With the Iraq Study Group’s report due to be released in a couple of days, lots of gloating Democrats pointing to Iraq as their “change in course” message of victory. Of course it’s a hot topic on my mind. I have heard lots of criticisms of the Bush Administration and their “stay the course” message, and as usual most of this criticism is blindly based on a false message.
So what does “stay the course” really mean? Because that has been a part of the Administration’s message in the past, but not in the distorted context that so many like to present it. There is another aspect of the message that has been there from the beginning, and in fact it predates President Bush though he has also echoed this truth. The military is an adaptive organization and has always adapted their methods based on what was happening on the ground. While the mission for victory has been the ever present goal, adaptation has always been a part of that mission.
The true message of “change the course” is really retreat, surrender and defeat. Democrats didn’t win on that message, they won by distorting what staying the course really means and hiding what changing the course means to them. In a post, Where Has Our Resolve Gone?, HumanEvents writes, “The enemies of the United States…evidently only had to wait a half-decade before a significant portion of the U.S. population folded, and decided that a fight against terrorism wasn't worth winning.” I hope this is not the case.
We need to remember the cost of inaction and what happens when we don’t take the fight to our enemies. We need to listen to the echo of freedom’s call at Ground Zero when President Bush said, “I can here you! The rest of the world hears you! And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon!”
Stay the course means protecting this country from another day like September 11th. And that is a course we should all support.
Posted by price at December 4, 2006 04:56 PM | TrackBackWow. And you're criticizing other people for being blind?
"Staying the Course" -- which Bush only started realizing he couldn't do (he said he wasn't going to fire Rumsfeld before the election, then decided to "change the course" and get rid of him after) -- has landed us with a country we invaded and are responsible for which has DETERORIATED INTO CIVIL WAR.
"Staying the Course" has been a disaster. Bush has two years to fix Iraq. He can't do that if he "Stays the Course."
Oh, and by the way? Iraq had no WMD. Iraq had no involvement in 9/11. Iraq wasn't a threat to the US until we invaded it. You need to stop drinking the kool-aid and get an opinion of your own.
Posted by: Malnurtured Snay at December 5, 2006 08:56 PMYou completely miss the point. Germany didn’t attack Pearl Harbor, and yet we fought them in World War II. Just because you fail to see Iraq as part of the War on Terror doesn’t mean that the actual terrorists do. Sectarian violence admittedly spurred on by Al Qaeda doesn’t equal “Civil War”, and having the materials to produce WMD quickly while actively seeking a nuclear program doesn’t equal “no WMD”.
Posted by: Jeffrey Price at December 5, 2006 11:44 PMBravo Jeff! I agree.
Posted by: jordan at December 6, 2006 11:49 AMJeff,
Sure, I see Iraq as part of the "War on Terror." It became part of the "War on Terror", as I said above, when we invaded it.
You've made that point about Germany before and I have to roll my eyes because you reveal your apparently willfull ignorance. Do you know why we went to war with Germany? Do you think that Roosevelt went into Congress and demanded a declaration of war against Germany because Pearl Harbor got bombed? No, he went into Congress on December 8th and got a declaration of war against Japan. After, on December 11th, GERMANY DECLARED WAR ON THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. For that matter, so did Italy, Romania and Hungary (the latter two later in the week). So, uh, when did Iraq declare war on the US ... ? Maybe an example you should stop using since it just causes people to roll their eyes and ignore you.
Posted by: Malnurtured Snay at December 6, 2006 02:39 PM
Oh, I remember what I came back to say: did you see The Baker Report? Jim Baker, a Republican, who co-chaired the Iraq Study Group, has advocated ...
... withdrawl.
I'm not saying that's the right course, I'm just saying you might want to stop thinking of Republicans as being the living incarnations of Good on Earth, because, uh, they're not.
Posted by: Malnurtured Snay at December 6, 2006 02:43 PMI would simply suggest that you read the report for yourself. There is certainly more than 1 word in there. Regardless of party affiliation our goal should be victory for the USA and true long term peace. Unfortunately liberals have equated defeat in Iraq as a victory for democrats and there is no hope for long term peace in that equation.
Posted by: Jeff Price at December 8, 2006 11:41 AM