- Schaffer vs. Udall
- View From A Height
- Thinking Right
- Mt. Virtus
- Rocky Mountain Right
- Slapstick Politics
- Daily Blogster
- Hugh Hewitt
- Hot Air
- Fox News
- Real Clear Politics
- Rocky Mountain News
- Denver Post
- Debka Files
- Talking Points Memo
The Senate Race
Rocky Mountain Alliance of Blogs, 2.0
My personal musings about anything that gets on my radar screen--heavily dominated by politics.
|[courtesy Slapstick Politics]|
The clip of my question is in Part I, about three minutes into the clip. Notice how much Adam Schrager truncates the question, so as to frame it as "throwing my hands in the air," rather than a direct challenge to the Senator. Also notice it was the only question asked of the Senator related to Iraq that even slightly questioned the Democratic party line.
By the way, the Senator's answer to my question was this:
Schrager: . . . or is it significant?
Salazar: It's significant, because for the first time, since the beginning of this war, there would be a national policy articulated in our federal law, uh, mmm, that, uh, the key parts of that legislation which I wrote are, first of all, a mission change: we need to move from a combat role in Iraq over to one of support and equipping and training. We can't be policing a civil war, and that's basically what's happened for the last several years--we've been in the midst of policing a civil war. So we need to have a mission change in Iraq, and that's what my legislation does.
Uh . . . . what?
So, you want a mission change from one of combat/police action to one of training and equipping? Does this make any sense to anybody?
Who, exactly, are we going to count on to take out al-Qaida? And, for that matter, are the 12,000 or so terrorists killed in the last nine months all, strictly, the result of policing a civil war?
Shouldn't you be concerned about police brutality, Senator?
Or, do you simply not want to come to grips with the possibility that there's more going on in Iraq than "policing", and that the use of the Leviathan U.S. military is the only logical and effective way to deal with the other things going on?
I want our troops to come home, too. But I want them to come home wrapped in the laurels of victory, not with their tails between their legs, being yanked off the field by the chains of their legislative masters.
Senator, is it really so hard to tell the men and women in uniform to do what it takes to WIN, and return home with all due haste? After that, then you can lobby President Clinton to make you SecState, and you can design the "Everything Else" in Iraq.
But let's win first, okay?