Prosecute the torture.

December 18, 2006

Colin Powell on Civil War and Bush's "Surge"

Sadly, we can add Colin Powell's name to the list of those who think Iraq is in a civil war. And we can also add his name to the list of those who think we're losing there.

Why does Colin Powell want our troops to loose? Why is he undermining our brave President's valiant efforts to keep us safe from the terrorists? WHY DOES COLIN POWELL HATE AMERICA?
Former secretary of state Colin L. Powell said yesterday that the United States is losing what he described as a "civil war" in Iraq and that he is not persuaded that an increase in U.S. troops there would reverse the situation. Instead, he called for a new strategy that would relinquish responsibility for Iraqi security to the government in Baghdad sooner rather than later, with a U.S. drawdown to begin by the middle of next year.
Oh my god! That's Cut and Run! Cut and Run! Does Colin Powell really think he knows military matters better than the people in the administration who never served in combat? The arrogance, I tell you. The arrogance of these traitorous, surrender-obsessed, cut and run liberals. They are exactly what's wrong with America.

Colin Powell obviously wants the 911 terrorists to win. Look, he even disagrees with Our President's latest plan for victory: the surge.
The summer's surge of U.S. troops to try to stabilize Baghdad failed, he said, and any new attempt is unlikely to succeed. "If somebody proposes that additional troops be sent, if I was still chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, my first question . . . is what mission is it these troops are supposed to accomplish? . . . Is it something that is really accomplishable? . . . Do we have enough troops to accomplish it?"
Look at the first sentence there. He said that American troops failed. Why doesn't Powell support the troops? Calling them failures isn't a solution. In fact, it's offensive.

But anyway, what's with all the questions? We elected George Bush to make decisions for us. Constantly challenging Bush with questions like "Ooo what's the mission?" and "Ooo can we accomplish it?" will only distract our leader from his Constitutionally mandated job of doing whatever it takes to protect us - and it might give the terrorists just enough space to attack us again.

Questions are a burden to our dear leader. Powell further digs himself in:
Before any decision to increase troops, he said, "I'd want to have a clear understanding of what it is they're going for, how long they're going for. And let's be clear about something else. . . . There really are no additional troops. All we would be doing is keeping some of the troops who were there, there longer and escalating or accelerating the arrival of other troops."

He added: "That's how you surge. And that surge cannot be sustained."

The "active Army is about broken," Powell said. Even beyond Iraq, the Army and Marines have to "grow in size, in my military judgment," he said, adding that Congress must provide significant additional funding to sustain them.
And remember, whenever you hear a liberal say "addition funding" that means they're gonna raise our taxes.

To sum up: Colin Powell wants to cut and run. He thinks the military has failed in Iraq (in fact he says it's broken). He's undermining the President's authority to protect us from another terrorist attack.

And he wants to raise your taxes.

The preceeding message brought to you by the President's council on skewing the news in favor of George W. Bush, Sean Hannity President.

6 comments:

Gertrude Stein said...

http://gertrudesteinonwar.blogspot.com/

This one's new. Take a look.

Schmuck Shitrock said...

Colin Powell is just another disgruntled former employee of the Bush Administration.

Can't wait until Bush is one, too!

EdHeath said...

You know, we are still not managing to have a reasonable debate about how we should depart. We ostriches have pulled our majority of those polled heads out of one hole (support the president) and stuck our heads in another (pull the troops). Neither blind support for the president nor blind determination to remove the troops considers the consequences. I recommend reading this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/18/opinion/18connable.html?hp
I am willing to take this Marine major’s opinion as a somewhat expert one. The reality of the Iraq Occupation may be that we have so far prevented the country from sliding any further backwards than it has into anarchy.

Let’s be clear, we were supposed to rebuild the country, help them find acceptable leaders and leave behind a stable, functioning country. I believe a majority of Iraqis wanted this too (By the way, I dearly hope that the hearings and trials about the rebuilding go all the way to the top, no matter how long it takes, I want to see Bush on trial). Instead, we have provided just enough security that insurgents and/or rival tribes find it risky to kill people out in the open (unless they are willing to go the suicide route). But the reality is that Iraqis try and try again. Their police are under-armed and have divided loyalties, but I suspect the people are used to that. I think too that once Iraqi civilians figured out how we behaved, that knew exactly how much they could count on once too. And I think it is reasonable to think that we are all that keeps Iraq from sliding into civil war.

So we should be clear that if we withdraw, either completely or to secure bases, we are trading saved American lives for dead Iraqis. And that is a perfectly reasonable notion, except that the Iraqis might not be in this position except for us. And to be clear, not withdrawing is probably only delaying the inevitable. Additional troops, whether real or imagined, are probably too late now.

Powell knows this, democrats know this. But they aren’t particularly saying it. Maybe they are thinking that Vietnam turned out all right thirty years later.

But there is the one difference, the one thing that is like air for the West (and now the East): oil.

Schmuck Shitrock said...

Oil is not the only huge difference. The South Vietnamese also had the "advantage" of being conquered by an overwhelmingly superior military force; and they were essentially the same people as their conquerers. Both of those factors made their post-withdrawal chaos much shorter and milder than we will see in Iraq.

We have not kept "Iraq from sliding into civil war." They're in it. We (Bush and the Neocons) caused it. The question is raised all over the blogosphere about our moral responsibilities there. The consensus in the blogs I read is that we're immoral if we pull out. And we're immoral if we stay.

The current administration took a giant diarrheic shit on the white shag carpet of Iraq and didn't even bother to bring a bottle of Lysol to clean it up. Now everybody's wondering how to get the stain out. Forget Stanley Steemer; I think the only solution is to replace the rug, whatever that means.

Tony N. said...

Good job, Dayvoe. Change "loose" to "lose" and you're golden.
Tony N.

dayvoe said...

Damn!

I was hoping no one would notice that!

David