President Bush stands firm on the surge

While members of Congress, including Republicans, are spending time trying to  undermine the war in Iraq, President Bush is making his case for winning the war.  He spent time with conservative journalists Friday afternoon and "made it clear that he is going to see the surge through, and will rely on General David Petraeus's advice on how to proceed come September, regardless of the political climate in Washington".

Meanwhile Senators Hillary Clinton and Robert Byrd are working together on a surrender plan.  In their joint editorial in the New York Daily News they put forth their proposal to deauthorize the war in Iraq.

"The American people have waited long enough for progress in Iraq," Byrd and Clinton wrote. "They have waited long enough for the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future."

Don Surber responds:

Really? The war lasted three weeks. The occupation is in its fourth year.

So what? The North occupied the South for 12 years, and had it hung on a few more years, civil rights would have arrived for black Americans about 80 years sooner.

American troops are still in Germany. It took 10 years just to calm West Germany down and begin its "economic miracle," i.e. Americans bought what West Germany produced, no matter how awful it may have been.

American troops are still in South Korea. It took a good 20 years to establish a democracy there. My brother-in-law still recalls the deprivations he faced when he served in Korea.

That was in the 1970s.

American troops are still in Kosovo, helping prevent the very genocide that the editors of the New York Times suggest is OK in Iraq.

American troops are still in Afghanistan.

I won't go into how long we occupied Italy and Japan. My point is made.

The anti-war Bush noise coming from Congress is getting tiresome.  President Bush has been criticized for not making a stronger case for the surge.  It's time for him to step up and fight the "Surrender Lobby" and judging from his recent comments he is beginning to do that:

..."as difficult as the fight is, the cost of defeat would be higher."

Not for the Democrats.  It's their plan after all. 

Allowing Congress to run the war "is a prescription for failure," Bush said. Which is why he rightly maintains that "troop levels will be decided by our commanders on the ground, and not by political figures in Washington, D.C."

In his meeting with the conservative journalists President Bush was "confident and determined":

The president made his intentions clear Friday afternoon. He’s not going to abandon the surge, despite all the talk of his administration being willing to move to the Iraq Study Group model of the Iraq war. He views “this period as fundamental for deciding whether or not this nation is going to be secure throughout a lot of the 21st century. And therefore when it comes to the war in Iraq, as you know, I made a decision not to leave but to put more in, and I will support our troops and support Gen. Petraeus, his plan.”

“The ideal world,” he adds, “is that there would be some bipartisan consensus at some point in time to be there for a while. Can we achieve that? I don’t know. It’s worth trying. It’s worth talking to people about it.” But referring back to his statements in support of the surge, he said, with emphasis in his voice, “It’s very important for you all to understand that that’s exactly what I mean.”

Comments

[James]

Democrats and the few defecting Republicans on Capitol Hill would do well to remember that George W. Bush is commander in chief. He is the top soldier. He should be respected as such. He did not get into Iraq to achieve a political end, but his opponents want us out for political reasons. That's very sad.

[mad_cow]

Yes, the Democrats would sell out our country and our troops for political reasons, their motives are crystal clear. It's a shame. And so many millions of Americans will keep voting for them.