« Because That's Where the Terrorists Are | Main | What Bush Should Do About Iraq (if he were a partisan idiot) »

223 April Fools

How fitting that the House surrender bill sets an April 1 withdrawal date. The vote was 223-201. Republicans voting in favor of the measure were Duncan, Emerson, Gilchrest and Jones (NC). I saw Walter Jones speak at the Conservative Leadership Conference I attended in April and the part of his speech regarding Iraq was bizarre to say the least. I don't remember his exact words, but he talked a lot about God in it. I remember turning to Scott Elliott who was seated next to me and asking him if Jones just said those who didn't think we should immediately withdraw from Iraq were going to hell. Michelle Malkin and Captain Ed have more.

Update: My new column about what Bush can do to move public opinion on Iraq is now up at Townhall. I turned the column in shortly before the conference call with Tony Snow yesterday and was pleasantly surprised that many of the things I said I hoped the White House would do were mentioned by him during the call.

David Limbaugh
has an excellent column today asking what the Democrats will do if Petraeus reports that we are making progress in September. Charles Krauthammer describes how Democrats and wobbly Republicans are saying, in effect, that General Petraeus is delusional or dishonorable. Read them all.

Also read Hugh Hewitt's interview with Michael Yon.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference 223 April Fools:

» Sister Toldjah linked with What works in Iraq

Comments (31)

Bwahahahaha....what fools.<... (Below threshold)

Bwahahahaha....what fools.

Meanwhile Harry Reid snaps at the liberal Jake Tapper who dares to ask him a tough question about Iraq.


The democrats are clearly imploding. Tee hee.

The counter insurgency/surg... (Below threshold)

The counter insurgency/surge is working; isn't it a bit premature to leave?

Have our Liberals gone so far to the other side that they would torpedo the Surge and the hope of pacification of Iraq which may be in reach?

They all appear to be stumbling around, wishing for failure, when we are winning. Anbar is 1/3 of Iraq, and it is pacified. Jesus help us.

When Mrs Byrd writes "sets ... (Below threshold)
MOS 13A:

When Mrs Byrd writes "sets an April 1 withdrawal date" do you thunk she read the actual Bill?

I do not think so because if she did, she would discover that US Forces will remain in Iraq to protect US interests, train the Iraqis and engage in combat missions fighting Al Qaeda.

The only difference between what we are doing today versus the new plan is that Congress wants to get us out of the Civil War and concentrate on training Iraqis and fighting Al Qaeda.


Alright MOS 13AI'm... (Below threshold)

Alright MOS 13A

I'm sure glad you're around. General Patraeus is not only too far away to really listen to,but apparently he isn't quite as smart as you and congress.Damn fool thinks he's fighting al queda right now! Doesn't even know he's in the middle of a civil war!

Thank goodness people like you and congress are around to reign a guy in as soon as he gets his marching orders though. Wouldn't want him to think he's running the show,now would we ? Stupid Presidents and Generals,I tell ya, they just don't realize what a wonder of a military strategist that Harry Ried really is. Fools,all of 'em,damn fools.

Frankly, my concern about I... (Below threshold)

Frankly, my concern about Iraq has nothing whatever to do with the results of opinion polls of Iraqis. It has only to do with the national security interests of the United States. Whatever coincidental benefits we can deliver to the Iraqi people in the process of safeguarding our interests, we most certainly should pursue. But we should not pretend that our reason for being there and staying there is anything beyond looking out for our own interests.

Clearly, Iraq and Afghanistan have become magnets for the world's jihadis. Al Qaida is directly behind over 80% of the bombing attacks in Iraq. That is terrible, but still better than the jihadis heading for Manhattan or Washington, DC, in my opinion.

Of some concern, though, is the news that our revered Lorie Byrd may have actually listened to a Walter Jones speech. This shocks the sensibilities of the sensible. What's next - partying in Soho with Andrew Sullivan?


Reality,Facts #1) ... (Below threshold)


Facts #1) BBC "and other news orgs." are ALL liars.
Fact #2) The U.S. fighters bleeding and dying believe in the mission.
Factoid #3)They could not possibly be as successful and of such high moral unless they did believe, and they are there and actually doing it,so you might as well resign yourself to the cold harsh reality that we are not going to surrender and abandon those people to a slaughter that would rival the horrors the U.S. congress bestowed upon untold millions in southeast Asia three decades previous to now.

Sorry to be the one to tell you,but we're gonna win this one,in spite of your hopelessness for, and negativity about the abilities of The American Fighting Man. He will perservere. He will win. He will be vindicated from the undeserved shame of conflicts past.

America has the most compassionate warriors that have ever existed and they refuse to be pidgeon holed and used as pawns by tools like harry reed and edward kennedy and john f'n kerry. They are greater than that, and you and yours cannot do anything about it,so get used to that fact. Your day will soon be done. The day of the return of Americas greatness is at hand.You better jump on board before it's too late, you're about to be very lonely.
Oh,say,like the homegrown nazi symps,circa 1942.Good luck waking up.

Where is the outrage over t... (Below threshold)
dr lava:

Where is the outrage over the Republican defeat of : S.amend 2032

You folks are really clueless. It's easy to say you support the troops as you sit there and watch Fox...but to actually know what is going on...nah too much trouble.

Not one mention of Senate Amendment 2032.....man can you people get anymore vile??

Isn't it funny that when th... (Below threshold)

Isn't it funny that when the Republican were running the House they were "doing the people's business" and :following the people's will." But now......the warmongers call them fools.

JFO and your ilk: When the ... (Below threshold)

JFO and your ilk: When the republicans lead the House, they did not ever make Iraq a political tool like your party leadership is.

Not passing any benchmarks, not settling differences with the parties, not reaching agreement on energy, that is not Iraq's failures, they are the democratic leaderships failure in our own country. So, the dimmers and Maliki exhibit the same leadership abilities. ww

willie:Ummmm lets ... (Below threshold)


Ummmm lets see, complete republican control from 9/11 to the present = 6 years/10 months. Partial democratic control = 7 months. So you say everything is the dems fault. That's a rational, reasonable position. Do you understand why the vast majority of the people in this country don't take your kind of position seriously?

The Democrats are a bunch o... (Below threshold)

The Democrats are a bunch of gutless wimps.

Yes: They are in favor of removing troops from Iraq.
No: They are not willing to accept any responsibility for what happens if they actually do it.

So instead of actually doing something that is effective (e.g. passing a DOD funding bill with no money for the War in Iraq), they pass a measure that cannot get through the Senate and is sure to be vetoed by the President. That way they can have maximum press exposure without actually doing anything - just pass more useless legislative initiatives and waste more time.

Useless. Gutless. Childish. Selfish. Irresponsible.

This, my friends, is why the Dhimmicrats cannot be trusted on national security. Since they will not defend their most basic beliefs, since they will not take effective action on their most basic priorities, and since they will not stand up to the American people, everyone can see that they will not stand up to determined young men with guns.

Meanwhile, in the Middle East, the enemies of Western civilization are reading the Dhimmicratic party press releases with glee, knowing that they can win the war because Americans are losing the will to fight them, and American soldiers are dying for a cause that Democratic leaders say is already lost.

The Democrats are scared to... (Below threshold)

The Democrats are scared to death of Patreaus' September Report. The cannot allow for any level of success. Their fear is that, somehow, Bush will somehow end up victorious. An American victory will squash what credibility the Democrats have at this point.

And they are doing their level best to see that does not happen. They recognize the precarious position they have put themselves. They have positioned themselves as the party of defeat. So long as Bush indeeds lose they can stand back and point and say "We told you so" to the American Public. The Democrats hope this will become the new "Bloody Shirt" that they can wave victoriously over the next generation of Democratic Presidents, Houses and Senates. Whatever happens in the next 20 years, they want to be able to point to the bloody shirt and remind the American people how the Democrats saved the US.

But should the opposite occur. . .

Bush is the anti-King Midas... (Below threshold)

Bush is the anti-King Midas. Everything he has touched has turned to poo. He has not done one good thing for the nation as a whole in six years. He is a megalomaniacal mediocrity, incompetent and corrupt, selfish, chaotic, inhumane, and militaristic international war criminal mass-murderer mass-torturer spitter on our Constitution, with a form of low cunning that is more akin to a survival instinct than reason, who stacks the deck with threats, guns, and/or bombers so the corporatists can have what they want, who came into office with no experience except that of lining his own pockets and having his ass saved by his daddy's friends, and dismissed a CIA warning that Bid Laden was determined to strike in the US as a cover-your-ass annoyance interrupting his August idyll in Crawford.

Whereas us Dems were right on everything: Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice, DeLay, Rove, Iraq, the lack of WMDs, the allegiances of the corporate media, the steady erosion of civil liberties, Republican incompetence, hypocrisy, greed and dishonesty, fiscal irresponsibility, the widening chasm between economic classes, the evergrowing efforts to turn our country into a theocracy, and easily hackable voting machines without paper trails.

Why would anyone listen to a Republiker ever again?

Still no answer, did Mrs. B... (Below threshold)
MOS 13A:

Still no answer, did Mrs. Byrd or any of the Whizzers bother to read the Bill which did not set an April 1, 2008 "withdrawal date."


pudge, General Patraeus is ... (Below threshold)
MOS 13A:

pudge, General Patraeus is simply a "political appointment" by the President the same as Michael Chertoff, Alberto Gonzalez, Brownie (remember him), Lisa Myers, etc.

The "September Report" like the "July Report" needs to be read in that context. The Administration is grading itself. I am sure Brownie prepared some nice reports on Hurricane Katrina.

The bell's ringing tommo, b... (Below threshold)

The bell's ringing tommo, back to your 3rd grade classroom there at Noam Chomsky Elementary.

The House can vote whatever... (Below threshold)

The House can vote whatever it wants, but no real pullout from Iraq will be happening very soon. First the votes are not there in the Senate. And the veto pen of the President is always waiting. And with so much equipment and U.S. bases in Iraq, any pullout of American forces would take nearly two years, and the resulting disorder could allow Al Qaeda or Sunni extremists to make some spectacular attacks on retreating U.S. forces, so the pullout must be very slow and careful to avoid this bloodshed.

Just like a pair cement shoes, for good or bad, we're stuck in Iraq for at least two years after any real pullout date would even start. That will probably be sometime during the next presidential administration at the very least if not even much later. We're still in Japan, Germany and Korea, remember?

House Democrats can tell their voters that they supported a pullout bill and satisfy the public which supports this by a large margin. But the political reality is that this pullout will not happen very soon. No real large scale U.S. pullout is in the cards.

So why not give the General... (Below threshold)

So why not give the General until September as he's requested? Why give any indication to the enemy that a timeline could be set?

To MOS13A, so the bill we'll allow us to fight the AQ folks, but not others....hmmmmm. They must wear red ribbons so we know the difference? Or maybe it's "shirts vs. skins"? Oh wait, let's get our JAG hero JFO involved. He can oversee the ROEs to ensure no atrocities are committed and assist in determining who's the enemy and who's innocent. God (or Allah) forbid if an enemy combatant claim an ROE was violated. The poor snuffy'l be eviscerated before the investigation is complete (see Murtha, John, US Congressman, FORMER Marine)

As a former 11A I'm sure glad we've got a former cannon cocker and JAG remf helping us out here. Maybe you clowns should have spent some time at Harmony Church or Camp MacKall instead of the EM and O clubs. You'd have learned about self-sacrifice, leadership, and winning.

Paul Hooson, you are wrong.... (Below threshold)

Paul Hooson, you are wrong. The house can easily defund the war. That would stop it. As a matter of fact, that is why the lefties are so mad at the leadership. They want the war defunded, but all the leadership does is pass failing bills and resolutions.

JFO, the benchmards were set by your party at the beginning of this year. The only benchmark they met was the minimum wage hike and that had to be attached to the war funding. So, yes, your leadership is failing big time. I encourage your party to continue hearings, investigations and such. The independent will get very turned off by the party of liars. Oh, JFO, do you know you whine too much? ww

Not one mention of... (Below threshold)
Not one mention of Senate Amendment 2032.....man can you people get anymore vile??

Posted by dr lava | July 13, 2007

You mean the Hagel Amendment? Whereby Congress would have dictated the length of time troops could be deployed to Iraq/Afghanistain?

Also defeated that day was S. Amdt. 2012, the Webb Amendment, dictating the amount of time between deployment of a soldier or Marine.

They should have been defeated. It's not Congress's job to decide op-tempo.

The next thing they will be trying to do is decide where carrier battle groups should deploy, when and where they can be moved.

Those decisions are best left to DoD, as needed by NCA and the foreign policy and national defense posture of the United States.

If the Senator's want to cut deployments or increase turn around times, then they can cut the money. That is their job.

Of course in September Gene... (Below threshold)
nogo war:

Of course in September General P will say progress is being made..
however in Sept there will still be a worthless dysfunctional Iraqi Govt..
In Sept there will still be dozens of Iraqi bodies dumped in streets daily killed by Sunni and Shia extremists..in September Al-q will be using suicide bombs to kill both Shia and Sunni. In September Thousands more of Iraqis will be refugees mainly in Syria..in September we will pass 3,800 KIA..

This bill does not advocate total withdrawal. It does say let Iraqi's patrol the streets..We will continue to hunt out Al-q as there are as many as 3,000.
But troops will have reasonable rotations...We can have more troops in Afghanistan...

Is this politics ...absolutely. The American people want this groping around in the dark ended. Our elected officials are supposed to represent us with their vote. Well the majority of us want out..Yes it will be terrible..but not as bad as predicted..and no.. 3,000 Al-Q will not take over the country.
Those of you wanting to leave it up to the military and not the people? What General do you propose to lead the junta and and declare martial law in the United States?

WildWillie, Congress is mad... (Below threshold)

WildWillie, Congress is made up of 435 politicians, Defunding the war probably would not be very popular with the voters back home because it appears disloyal to the U.S. soldiers, so is also another unlikely issue as well.

The Democrats are ... (Below threshold)
The Democrats are scared to death of Patreaus' September Report.

Which is why the demos are taking preemptive action right now. The Senate is in recess from August 6 to September 3. If they don't do this right now, when they come back from recess it will be a matter of days before Petraeus' report. If the Senate is trying to surrender in Iraq at the same time the General is reporting successes and optimism, they will be exposed for the craven cut n' runners they are.

Nogo if it's the "peoples w... (Below threshold)

Nogo if it's the "peoples wish" as you proport, why won't congress defund it NOW? The lefties have the majority don't they? The people spoke about immigration and congress responded......why not about the war????

Hmmmmmm, truley a mystery (for a few of you, that is).

Congress is made up of 435 pol... (Below threshold)
Congress is made up of 435 politicians

No, Congress is made up of 535 politicians. The House is made up of 435 politicians.

MOS 13A, I'll let John Shad... (Below threshold)

MOS 13A, I'll let John Shadegg tell you why that bill wasn't worth the paper it was printed on:

"While I am pleased that the authors recognize that we are in Iraq to protect our national security interests, again, the legislation is hopelessly vague and therefore meaningless. Neither of these two key terms, 'limited presence' and 'minimum force level required to protect U.S. national security interests,' is defined. Oh, the bill has a definition section and other terms are defined, but 'limited presence' and 'minimum force level required to protect U.S. national security interests' aren't defined.

"You might ask yourself, why would the authors of the measure leave two such critically important terms undefined? Well, the answer is easy: because this bill is not about policy; this bill is about politics."

And this:
"pudge, General Patraeus is simply a "political appointment" by the President the same as Michael Chertoff, Alberto Gonzalez, Brownie (remember him), Lisa Myers, etc."

A "political appointment" unanimusly approved by the democrat-controlled senate just 5 months ago.

I wonder if anybody anywher... (Below threshold)

I wonder if anybody anywhere actually read the Initial Iraq Benchmark Report, which can be found here: http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/images/07/12/final.benchmark.report.pdf

Here is the definition of the term "satisfactory progress":

As measured from a January 2007 baseline, do we assess that present trend data demonstrates a positive trajectory, which is tracking toward satisfactory accomplishment in the near term? If the answer is yes, we have provided a "Satisfactory" assessment; if the answer is no, the assessment is "Unsatisfactory."

In my book, that definition can be answered if anything has changed for teh better. Do you think this definition is intellectually honest? Or do you think it was designed to put lipstick on a pig?

So all that Gen. Petraeus h... (Below threshold)

So all that Gen. Petraeus has to do is to report in September that "We are making progress in Iraq " for us to give Bush another blanck check????

How convenient!!!! Bush fires, or shows the door to Generals he does not agree with like Shenzeki, Abizaid, Casey. Then Bush hires Generals that want a fourth star and can't talk freely and that's supposed to do it????

You Republican Right Wingers think Americans are Idiots right?

Say, let's try your own "standards" on you and see if they work.

So, Will you take those kind of standards from Congress Republicans? How about the Democratic Leaders in Congress telling you that they will seek the advice of Gen. Abizaid, Shenseki, Casey, etc, etc. to come up with their next bill against Bush's policies of defeat????

WIll you buy that advice Right Wingers????Hey, Gen. Casey can report, and we can even trow in Gen Abizaid and make it in September too!!!! And we can have all these Generals say that there is not enough "progress" to justify another American life, or anothr cent.

If any one wants to "surrender" here, you can direct your complaint to all the Generals that are against Bush's policies. What a spectacle that would be, Immagine Rush the fat drug addict complainig we have "surrendered" from his lazy boy .

You people in the Right make me sick.

Brainy435In refere... (Below threshold)


In reference to your Petraeus remark.

"Political appointment unanimously approved by the Democrat-controlled Senate just 5 months ago".

You might be a bit confused here Sir. I don't believe any one questions Gen. Petraeus credentials, We question his boss credentials (Bush). Time and again we have seen Generals go to Bush and give honest advice begind closed doors, only to come out the door and be shown the door if the advice was not what Bush wanted to hear.

A Miltary Leader follows his superior's command, and vents his/her doubts about strategy behind closed doors. Military Leaders are not allowed to free lance opinions.

General after general even before the war was under way have seen the clear message from the White House. You follow the pre-established Presidential parameters on Iraq, or you find a new job.

From Gen. Shinseki, to Maj.Gen. Paul Eaton, Gen. William Odom head of NSA, Lt. General Anthoni Zinni Commander of Central Command, Maj. Gen John Batiste top Commander in Iraq, Gen. William Casey top Commander in Iraq, Gen. John Abizaid Commander of CENTCOM, and on, and on. We see a patern of military leaders that tried to do their duty, that tried to talk some sense into Bush only to find themselves "retired".

It is absolutely dishonest for any one to suggest at this point that Bush will some how "follow Petraeus advice"if the advice goes against what he already decided needs to be done. There is way too much clear, and uncontrovertible evidence that Petraeus will be far from free to express his true feelings.... Unless he agrees with the Presient.

The Democrats indeed don't have a problem with Petraeus, or any other General out there. In the end Sir it's the Commander in Chief that has decided America again, and again into a quagmire.

To illustrate the level of dishonesty of President Bush, let me remind you of one of his answers in his latest "Press Conference"

When asked " Mr. President, your Generals have given you advice that included sending many more troops to protect the peace (Gen. Shinseki) and you continue to insist that you only follow their advice why?

Bush responded: "I followed the advice given to me by Gen. Myers (Gen. Richard Myers was the Joints Chiefs Chairman at the time).

We all know now that what actually did happen was that when Gen. Shinseky had the bad idea to actually be straight forward, and honest to the Senate Armed Services Committee in his now famous remarks, he was fired by Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz with the full support of President George W. Bush.

The message was clear. No free lancing, no disent.

So for Mr. Bush to answer the question the way he did is reflective of his true character.

The man is an arrogant prick that can't accept mistakes or responsibility, but that never the less claims for himself the right of Leadership, and Command.

Some one should tell this guy to his face:

" Very few people are given the honor to lead a Nation, let alone the world. Effective leaders learn from their mistakes and accept responsibility. They are willing to suffer the pain of introspection, and self-doubt with humility". "You Mr. Bush are a pass-the-buck artist and a sorry excuse of a Leader".

Bush can;t have it both ways Sir.

It's so entertaining to wat... (Below threshold)

It's so entertaining to watch as Republicans beg like dogs looking for scraps; "Why don't the Democrats just de-fund the troops (and tell them to go fuck themselves, while they're at it)? We dare you! We double dare you!!" Ok, we'll get right on that, you Goddamn half-wits.

The most salient characteristics of Republicanism are fanaticism and stupidity, and the Party is now generally perceived by real Americans exactly as the Klan and John Birch Society were in the '60's, as clownish, ignorant thugs whose views are utterly irrelevant to the important issues facing the country. Just watch as the loathsome "base" keeps bleating "surrender," "surrender" as more and more prominent Republicans jump ship like the big, fat greasy rats they are. Republicans should simply leave the governing of the country to the adults, while they convene their braintrust to accomplish objectives to which they're best suited: thinking up new witty names to call Democrats; "ooohh, I know: they're not Democrats, they're Doodycrats!"

Republican Right Winger peo... (Below threshold)

Republican Right Winger people on this blog like; Pudge, Kevino, sschiell and others just show up, post baseless opinions, and then don't even stay around to see if they can defend their views when under scrutiny.

The common denominator of these fools, is to pretend that after the entire world told them no to go into Iraq in the first place, and botched every aspect of the ocupation, now they have the answers to the problem THEY CREATED AND PERPETUATED IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!

You "Napoleon's" in the Right are only coming around to the position the entire world had going into your stupid war, remember? , the position that you fools ignored because then as now you though you knew better. Only now you act like if it was your idea!!!!

Tell me guys do you have Amnesia or Dementia?

Actually far from a strategy of any kind The only talent you guys in the Righ have shown for years is to pass- the- buck, ask for more time, make constant progress, but never enough progress (sounds familiar) to ever get us enywhere, and give Democrats colorful demeaning names.

I would suggest you people on the Right first learn how to win the support of the American people, before you can consider a "victory" in Iraq that depends on the Iraqi peoople. It starts by confronting the sad reality of you cause;


Your cause is on life support. You are still relevant only because in our system of government we can't trow you out until your term in office expires.






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy