Mark My Words - commentary on news, politics, religion, philosophy, science and social issues

At least that’s what the Democrat opposition and their MSM enablers must think of you and most other Americans. How else to explain this shift from Bush didn’t have enough troops, to now we can’t add troops, that would be too many? It’s almost as if we’re trapped within a lithograph by M. C. Escher and can’t tell whether they’re coming or going, except to see where Bush is headed and recognize they immediately go in the other direction, not matter what that actually involves.

Do they really think Americans forget the criticism constantly heaped on the administration, Rumsfeld in particular, about not having enough boots on the ground? It wasn’t that long ago, even Princess Pelosi said we needed more troops.

From Rush:

Nancy Pelosi Backed a Surge in May of 2004: "We Need More Troops on the Ground."

[...] Tim Russert interviewing Nancy Pelosi May 30th, 2004: "What would you do? What would you do in Iraq today right now?"
Pelosi: "What I would do is, and what I think our country must do in Iraq is take an assessment of where we are, and there has to be a leveling with the American people and with Congress as to what's really happening there. It's very hard to say what you would do. We need more troops on the ground."
Russert: "Would you send more American troops in order to stabilize the situation?"
Pelosi: "Yes."
[...]

Do they think we also won’t remember the retired generals and leaked “sources” that said we didn’t have enough troops, that the military footprint was too small?

This was such an established meme that SNL actually had a skit wherein they ridiculed Rumsfeld about resisting increasing the number of troops. Never mind that the military plan resulted in a rapid defeat nearly unheard of in military history. Now President Bush has moved out commanders that resisted adding troops and installed those who agree with this policy. The reaction to this, is instead of military advisors saying we need more troops being hyped in the media and DNC talking points, they now go about face, and run to the individuals in the military who disagree with sending in more troops.

This change in the opposition’s direction, is so quick and so much in reverse of previous criticism, that the lack of whiplash injuries in those executing the maneuver lends certain proof to the lack of useful mass residing between their ears, let alone an indication of their serious deficiency in intellectually honesty.

This dizzying change was only emphasized by SNL repeating that episode, this past Saturday night, which included the Rumsfeld segment, one saving grace that night being Alex Baldwin doing a hilarious Tony Bennet impression. Watching that, while also reading, seeing and hearing the new criticism was an experience in altered reality that I suspect could almost compete with that achieved by the use of psychedelic drugs.

If you find yourself in a relationship where you figure you should start keeping a log of what’s been said because you are beginning to question your own sanity --You are experiencing emotional manipulation. An emotional manipulator is an expert in turning things around, rationalizing, justifying and explaining things away. They can lie so smoothly that you can sit looking at black and they’ll call it white - and argue so persuasively that you begin to doubt your very senses.
[...]

The above quote is from a list of what emotional manipulators do to people. Seems rather apropos regarding the usual suspects arrayed against the administration. How else to explain this reaction to Bush’s plan, even before his address tonight, when compared to the previous criticism?

From Pelosi's website:
Surging forces is a strategy that you have already tried and that has already failed. Like many current and former military leaders, we believe that trying again would be a serious mistake.

If it’s been tried before, why was the previous criticism about not having enough troops?

If we’re lucky, and this includes Iraqis and others in the Middle East, these Democrats won’t have the balls to actually institute a cut and run, and instead, merely throw much rhetoric around in an attempt to keep their moonbat element under control and continue receiving support from them.

Fortunately, some Democrats, to the shame of several in the GOP, are willing to support the President, to actually seek victory in Iraq. The ankle biting dissenters and Ted “it’s Vietnam!” Kennedy, not withstanding.

For criticism and advice about strategy that is actually thoughtful and cares about winning, take the time to read Victor Davis Hanson here.

There are troop surges, and then there are troop surges, in military history. Some radically alter the calculus of the battlefield. Others simply add to the stasis and sense of quagmire, ending up as nothing more than preludes to defeat.
[...]
If the United States sends more troops into Iraq, especially Baghdad, then we must expand the parameters of operations...

The following is from G.K. Chesterton and regarding the arguments against Christianity, but it is also rather descriptive of some in perpetual disagreement to anything Bush.

It was attacked on all sides and for all contradictory reasons. No sooner had one rationalist demonstrated it was too far to the east than another demonstrated with equal clearness that it was much too far to the west. No sooner had my indignation died down at its angular and aggressive squareness than I was called up again to notice and condemn its enervating and sensual roundness. (Orthodoxy pg. 91, G.K. Chesteron)

Much is at stake in all of this, and those who are more concerned with attacking the President, than in actually seeking victory, offer evidence of their shallow regard for the lives of those that can’t vote them into office and the intellect of those who can. Then there is the clear disdain some actually express for our men and woman in uniform, who have sacrificed much for the U.S. and for Iraqis during their missions, of which little needs to be said, the disgusting nature of such and attitude obvious on it’s own.

At the very best, those who practice this reflexive opposition, no matter where they have to go to maintain it, demonstrate their extremely poor judgment. It matters not, that they can speak eloquently or have their hair arranged just so, they deserve our dismissal and recognition that they’re not as serious or impressive as they would like to think of themselves. They’re silliness would merely be cause for much laughter, were it not for the worldwide ramifications that could take many lives, possibly in ways more devastating than 9/11, should what they say actually be put into action.

But that’s ok, not such a big deal really, if you can get a street named after you.

---

Note:

Captain's Quarters will be live blogging the President's address tonight. Be sure to check it out, he consistently offers excellent commentary at his blog.

Update:

Drudge has the full text of the President's speech, as prepared for delivery here.

Update:

Stupid dems, let's have little Dick (our soldiers run gulags) Durbin be the one replying to the President.

---

Filed under: MSM -- NewsPolitics -- Iraq

Trackposted to: Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, The Random Yak, Adam's Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, Right Truth, basil's blog, Stuck On Stupid, The Bullwinkle Blog, Jo's Cafe, Conservative Cat, Pursuing Holiness, Rightwing Guy, The HILL Chronicles, third world county, Wake Up America, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, stikNstein... has no mercy, Pirate's Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, Renaissance Blogger, Planck's Constant, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox News, Right Voices, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.