Saturday, September 08, 2007

Chucky Retreats (Sort Of)

Democrats slander American soldiers. Democrats have slandered American soldiers for decades in direct proportion to the degree they've in harm's way and carrying out a mission of critical importance to national security. They can't help themselves; they benefitted hugely from this vile practice in the (for them) halcyon Vietnam days and they've been dominated by this reprehensible reflex ever since.

It takes several different forms. Phoniness ("We support the troops but not the mission"), condescension (Only "poor" Americans join the military because they "have no other option; they're "easily led children" in need of "protection" from anybody who might shoot at them) and, of course, direct slander ("Saddam's torture chambers have reopened under US management," "Gitmo guards flush Korans down the toilet," "GIs raze Vietnames villages like Ghengis Khan," Scott Thomas Beauchamp's fictional "diaries").

For the most part, Donk officeholders are savvy enough to stick to the first two categories. When they occasionally slip, like Ali Dickbar al-Durbini did on the Koran toilet flushing slur a couple of years back, or Chucky Schumer's risibly absurd claim on Wednesday that American military incompetence galvanized Sunni "warlords" into banding together to fight off al Qaeda in Anbar province, they're usually not long in beating a hasty strategic retreat.

Chucky's came within twenty-four hours:
First, I know we all have the deepest gratitude and respect for the sacrifice of the brave men and women serving our country so valiantly in Iraq. Make no mistake about it, the troops are doing their job.
Just dripping with sincerity, isn't he? Would it have pained him that much to have said this in the first place? Yes, it would have; dismissing "the brave men and women serving our country so valiantly in Iraq" as a glorified Apple Dumpling Gang in humvees was precisely that he meant to do; he just didn't activate his brain-mouth filter in time.

In case you were wondering, those two sentences were the extent of his contrition:
I'm concerned, however, that their mission is not worthy of their great sacrifice, especially the President's surge. The surge, despite earlier reports this week, has failed to meet the objectives set out by the President. And the President can't change that fact by changing the goal. He's now claiming progress in Iraq as evidence that the surge directed at Baghdad is working.
In other words, "I didn't mean to insult the troops; I meant to insult the President." Like the two are severable, or this false distinction is even remotely coherent. If the troops are "doing their job," that means the Surge IS working and IS meeting the objectives set out by the President.

And how can defeating al Qaeda - a declared enemy of the United States and a proven national security threat - not be a mission "worthy of [our soldiers'] great sacrifice"? All Chucky did was revert to condescension mode and manifest more softness on terrorism in the same breath.

He also exhibited his requisite dishonesty. It is Chucky, not the President, who is trying to move the goalposts by claiming that the Surge was only aimed at Baghdad. Read the stated objectives for yourself:
Key Elements Of The New Approach: Security


*Agree that helping Iraqis to provide population security is necessary to enable accelerated transition and political progress.

*Provide additional military and civilian resources to accomplish this mission.

*Increase efforts to support tribes willing to help Iraqis fight Al Qaeda in Anbar.

*Accelerate and expand the embed program while minimizing risk to participants
Chucky himself tied this revision of Wednesday's slander together quite nicely:
While the President has claimed progress in Anbar, it was not the surge that brought the momentary calm to this region, because the surge was focused mainly on Baghdad.

It's objective, as stated by the President himself, was to create breathing room for the central Iraqi government to make political progress. Our brave troops have been in Anbar for years and years doing the first rate job they always do, in what is a very difficult environment. Now, however, some elements of the local population, and some of their leaders, have made common cause with the brave men and women of our military. They've cooperated with our troops out of distaste for the brutal methods of al Qaeda. While this is a welcome and helpful development, it's neither the foundation upon which a successful long term strategy can be launched, nor is it a result of the surge, which was targeted mainly in Baghdad.
In short, our troops "did the first rate job they always do" for years in Anbar yet failed miserably to even slow al Qaeda down there, necessitating the intervention of Sunni "warlords" to come to their rescue; AND they were either (1) also failing miserably in Baghdad or (2) were so incompetent they've spent the past eight months fighting (and losing) in the wrong province.

Thus, on Wednesday Chucky Schumer insulted the troops; on Thursday he insulted the troops again as well as the intelligence of everybody listening to him. Why? Because to admit the truth would be, for a Democrat, to commit ideological suicide. Senator Schumer would rather see the entire country in flames at the enemy's hand than admit that he and his co-horts were wrong and President Bush was right all along.

It's quite an education the American people are getting from and about the party they put back into power in Congress last November - if any of them are paying attention. The degree of the latter may well determine whether they will continue to enjoy the luxury of languishing at the mall while "the brave men and women serving our country so valiantly in Iraq" keep defending the unworthy asses of such as Chucky Schumer.