Senator Ted Kennedy was Chris Wallace's guest on FOX News Sunday yesterday.
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.
2 comments:
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.
It's funny when lefties find it offensive when we compare the severity of the current struggle to the importance of winning WWII. Then they turn around and draw the comparison themselves, when it seems to suit their political worldview. The best response to the "Iraq longer than WWII" charge comes from Wizbang in answer to Michael Moore:
The US involvement in World War II did, indeed last 1,347 days, counting from the attack on Pearl Harbor until the surrender of Japan -- but that was the actual war-fighting. The "major combat operations." Because we were fighting three modern, industrialized, militarized nations, we had to crush each of them utterly. Italy fell when its own people turned on their fascist masters. Germany had to be almost literally bombed back to the stone age, then invaded and nearly every inch conquered. And Japan was bracing for a similar fate when they noticed that two of their cities had put up "gone fission" signs, and we were promising to continue doing that to more cities.
A truer comparison would be from the date of the US invasion (March 20, 2003) to the fall of Baghdad and the collapse of the Baathist government (April 9) -- three weeks.
Now, of course, Mr. Moore is conflating the major combat parts with the occupation and rebuilding. Since he brought up World War II, let's take a look at that.
Germany remained under Allied control until 1949, when the Western powers ceded their districts to the Federal Republic of Germany and the Soviets created their puppet regime of the German Democratic Republic. This partitioning remained until 1990, when the German people finally took their fate back into their own hands -- and got away with it, because the Soviets were far too busy worrying about their own rapidly-dissolving totalitarian regime. That brings the total time of "war and occupation" to about 49 years, give or take a few months.
Unless, of course, you count "occupation" as "having US forces still present." In which case, we come up to the present day.
In Japan, the official occupation lasted until 1952 -- ten years and change after Pearl Harbor. And as in Germany, US forces are still present, so it can be argued that we are still stuck in the "quagmire" of World War II.
I'd also like to add, that if libs want to make that comparison of a timetable, as if even if this war on terror turns out to be cross-generational, it would somehow invalidate engaging in the war, let's point out the difference in sacrifice and casualty figures as well. Because as awful as it is to have thus far lost 3000 soldiers, it is a small figure in the overall historical scheme of things.
Because it is going to last longer than some other previous war, that somehow is justification for not fighting the one we're in now? Puh-lease....
Excellent response to the Left's idiocy.
Post a Comment