The failed Democratic anti-Surge

I’m not giving away anything by quoting here the concluding paragraph from Noemie Emery’s long and fascinating article about the Democrats’ desperate and, at the moment, unsuccessful anti-Surge efforts in the last year.  If you read only this paragraph, good as it is, you’ll have missed all of the really interesting stuff:

As they took control of Congress at the start of 2007, the Democrats vowed this would be a year of historic importance, and it seems they were prescient: Seldom before in the annals of governance have so many politicians fought so long and so hard to completely screw up a winning strategy being waged on their country’s behalf. Some cruelly define this as treacherous conduct, but this is imprecise and unkind. They tried, it is true, to do serious damage, but were compromised in the event by their chronic incompetence, as well as by being too above-board and open to try to do things on the sly. A stab in the back as a concept was wholly beyond their capacities. This was not a stab in the back that works via guile and subterfuge. It was 41 different stabs in the front, that always fell far short of serious damage, unless you count the damage they did to their own reputations (the approval ratings for Congress are now in the twenties). It was the Stab in the Front, the Surge-against-the-Surge, the Pickett’s Charge of the Great War on Terror. It was a year to remember, that will live in the annals of fecklessness. It was historical. It was hysterical. It was the Stab that Failed.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Pingback: Webloggin - Blog Archive » The Failed Democratic Anti-Surge()

  • Ymarsakar

    Even back when Democrats were talking about “Bush needs more troops” it was kind of obvious that they would do a 180 if Bush actually did send in more troops. Just like when they say that Afghanistan is being ignored, that if ever Bush focused on Afghanistan to the exclusion of anything else, then it would be about BUsh not paying attention Iran or Syria or Saudi Arabia.

    Nothing is ever honest from the Left, except their dishonesty.

  • Ymarsakar

    You have got to read this Book.

    http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/pressfield_tribes.htm

  • johnfromcolumbus

    Say NO to War. Unless a Democrat is President.

    Imagine if you will, Al Gore were the President instead of Bush. Imagine if Al Gore using intelligence gathered mostly under his time as VP to President Slick Willy took military action in Iraq as Bush did. Are you there yet? Can you picture it? Would there be Gore Derangement Syndrome? Would there be a Gorehitler? Would there be over reporting on ‘mistreatment’ of Iraqi prisoners?

  • Danny Lemieux

    Hmmm! Not sure about that, jfc. I just can’t picture either Gore or Slick Willy having the cojones to react to a crisis like GW did. Remember that Slick Willy spent eight years pretending that there was no crisis. People like that are better at standing on the sidelines shooting arrows at those people that really get things done.

    Your point about the MSM and the Left-wing nutroots is well-taken, however. They will need serious medication for years to come and I still don’t think they will ever get over GW. In the end, he will make them look and feel stupid, self-dealing and cowardly and they will never forgive him for that.

  • Friend of USA

    Here in Canada, when the liberals were in power a few years ago they are the ones who said yes and sent troops to Afghanistan,

    but now that the conservatives are in charge of Canada liberals are against the war in Afghanistan and want the troops back home.

    Doing 180s, shifting goal posts, and being generally dishonest seems to be a liberal thing that crosses borders…

  • Friend of USA

    Or is it that dishonest people who do 180s and shift goal posts are attracted to liberalism?

    mhhh…

  • Tap

    Which came first? The chicken or the…chickenette?

  • Tap

    Thanks for that link, Bookworm. That article was really stunning. We may know all of this, but to see it all written in one spot….wow.

  • Danny Lemieux

    I don’t know if “liberal” or “conservative” in Canada mean the same as in the U.S., FofUSA They certainly don’t in Europe or Australia. Here, the political tag “Liberal” (capital “L”) has absolutely nothing to do with “liberal” values or ways of thinking, just as “Democrat” doesn’t have anything anymore to do with “democratic” (think “Democrat Peoples Republic”). Liberal and Democrat have become euphemisms for “Socialist”.

    As far as the term “conservative” (big “C” or little “c”) goes, I suppose that it all depends upon what you want to conserve.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/ ymarsakar

    Parties with the name “Liberal” are either libertarian or middle of the road. Labour would be what we see as socialist and Leftist, Danny. Harper’s government now in powerful in Canada is about the best that can be done for capitalism and free economics. I don’t know what his social policies are, but they are probably far more orientated towards the left than American conservatives.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/ ymarsakar

    * Bloc Québécois (founded 1991) – social democratic, Quebec separatist
    * Conservative Party of Canada (founded by merger in 2003) – conservative-leaning, right-of-centre
    * Liberal Party of Canada (founded 1867) – liberal, centre-left, centrist
    * New Democratic Party (founded 1961) – social democratic, leftwing

    Instead of calling it Labour Party, which Australia and Britain does, the Canadians call it “New Democratic Party”. NDP. Like the SDP in Germany. Socialist.

    Howard’s party in Australia had the name “Liberal” I think.

  • Friend of USA

    I think that the main difference between Canada’s and USA’s liberals is in what they can accomplish ( and have accomplished so far ) more than in how they see things.

    I mean liberals here and democrats in the USA are both for gay marriage, for free abortion, they are both anti-war, they are both for free universal health care, they are both for more taxes and both believe the government can fix anything and should fix everything, they both think we should be more like Europe, they are both to an extent anti-religion and both to an extent forgivivng of Islam, they are both always blaming the USA, they both think the UN is a great thing, they both tend to be anti-Israel, they both blindly believe in global warming, they both try to silence the right while pretending to be the defendors of free speech,
    et cetera et cetera…

    The end results and the methods differ but the ” thinking” of liberals is the same in both countries.

    European liberals are not that much different, again it is the methods and results that differ more than the ideology.

    Liberals in almost every western nation are feeling guilty for the success of western civilization/ white males of European descent
    and liberals in almost every western nation pretty much all call the right a bunch of racist for defending their civilization and being proud of its achievements .

    We may not have young Muslims rioting in our streets and setting hundreds of cars ablaze in Canada or in the USA as they have in France, but our liberals Canadians and Americans and the left in France feel the same way about rioting muslims; they are poor little victims we should try to understand and appease even when they shoot real bullets at policemen as they have done yesterday in France.

    More similiraties than differences if you ask me.