When I read this blog my horror level inched up. Why? Because that is a sound strategy by the Islamofascists. A spineless Democrat will cut and run and I can't think of too many Republicans willing to make Americans buck up while confronting terrorists at the same time. Below is Alexandra von Maltzan Post from her blog:
****************
The "Waiting Bush Out" Policy
It seems that Thug-In-Chief Ahmadinejad and the Democratic party have the same strategy laid out for the immediate future. It's called "waiting Bush out".
Mr. Ahmadinejad's defiant rhetoric is based on a strategy known in Middle Eastern capitals as "waiting Bush out." "We are sure the U.S. will return to saner policies," says Manuchehr Motakki, Iran's new Foreign Minister.
Mr. Ahmadinejad believes that the world is heading for a clash of
civilizations with the Middle East as the main battlefield. In that clash Iran will lead the Muslim world against the "Crusader-Zionist camp" led by America.Mr. Bush might have led the U.S. into "a brief moment of triumph." But the U.S. is a "sunset" (ofuli) power while Iran is a sunrise (tolu'ee) one and, once Mr. Bush is gone, a future president would admit defeat and order a retreat as all of Mr. Bush's predecessors have done since Jimmy Carter.
The entire US recent history is explained by Tehran very much in accordance with the US 'cut and run' foreign policy, haunted by the ghost of Vietnam:
To hear Mr. Abbasi tell it the entire recent history of the U.S. could be
narrated with the help of the image of "the last helicopter." It was that image in Saigon that concluded the Vietnam War under Gerald Ford. Jimmy Carter had five helicopters fleeing from the Iranian desert, leaving behind the charred corpses of eight American soldiers. Under Ronald Reagan the helicopters carried the corpses of 241 Marines murdered in their sleep in a Hezbollah suicide attack. Under the first President Bush, the helicopter flew from Safwan, in southern Iraq, with Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf aboard, leaving behind Saddam Hussein's generals, who could not believe why they had been allowed to live to
fight their domestic foes, and America, another day.Bill Clinton's helicopter was a Black Hawk, downed in Mogadishu and delivering 16 American soldiers into the hands of a murderous crowd.
According to this theory, President George W. Bush is an "aberration,"
a leader out of sync with his nation's character and no more than a brief
nightmare for those who oppose the creation of an "American Middle East."
Messrs. Abbasi and Ahmadinejad have concluded that there will be no helicopter as long as George W. Bush is in the White House. But they believe that whoever succeeds him, Democrat or Republican, will revive the helicopter image to extricate the U.S. from a complex situation that few Americans appear to understand.
Mr. Ahmadinejad's defiant rhetoric is based on a strategy known in
Middle Eastern capitals as "waiting Bush out." "We are sure the U.S. will return to saner policies," says Manuchehr Motakki, Iran's new Foreign Minister.
Mr. Ahmadinejad believes that the world is heading for a clash of
civilizations with the Middle East as the main battlefield. In that clash Iran
will lead the Muslim world against the "Crusader-Zionist camp" led by America. Mr. Bush might have led the U.S. into "a brief moment of triumph." But the U.S. is a "sunset" (ofuli) power while Iran is a sunrise (tolu'ee) one and, once Mr. Bush is gone, a future president would admit defeat and order a retreat as all of Mr. Bush's predecessors have done since Jimmy Carter.
Mr. Ahmadinejad also notes that Iran has just "reached the Mediterranean" thanks to its strong presence in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories. He used that message to convince Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to adopt a defiant position vis-à-vis the U.N. investigation of
the murder of Rafiq Hariri, a former prime minister of Lebanon. His argument was that once Mr. Bush is gone, the U.N., too, will revert to its traditional lethargy. "They can pass resolutions until they are blue in the face," Mr. Ahmadinejad told a gathering of Hezbollah, Hamas and other radical Arab leaders in Tehran last month.
According to sources in Tehran and Damascus, Mr. Assad had pondered the option of "doing a Gadhafi" by toning down his regime's anti-American posture. Since last February, however, he has revived Syria's militant rhetoric and dismissed those who advocated a rapprochement with Washington. Iran has rewarded him with a set of cut-price oil, soft loans and grants totaling $1.2 billion. In response Syria has increased its support for terrorists going to fight in Iraq and revived its network of agents in Lebanon, in a bid to frustrate that country's democratic ambitions.
It is not only in Tehran and Damascus that the game of "waiting Bush out" is played with determination. In recent visits to several regional capitals, this writer was struck by the popularity of this new game from Islamabad to Rabat. The general assumption is that Mr. Bush's plan to help democratize the heartland of Islam is fading under an avalanche of partisan attacks inside the U.S. The effect of this assumption can be witnessed everywhere.
All I can say is good luck to Ahmadinejad's dream if Clinton gets in, she might just whip his proverbial behind. As for John Kerry, God help us all. He'll probably elect Markos Moulitsas of Daily Kos as his adviser, which should bring the Thug-In-Chief closer to his current prediction, namely that the next President will admit defeat and order a retreat, as all of President Bush's predecessors have done since Jimmy Carter.
For the span of a generation -- a longer period than the politically conscious lives of the great majority of people in the Arab and Muslim world -- America has fled from conflict in a part of the world where weakness earns contempt and begets more aggression, not less. On September 11, 2001 we reaped the whirlwind. So, whatever our strategy in the long war -- and you will read no argument here that it cannot be improved upon -- we must end Hassan Abbasi's helicopter metaphor. Helicopters can stand for different things. Let them no longer conjure the image of "fleeing Americans."
But not to worry, the Democrats have promised to make this country safe. Osama must be quaking in his sandals.Their national security agenda amounts to "we will do whatever President Bush is not doing". Er, ahem:
Let's get this straight. The Democrats want to retreat against al-Qaeda forces assembled in Iraq in order to invade Pakistan, which is where Osama is most likely spending his time. They want to run away from the operational forces of AQ in a fashion that will remind all of them of Somalia, Beirut, and Teheran -- proving Osama right about American tenacity. Going after Osama is a terrific goal, but unless they have a better plan than to flood Pakistan with special-forces teams and spies that Pervez Musharraf will consider an act of war, then this policy is doomed to failure.[...]
Slogans and Osama-baiting may well work for the Democrats, but in the end we will still wind up fighting the same people we fight now. Instead of fighting them in Samarra and Tal Afar, we will fight them in San Francisco and Washington, DC. We may well fight them in Pakistan, as well as the nuclear-armed Pakistanis, if we openly invade their territory to chase Osama bin Laden. That's not a plan for victory; it's an incoherent fantasy.
The Gateway Pundit is hoping that this is a new direction for them, and that they
have put aside that:
* America's media is the enemy
* George Bush is the enemy
* personal property rights is the enemy
* Christians are the enemy
* Moderate Muslims are not the enemy
* Walmart is not the enemy
* Business is the enemy
* Republicans are the enemy
* The 10 Commandments are the enemy
* America is the enemy
...Who have I missed?
Needless to say Matt Margolis is not impressed, and Jeff Goldstein tells it how it is in a not to be missed post.
Bill Nienhuis:
When Democrats talk about a withdrawal from Iraq, its not about bringing troops home and preventing further death. It’s not about freeing the Iraqi people from U.S. occupation. It’s not about “playing nice” in the hopes that the French, Spanish and the Russians like us again. To Democrats, a withdrawal from Iraq is about stopping terrorism. They believe a redeployment of troops to other parts of the world sends a message of peace which will soften the hearts of terrorist groups and lessen the risk of further attacks. By pushing this ‘solution’ the Democrats do nothing to disprove the fact that they completely misunderstand the terrorist mentality.Kim Priestap @ Wizbang has a list of the 'national security heavyweights' who were present @ the press conference when the security plan was unveiled.
Pat Santy has a poem along the lines of Monty Python's Lumberjack Song.
Posts
1 comment:
I did check it out, to be honest I missed the Rachel Corrie story and had to Google it. I definitely did not agree with her stand. However that kind of death is more honorable than blowing innocent lives up. She took a stand and it cost her life. I understand she chose not to get out of the way of bull dozer or steam roller or something.
I also find it distasteful that someone made a play of her tragedy as to validate her point of view. It is a free country and speech is free, so it is allowable. Nonetheless, the play was wrong, Corrie was wrong and the so-called Palestinian Arab is wrong.
Post a Comment