"Opinions founded on prejudice are always sustained with the greatest of violence." ~ Francis Jeffrey
Schmuckie Schumer had this to say the other day:
"And let me be clear. The violence in Anbar has gone down in spite of the Surge, not because of the Surge."
Conservatives have expressed a seething outrage over these anti-surge remarks, but it merely caused me to wonder...What the you-know-what is he talking about? How can a reduction in violence ever happen in spite of actions created to stop the violence? It makes no sense to me.
But then he went on to explain what he means:
"The inability of American soldiers to protect these tribes from Al Qaeda said to these tribes, "We have to fight Al Qaeda ourselves."
I have to admit there is a sort of convoluted logic to that statement. But it still makes little sense to me, so I decided to do a little research to see if I could make more sense out of Schmuckies reasoning. And I believe I've found the answer in the form of an e-mail, the text in it's entirety copied and pasted below:
-----Original message------
From: UsamabinLaden@alqaeda.org
To: gsoros@moveon.org
cc: Dailykos.com, DemocraticUnderground.com
Subject FWD FW:message from gsoros@moveon.org,dailyKos.com, DemocraticUnderground.com
To: cschumer@ussenate.gov
Dear Georgie and friends:
OK. Bush is really making me mad now, increasing the number of troops in Iraq. Who does he think he is, anyway? Does he really think he can defeat us with this irrational move? Well, I have a couple of tricks left up my sleeve, too. Just for spite, we're taking our IED's and going home. That'll show him. Let's see him try to continue this war without us. HA!
Sincerely,
your friend, Ussie
There you have it. The violence really is lessening in Iraq in spite of the surge!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Now Mark,
Don't link Osama to the Dems and the wacky left. The terrorists actually hate the Libs and Dems... but don't tell the Dems that.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57596
Blessings
Has anyone heard how Schmuckie supports his assessment? Does he have any Iraqi statements, particularly from those sheiks turning on AlQueda to back up his claims?
Seems to me, that there would be some who would side with the winning team, as perceived by the sheiks. Their perceptions might be right or wrong, but they'll act on them. It wouldn't take a brain surgeon to see that we are the winning team.
That's just one possibility. Another is, of course, that it is as it has been reported by others, that they are finally fed up with the tactics of AlQueda and want nothing more to do with them.
Still one more is a combo of the above together with the fact that the increase in troop levels makes it easier to make such decisions.
All in all, I think Chuckie needs to be more forthcoming with details when he makes these outrageous remarks. Better still, he needs to give up this pretense that he is worthy of his office and title and go off to sell hot dogs or something. He's a buffoon.
Here's anothger way to look at this:
When Schmuckie says, "The inability of American soldiers to protect these tribes from Al Qaeda said to these tribes, "We have to fight Al Qaeda ourselves.", maybe he is saying that the tribal chiefs saw how much effort the troops are putting into helping them, that they decided to stop sitting on their hands and help out. So even if the surge wasn't working the way we wanted it to, it still has the desired result. Either way, obviously, the surge is working, and saying it isn't doesn't make it so.
But really. Does anyone really believe a highly trained army of professional would ever be ineffective against a mob of ruffians? Schumer is an idiot.
Great parody Mark. Unfortunatly the premise behind it is closer to true than false.
While UBL and clan want all Dems dead because they are Americans, the Dems would rather favor and cuddle UBL and clan as freedom fighters instead of enemies of everthing we hold dear!
"Does anyone really believe a highly trained army of professional would ever be ineffective against a mob of ruffians?"
That sounds an awful lot like King George circa 1776.
I think what Senator Schumer was getting at was that al Queda's strategy of blowing up everyone and everything in order to foment a civil war ended up backfiring on them a bit. Finally, the people getting blown up realized who it was and instead of blaming each other blamed the right guy (If only Americans would do the same), and are now fighting back. Of course, this argument is being used by the same people that have for years now claimed that you can't fight your way to peace, and that only a political solution will end the Iraq War.
I think more accurate would be to say that what has happened is exactly what General Petraeus said would happen when he addressed Congress at the beginning of the surge, and again a few months ago. That is, yes, diplomacy and politics must succeed in order for Iraq to succeed, but diplomacy and politics absolutely cannot even exist without security. The surge, and the slight change in strategy it allowed, have begun to provide that sense of security, and positioned the native Iraqi groups to have the opportunity to do what Senator Schumer so eloquently said they are doing.
The inconvenient truth is that the great majority of experts agree that an immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq will result in extreme chaos and likely genocide. To say that our presence has nothing to do with successes in Iraq doesn't jive with what these experts are saying. Right now, our presence is the structure and stability that the Iraqis need in order to move on with the political and diplomatic process of forming their democratic society.
"Let's see him try to continue this war without us. Ha! LOL! If only!
We all know what the Democrats are going to say before they say it, Mark. They're truly totally predictable. Schumer thinks that pulling his glasses down on the end of his nose makes him look smart, and Hillary thinks those black-rimmed reading glasses make her look smart, when the smartest thing either of them could do to look smart would be to keep their mouths shut, but of course that's just wishful thinking on my part.
For those of you who apparently don't read or watch real news, the surge was directed primarily at Baghdad. Baghdad is not Anbar province. If the surge were to drive insurgents out of Baghdad they would likely go to other areas of Iraq, like Anbar. But the Sunnis in Anbar began turning against al Qaeda well before the surge. Violence has gone down in Anbar because the Sunnis cleansed the area of Shiites and then turned against al Qaeda.
Ergo, violence down in Anbar in spite of the surge.
Well then, Jim, it would seem Schmucky Chumer is commenting on something irrelevant to the surge. What, then, is the point that he's trying to make? It would seem to me that the point is to reduce, if not eliminate, AlQueda's presence and/or influence in Iraq. Perhaps our presence has exposed them for what they are in a way that even Iraqis now fully understand. Whatever. One thing is certain. Your comments suggest an agreement with his statements, which is OK, except for the fact that his point was to minimize the positive impact of the surge, thus again slamming the administration. This is typical of the Dems, to minimize any positive news regarding the war, and highlight the negative, all for the purpose of casting themselves as the answer.
In any case, it's still a good thing that these Sunnis are now fighting on our side against the same set of scumbags, surge or not.
Post a Comment