The Failing Nabobs

The slow but steady defection of leading Republicans from Bush's side makes it  increasingly obvious that the war in Iraq is not just a simple blunder, but a catastrophic one.

The right predictably is upset by Hillary Clinton and Robert Byrd's op-ed that Iraq is not "our Fight." Redstate can condemn the cowardice of Republicans who repudiate the war all they want, but it is not just pandering, which normally Redstate applauds, that is causing the rats to leave the sinking ship. It is the reality of the disaster that is Iraq.

And we cannot forget that this is President Bush's disaster. We should, and we will, demand answers from our representatives as to why they were so timid in disagreeing with Bush. But the fact is that the President was never thwarted in his pursuit of the war. Although threats to cut off funding have been made, Democrats have not denied Bush anything he wanted. In fact, when you look at questions of armor and of armored, or V-bottomed Humvees, Democrats were more supportive of the troops.  Everyone seems to  agree that morale of our troops remains high - four and a half years after our invading Iraq and thus starting the war. Bluntly put, the right is just talking crap when they blame the "naysayers", or as Safire once had Agnew say "the nattering nabobs of negativity," for the chaos and death in Baghdad.

So when the Republicans try to spread their failure around, we must push back. It was, and it is, Bush's war. He entered it as he wanted to, he fought it as he wanted to, and he lost it, as he was sure to do.

(h/t the ever informative memeorandum)

I thought one of the more hilarious posts about the op-ed piece was from letfreedomring,
a blog from the right, who somehow knew that "though she wrote this op-ed with Robert Byrd, there's no mistaking that this is Hillary's writing." I'm just glad that Hillary is still scribbling on her own yellow pad, and not having her staff people talking with Byrd's staff people.

Comments

[Gary Gross]

If you took the time to read carefully, you would've noticed that I was referring to that specific paragraph. And it is obvious.

Furthermore, the evidence has been mounting since mid-June that the surge is working. You can ridicule me all you want but the facts are the facts.

If the surge isn't working, then explain why Iraqi casualties dropped 36 percent from May to June.

If the surge isn't working, then explain why Diyala Province is now stabilizing.

You won't admit that things are changing because your success in 2008 hinges on defeat.

Whatever happened to the Party of JFK that would "bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty"?

Don't you see that you don't stand for liberty anymore? Don't you see that your human rights record is slipping badly?

It's really sad to think that you don't value those things anymore. When Democrats believed in those things, I was a proud member. When Democrats stopped being zealous advocates for the spread of liberty, they started losing elections.

[bbbustard]

Thanks for your comment. The idea that "there's no mistaking that his is Hillary's writing" struck me as a bit over the top. I would not be surprised if Hilary had not even read the op-ed before it was published. Some amalgamation of her and Byrd's staffers,mostly hers, wrote the thing.
Much more importantly is why you choose to personally insult. I have condemned and opposed this war from 2002, before we invaded. You have no knowledge of my feelings about liberty. To the extent that this war was politicized, it was by Bush/Rove in a way unprecedented in American history. If I wanted to personalize the argument, I might point out that you stopped being a Democrat as you became older, weaker, more feeble and cowardly. This is a war about fear, not freedom. You became a Republican as you became more amoral - having no problem with twisted truths used to justify the invasion of a country that was essentially unarmed, let alone not a threat. But I don't think that that's a helpful way to argue.
You condemn Clinton and Byrd for writing that According to the Pentagon, "overall levels of violence in Iraq have not decreased since the surge began" and say that this must have come from Murtha's cronies. You can smear Murtha and the Pentagon all that you want, but the fact is that it was Bush's Pentagon who posted a report on June 8, that said "The overall level of violence in Iraq this quarter remained similar to the previous reporting period but shifted location." www.defenselink.mil/pubs/pdfs/9010-Final-20070608.pdf
You could point out that anonymous reports indicate that June showed improvement, and you did. You also could have pointed out that last weekend was one of the deadliest in the war, but you didn't. You could have pointed out that the Pentagon declared that Saturday was the second most deadly day for U.S. troops since the war began, but you didn't.
It's your war Mr. Gross.