just as he should have taken more time to take issue with those who level false accusations against him — and criticize his plans without putting forward alternatives of their own.

* The President’s exact words were: “They have an obligation and a serious responsibility therefore to put up their own plan as to what would work.

Share

26 Comments

  1. #0 – Good post and points.

    Abstaining from further comment, as I already made my views known (and took down a couple lefty Bush-haters, if I must say) here and here.

    Comment by Calarato — January 26, 2007 @ 5:24 pm - January 26, 2007

  2. It’s absolutely incorrect. The President may not like it, and the previous Republican Congress may have exercised it all too little, but it’s part of the role of Congress to act with oversight to the Administration’s plans. Their responsibility is to provide oversight. His responsibility is to provide a plan that works. It’s a political ploy that the Democrats have already realized and will not play. Why in any reasonable world would they offer solutions that would never be considered or carried out and would only be used as fodder for conservative political analysts? Would any of you?

    I wish I could say I found some admiration in him going down with his ship. It’s unfortunate he can’t take more of the neocrat conservatives who planned the war in the first place with him. But the reality of it is that he is, and trying to coerce Democrats to keep it afloat, sacrificing themselves for the President’s war, is ridiculous. He is neither a monarch, nor unfortunately a military genius, and the sooner he realizes both the better for all of us.

    Comment by Just A Question — January 26, 2007 @ 10:21 pm - January 26, 2007

  3. The comment by Just a Question is constitutionally ignorant and absurdly illogical. The Commander in Chief is in charge of military operations and the Congress has no authority to provide ‘oversight.’ Committees of Congress are free to offer advice, but if they do so they should be required to act responsibly. To repudiate military decisions of the President and the generals, without making any attempt to suggest any other couse of action, is the height of irresponsibility. The Democrats are betraying our troops fighting overseas to save their political skins. If the surge is successful they will try to take credit for it, and if it isn’t they will claim they were against it all along. They are probably the most contempible political party in American history and they will answer for it.

    Comment by doyne dawson — January 27, 2007 @ 5:34 am - January 27, 2007

  4. Just A Question-I would almost swallow your excuse if not for the fact that the democrats think their role is to A say not to anything and everything the president proposes, and B if they weren’t so focused on withdrawal. If they want withdrawal, then go on record asking for it, and pull the funding-otherwise either suggest alternatives or let the CIC do their job.

    Comment by just me — January 27, 2007 @ 8:13 am - January 27, 2007

  5. Interesting article in Slate about parallels between Bush’s Iraq policy and his Push for Amnesty (ephemistically referred to “Comprehensive Immigration Reform) and why both policies are “disastrous”.

    I don’t have much to add beyond that the consequences of defeat in Iraq are so obvious and so catastrophic, it is amazing to me that so many people are hell-bent on making defeat happen. And obviously, this is not a partisan issue. A partisan Republican would want the party to jump on the surrender and appeasement bandwagon. This isn’t partisan. This is wanting America to win versus wanting America to lose.

    I’m stunned that no one in Congress has introduced a Victory Resolution, stating congressional support for victory in Iraq and Afghanistan. The political class in this country has apparently come to the conclusion that being defeated by savage terrorist barbarians and ceding Iraq to the control of terrorists who hate America, and who are allied with an emergent nuclear power, is in the best interest of their class.

    Comment by V the K — January 27, 2007 @ 8:53 am - January 27, 2007

  6. #2 – “Oversight” is a mile away from irresponsibly lying and stating mistruths in order to undermine the Commander In Chief. If Democrats were truly interested in oversight, then that is what they should be shrilly screaming. But they haven’t been.

    As Dan pointed out, Democrats and Liberals suffer from wanting Bush to fail, and in turn, helping America to fail in its war against Islamic terrorists.

    Do not hide behind “oversight”… that is too easy and a false position. Admit that you want the President to fail and offer a solution to Iraq …. not just “No, no , no”.

    Finally, Democrats must (as the responsible governing class they now are) offer their vision for the consequences of failure (withdrawal) in Iraq. So far not a peep on that front from the anti-Bush crowd.

    Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — January 27, 2007 @ 9:30 am - January 27, 2007

  7. Slight disagreement Bruce, I think in Webb’s response to the SOTU, there was a slight grudging acknowledgement that pull-out from Iraq would have negative consequences. But Webb did go onto say, paraphrasing, what the hell, we hate Bush, and if creating another terror-state in the Middle East and handing a victory to Islamo-fascism is the cost of humiliating him, then bring on the white flags.

    Maybe some on the left have drunk enough bongwater to believe that after America is defeated, Iraq will go back to being the peaceful, kite-flying, place of “flowery meadows and rainbow skies, and rivers made of chocolate, where the children danced and laughed and played with gumdrop smiles” as Michael Moore and Sean Penn made it out to be. But the fact is, those who are fighting to control Iraq are allied with al Qaeda, and or Iran, and either way, if they win, Iraq becomes a victory for Islamic fascism.

    And what do they think all of those “insurgents” are going to do once they’ve won? Open 7-11s? The proponents of American defeat claim we should focus on Afghanistan. Are they really so stupid that they don’t think the “insurgents” wouldn’t just pack up and go to Afghanistan, too?

    Comment by V the K — January 27, 2007 @ 10:02 am - January 27, 2007

  8. Why in any reasonable world would they offer solutions that would never be considered or carried out and would only be used as fodder for conservative political analysts? Would any of you?

    Is that why liberals have offered NOTHING in the last few elections? Is that why Reid and Pelosi had to hide out for 2 weeks prior to the 06 election?

    How in the h*ll can you expect to win support and influence people if you have nothing to offer? Furthermore, what would be his motivation for accepting suggestions from liberals? Time after time he’s been open to them and they stab him in the back with their version of gratitude, graciousness and class.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 27, 2007 @ 10:51 am - January 27, 2007

  9. Yes, let’s have more of this “combative President Bush” defending an unpopular escalation of an unpopular war all the way through 2008. Unfortunately, there is no way for the Congress to stop him since I think he would simply re-arrange defense spending to pay for it if he had to. But the Dems will be able to show they tried to stop him and so the ultimate failure of the escalation not to mention the war itself – which should be clear around the time the primaries start – will be solely the responsibility of Bush and his rubber stamp GOP and the electorate will know it.

    The consequences for this botched and failed war may be almost uniformly bad for our country but Bush has ensured the consequences will be disastrous for the GOP.

    Comment by Ian — January 27, 2007 @ 11:10 am - January 27, 2007

  10. Your comments remind me how irresponsible and immature liberals usually appear to be. Like a two-year-old, all they seem to be able to do is shout, “No! No! NO!” And that’s their National leaders in a nutshell.

    Comment by DoorHold — January 27, 2007 @ 12:51 pm - January 27, 2007

  11. You want me to provide a plan? our plan is to impeach YOU moron.

    Comment by lester — January 27, 2007 @ 6:43 pm - January 27, 2007

  12. #9
    defending an unpopular escalation of an unpopular war all the way through 2008.

    One would think that if the war was so vastly unpopular, the liberals would have the balls to cut funding. They don’t seem to have any.

    Why, do you suppose, is that?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 27, 2007 @ 7:26 pm - January 27, 2007

  13. But the Dems will be able to show they tried to stop him and so the ultimate failure of the escalation not to mention the war itself – which should be clear around the time the primaries start – will be solely the responsibility of Bush and his rubber stamp GOP and the electorate will know it.

    Good boy, Ian; make it obvious that you want the United States to fail.

    Can we quote you as admitting publicly that the Democrats are doing their best to make sure the United States fails because they believe it will give them political power?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 27, 2007 @ 8:11 pm - January 27, 2007

  14. #13:

    you want the United States to fail.

    No, I state simple facts: it’s dead-ender Bush bootlickers who are ensuring failure all because they are desperate buck-passers who want the next President to take the blame for their disastrous debacles. It won’t work. The mess is the exclusive property of Bush and his sycophantic enablers. As I said, while Iraq is and will be bad for the US, it will be disaster for the GOP.

    Comment by Ian — January 27, 2007 @ 9:59 pm - January 27, 2007

  15. #12:

    the liberals would have the balls to cut funding.

    Just wait. It’s coming.

    Comment by Ian — January 27, 2007 @ 10:01 pm - January 27, 2007

  16. LOL….of course it will, Ian; you and your fellow Democrats are so desperate to make Iraq fail that you’ll yank funding for it, even if it endangers soldiers in the field.

    Either that, or you’ll increase your funding of terrorists, a la Cindy Sheehan.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 28, 2007 @ 12:07 am - January 28, 2007

  17. If the propenents of American defeat were honest, they’d state their position thusly:

    1. The desire for the US to surrender in Iraq (ephemism: “redeploy”) is based on domestic politics, and not the strategic interests of the USA.

    2. The “redeployment” will be a massive victory for jihad, will strengthen Islamic radicalism, and eventually lead to more terrorism and potentially thousands upon thousands more deaths.

    3. They don’t care, because it’s all about humiliating Bush.

    Comment by V the K — January 28, 2007 @ 8:12 am - January 28, 2007

  18. #17:

    it’s all about humiliating Bush.

    Bush does that well enough on his own. I see his poll numbers have dropped even further. Leave it to Bush to get a negative “bounce” from a SOTU!

    It will be interesting to see the reaction on this blog once it becomes clear the escalation has failed; another case of too little too late for this inept administration. There’ll be plenty of wailing and gnashing of teeth not to mention blaming Democrats and liberals and defeatists but I won’t hold my breath waiting for any of the usual suspects to face up to the reality of the situation. Who knows, by then, Dear Leader may have started a third war he can’t finish?

    Comment by Ian — January 28, 2007 @ 9:30 am - January 28, 2007

  19. #16:

    even if it endangers soldiers in the field.

    There will be plenty of funding for redeployment; the soldiers will only be endangered if Dear Leader attempts to use the redeployment funds to continue his vanity war. Then it will be time for impeachment and war crimes trials.

    Comment by Ian — January 28, 2007 @ 9:35 am - January 28, 2007

  20. Ah yes, “war crimes” again.

    If you and your fellow Democrats are so desperate to prosecute “war crimes”, Ian, the terrorists and insurgents you are doing your best to aid in Iraq are committing them by the bushel, including their nearly-continuous attacks on Iraqi police and military members, civilians related to Iraqi police, and hostages they take from Iraqi police members’ families as punishment.

    I seem to recall challenging you and your fellow leftists already to go over there and enforce the laws against these terrorists and their “war crimes” — or to insert yourself as “human shields” for the benefit of Iraqi civilians, since certainly these insurgents wouldn’t attack you……right?

    In short, if you want war crimes trials, you don’t have to wait — go over to Iraq and start holding them for these terrorists. Why won’t you?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 29, 2007 @ 2:49 am - January 29, 2007

  21. #20: The Iraqis can take care of their war criminals, we’ll deal with ours.

    Comment by Ian — January 29, 2007 @ 10:25 am - January 29, 2007

  22. Ian-

    I’d be happy if the Libs proceeded with “war crimes” charges against anyone defending our nation….

    … as long as the President would take off the gloves and start implementing and prosecuting sedition and treason charges against those in the Congress and Mainstream News Media who leak our operational details to the enemy.

    Comment by GayPatriot — January 29, 2007 @ 11:52 am - January 29, 2007

  23. #22 – Actually. Bruce, all the Prez has to do is enforce the Alien & Sedition Acts as already mandated by Congress.

    Treason is harder to do. Article III, Sec. 3 of the Constitution (the judiciary) deals with treason – the only crime explicity mentioned in the Constitution.

    You need at least these 3 criteria met:
    1. Proof of a declaration of war against the US (both within the country and outside of it).
    2. Proof of giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the US.
    3. A confession of such actions in either a court of law with a sitting judge, or in the person of two witnesses who will testify as such.

    This is the reason why it was so hard to get John Walker Lindh, aka “Taliban Johnny” to be convicted of treason. He met #1 and #2 but there was no proof of #3.

    Also just FYI – the punishment for treason is defined by the sitting Congerss at that time. So with Pelosi and Reid in charge, think “slap on the wrist.”

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — January 29, 2007 @ 12:32 pm - January 29, 2007

  24. The Iraqis can take care of their war criminals, we’ll deal with ours.

    By that logic, then, the Yugoslavs should have taken care of Milosevic themselves, the people of Darfur should take care of their warlords themselves, the Rwandans should have taken care of their own genocidists themselves, and we should have butted out and left the German people to take care of the Nazis themselves.

    Further following that, there should be no need for an international war crimes tribunal or court, since every country should take care of their own.

    What you make patently transparent, Ian, is that “war crimes” are nothing more than another one of your attempts to sabotage and harm the United States You won’t lift a finger to go after Iraqi insurgents who are CURRENTLY and REGULARLY blackmailing, kidnapping, and killing civilians in a constant and daily merry-go-round of REAL “war crimes”, but you’re poised and ready to attack the United States for any perceived crimes.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 29, 2007 @ 12:55 pm - January 29, 2007

  25. #24: Well, I’d be happy to send every suspected war criminal, Iraqi and American, to The Hague for trial but somehow, I doubt you’d be satisfied with that arrangement.

    Comment by Ian — January 29, 2007 @ 9:53 pm - January 29, 2007

  26. #25 – “Well, I’d be happy to send every suspected war criminal, Iraqi and American, to The Hague for trial but somehow, I doubt you’d be satisfied with that arrangement.”

    No, not as long as those American war criminals include those anti-Americans who were in DC last weekend – Sarandon, Robbins, Fonda, Spicoli etc. You know, those who gave aid and comfort to the enemy and declared war on the USA in front of at least 2 witnesses.

    Sounds like treason to me. Refer to Article III, Sec. 3 of the US Constitution.

    Checkmate.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — January 30, 2007 @ 12:23 pm - January 30, 2007

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.