- 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.
|Hiding Behind Lies and Half-Truth, Mark Udall Defends Attempt To Snatch Defeat From The Jaws Of Victory|
From Mark Udall's website, his statement accompanying his vote in favor of a $50 billion supplemental that commanded a strict timeline for withdrawl from Iraq.
"This bill is the opposite of a blank check for the president. The funds it will provide are those that will be needed to move toward an immediate and orderly redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq.
“In my view, there is no sustainable role for large numbers of U.S. troops to play in Iraq –
HALF-TRUTH: while most of the civilized world does recognize that large numbers of troops have an obvious role in Iraq, Udall cleverly hides behind "in my view" to disguise his ignorance
. . . whether refereeing a civil war or waiting for the Iraqi government to decide to act within the ‘breathing space’ our brave troops have provided and our taxpayers are paying for at $9 billion per month.
HALF-TRUTH: nobody's refereeing a civil war right now--our troops are very busy taking the offensive to the bad guys; and, while the central government has its issues, local governments and civic leaders [read: Sheikhs] are taking a very active role in creating the infrastructure of reconciliation
. . . .However, while this bill sends the right message – that our troops cannot remain in Iraq indefinitely – regrettably, it does not send it in the best way, because it will be supported almost exclusively by Democrats, and the president has already promised to veto it.
LIE: The message could be easily sent, with near unanimous support, and with the President's signature, if it didn't insist on a retreat starting in thirty days to be completed in one year.
. . . What we need is consensus here at home on a path forward in Iraq,
LIE: Consensus behind surrender is NOT what is needed; consensus behind victory SHOULD be easy to obtain, but is too antithetical to Liberal orthodoxy to ever achieve.
. . .and today’s quick consideration of this bill doesn’t bring us any closer to that goal. I believe consensus can be found around the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, which I introduced as legislation earlier this year, including supporting a course of escalating economic development, empowerment of local government, the provision of basic services, a ‘surge’ in regional and international diplomatic efforts, and lightening the American footprint in Iraq.
HALF-TRUTH: of course, all of these elements are already in place, including the lightening of the US footprint which will begin with the withdrawl of troops in the very near future--ALL ON THE TIMELINE OF THE US COMMANDERS. Of course, Udall also conveniently ignores the ISG's recommendation that a "precipitous withdrawl" would be disastrous.
Only Democrats and Republicans working together can find the path out of Iraq.
LIE: Only the U.S. military, working with a mandate for victory in Iraq, can find--or forge-- the path out of Iraq. Republicans are willing to provide this mandate; whither the Democrats?
I will continue to work with colleagues on both sides of the aisle on further steps we can take to change our broader Iraq policy.”
HALF-TRUTH: Name five Republicans, just FIVE "colleagues" from the other side of the aisle that you are working with, Mr. Udall. And why, oh why, would you be working to change the broader Iraq policy now that the new strategy of the President's and Gen. Petraeus is showing such promise? You remind me of the offensive coordinator who decides to go away from the running game, even though it's working, because it wasn't your idea.
THIS is the man who wants to represent Colorado in the U.S. Senate, boys and girls. And he will be well-funded, and he will have the cover of the Denver media.
But idiotic statements like this one need to be held up and shredded for all the public to see. Mark Udall is far too extreme to represent Colorado; Bob Schaffer should be able to make that point, at a minimum.
Whether his campaign can effectively communicate that, and then take the next steps toward victory, remains to be seen.