The Republican Pushback

[Drake Tungsten]

You've swallowed Libby's lawyer claims

No, I didn't. I've already said that Fitzgerald probably still has the evidence needed to go after Libby. That being said, I also pointed out that this revelation makes it much easier for Libby's lawyers to put a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury, so it's good for Libby.

No, no--Drake is a *snicker* independent...

Damn straight. Probably voting a straight Democratic ticket for Congress in 2006.

[Drake Tungsten]

Even after the 9/11 commission report once and for all disproved any complicity of Saddam in 9/11, Cheney was still making campaign speechs that suggested that Saddam was complicit.

The 9/11 commission stated that there was no "collaborative operational relationship" between Al Qaeda and Saddam's regime. That doesn't mean there weren't any ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda and some of the 9/11 commissioners said as much after the media jumped on the report as proof that there were no such ties.

The findings, revealed in the commission's last hearing on June 17, were preliminary, and the apparent rush by some in the press to deny any Iraq-al Qaeda relationship left commission vice-chairman Lee Hamilton baffled. "I must say I have trouble understanding the flack over this," Hamilton told reporters. "The Vice President is saying, I think, that there were connections between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's government. We don't disagree with that. So it seems to me the sharp differences that the press has drawn, the media has drawn, are not that apparent to me."

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200407230835.asp

There's ample evidence of ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda, ties that never blossomed into a collaborative operational relationship, but ties that existed nonetheless and would prove worrisome to anyone concerned about an Iraqi WMD program and the potential of Iraqi WMD falling into the hands of Al Qaeda.

If Cheney continued to claim Saddam was involved with 9/11 after the 9/11 commission's report came out, then he's in the wrong. I don't think he did that, though. IIRC, he was always careful to refer vaguely to ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda. I guess you can be upset with him for insinuating some sort of greater connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda when he referred to those ties, but it's difficult to accuse him of lying...

edit: A brand spanking new Byron York article on the subject...

http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/Comment/ByronYork/111705.html

[Dinner]

The word "pushback" seems to have been in one of Rove's talking point memos since just about every news agency is using it to describe the Bush/Cheney smoke screen to obscure their past lies about Iraq.

[Drake Tungsten]

I told you he was back...

[Berzerker]

So another decorated veteran will be smeared by the chickenhawks.

[Dinner]

Drake, come off it man.

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by Berzerker
So another decorated veteran will be smeared by the chickenhawks.

Yep...

AIDING & ABETTING

By JOHN McCAIN

November 17, 2005 -- IRAQ is today in the throes of another critical moment in its post-Saddam history. There is both great hope and great difficulty, with a new constitution and an ongoing insurgency, with parliamentary elections in a month and violence plaguing many areas.
At home, the American people wish to see us succeed in helping bring freedom and democracy to the Iraqi people, but express increased uncertainty among the way forward. Now is the last time we should send a message that withdrawing troops is more important than achieving success.

Unfortunately, the Senate considered two amendments this week — one of which was approved with 79 votes — that did just that. In the version that passed, 2006 is designated as "a period of significant transition to full sovereignty . . . thereby creating the conditions for the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq."

These words are likely to be examined closely in Iraq, by both friends and enemies. They suggest that the Senate has its priorities upside down, and I voted to reject them.

Anyone reading the amendment gets the sense that the Senate's foremost objective is the draw-down of American troops. What it should have said is that America's first goal in Iraq is not to withdraw troops, but to win the war. All other policy decisions we make should support, and be subordinate to, the successful completion of our mission.

If that means we can draw down our troop levels and win in Iraq in 2006, that would be a wonderful outcome. But if success requires an increase in American troop levels in 2006, then we must increase our numbers there.

Morality, national security and the honor our fallen deserve all compel us to see our mission in Iraq through to victory.

But the amendment suggests a different priority. It signals that withdrawal, not victory, is foremost in Congress' mind, and suggests that we are more interested in exit than victory.

A date is not an exit strategy. To suggest that it is only encourages our enemies, by indicating that the end to American intervention is near. It alienates our friends, who fear an insurgent victory, and tempts undecideds to join the anti-government ranks.

And it suggests to the American people that, no matter what, 2006 is the date for withdrawal. As much as I hope 2006 is the landmark year that the amendment's supporters envision, should it not be so, messages like these will have unrealistically raised expectations once again. That can only cost domestic support for America's role in this conflict, a war we must win.

The sponsors may disagree with my interpretation of their words, saying that 2006 is merely a target, that their legislation is not binding and that it included caveats. But look at the initial response to the Senate's words: a front page Washington Post story titled "Senate Presses for Concrete Steps Toward Drawdown of Troops in Iraq."

Think about this for a moment. Imagine Iraqis, working for the new government, considering whether to join the police force, or debating whether or not to take up arms. What will they think when they read that the Senate is pressing for steps toward draw-down?

Are they more or less likely to side with a government whose No. 1 partner hints at leaving?

The Senate has responded to the millions who braved bombs and threats to vote, who put their faith and trust in America and their government, by suggesting that our No. 1 priority is to bring our people home.

We have told insurgents that their violence does grind us down, that their horrific acts might be successful. But these are precisely the wrong messages. Our exit strategy in Iraq is not the withdrawal of our troops, it is victory.

Americans may not have been of one mind when it came to the decision to topple Saddam Hussein. But, though some disagreed, I believe that nearly all now wish us to prevail.

Because the stakes there are so high — higher even than those in Vietnam — our friends and our enemies need to hear one message: America is committed to success, and we will win this war.

Sen. McCain (R, Az.) is one of only 19 U.S. senators — including just 13 Republicans — to have voted against a Senate resolution Tuesday pushing for an eventual draw-down of U.S. troops from Iraq.

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/31358.htm

Damn chickenhawks...

[Admiral]

On a more broad note, today has been a bad day for any the Republican pushback effort. Woodward's testimony seems to have lead to Fitzgerald holding a new grand jury. This leads many to believe that Fitzgerald is pressing for another indictment.

Also, John Murtha, conservative democrat and colonel in Vietnam came out for an Iraq withdrawal. This statement from a conservative democrat and ally of sorts of the White House focuses the attention of the media on what's going on in Iraq now (bad ****) rather than what went down before the war (probably bad ****, but we don't definitively know). Also, Scott McClellan's response didn't help the White House cause any.

Congressman Murtha is a respected veteran and politician who has a record of supporting a strong America. So it is baffling that he is endorsing the policy positions of Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic party.

As a member of the liberal wing of the Democratic party, I take that as a compliment. Apparently the left wing now encompasses 52% of Americans.

[Drake Tungsten]

Since this is a thread ostensibly about the Republican pushback, I guess I should link to its latest stage (Cheney's speech).

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-11_16_05_Cheney_pf.html

[Ted Striker]

You're hoping Cheney of all people will rescue you?

He is the biggest liability out of all them, and has done more damage to your cause than anyone else combined.

He's also the guy that told us a few months ago that the insurgency was in its, "last throes."

Not very good to have faith in the guy who keeps throwing all the interceptions.

[Berzerker]

McCain is not a chickenhawk, but he was smeared by the chickenhawks too. How ironic...not...

The title of that op-ed was probably provided by the NY Post and it too is a smear. Aiding and abetting comes from the Constitution's definition of treason. If McCain is accusing Murtha et al of aiding and abetting the enemy, that is a smear.

Our mission in Iraq was not to win any insurgent war, it was to remove Saddam from power and eliminate WMD. McCain seems to have forgotten that... And not setting a timetable sends a message McCain didn't mention - it tells the Iraqis we will fight their battles so they can take their sweet time.

[Drake Tungsten]

You're hoping Cheney of all people will rescue you?

Rescue me? What do I have to do with any of this?

Berz - Sorry, but I'm with McCain on this one.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Rescue me? What do I have to do with any of this?

[Ted Striker]

McCain makes a good point but he needs to push for CLEAR OBJECTIVES for why the hell the US is there.

In addition to the moral implications already widely discussed, the whole lying about why were supposed to be there in the first place has a practical effect of muddling the whole damn picture.

If McCain wants a "clear message" communicated by the American people then the damn White House shouldn't have lied about why it wanted to go there in the first place.

There are no Weapons of Mass Destruction so what the **** is our purpose there?


Many Iraqis also thought the US would leave after we got Saddam and now they are fed up with us as we continue to f up their country.

[Berzerker]

Berz - Sorry, but I'm with McCain on this one.

Did you think quoting McCain's possible smear makes the smear campaign by the chickenhawks more palatable?

Lying us into a war and then accusing us of aiding and abetting the enemy was Joe McCarthy's wet dream.