Desperate to Win III: Sen. Chuck Schumer Slams Troops, Surge In Effort
to Discredit General Petraeus' upcoming September Report to Congress
By Gary Starr for The Neville Awards Posted September 6, 2007
What a surprise...the Dems are still invested in defeat and surrender. Attempting a pre-emptive
slam on General Petraeus' upcoming September report to Congress newly crowned Neville Award recipient Sen. Chuck Schumer saw fit
to insult the troops with this little gem on the Senate floor:
"Let me be clear. The violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge -- not because of the surge. The inability of American soldiers to protect these tribes from Al-Qaeda said to these tribes, 'We have to fight Al-Qaeda ourselves.' It wasn't that the surge brought peace here. It was that the warlords took peace here, created a temporary peace here. And that is because there was no one else there protecting them."
Just when we thought the democrats couldn't sink any lower they manage to lower the bar another notch.
The Senator is attempting to rewrite history before it happens. These local ”warlords,” as he calls them, are working with the US forces. They are not fighting Al Qaeda and the other militias on their own.
If the locals thought the US troops were incompetent they wouldn't bother. However the opposite is true. And it is born out in every news report on the situation on the ground.
But Mr. Schumer will say anything to try to bring about America's defeat in Iraq and in the war on terror in general. The Senator is a traitor.
But, it turns out, Chuck Schumer is not only a liar and a traitor, he is a coward as well.
According to what he posted on his site he got cold feet, couldn't stand behind his remarks, self-censored and posted the following:
…[T]he violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge. The lack of protection for these tribes from al Qaeda made it clear to these tribes, “We have to fight al Qaeda ourselves.” It wasn’t that the surge brought peace here. It was that the warlords had to create a temporary peace here on their own. And that is because there was no one else there protecting them…
But according to the video of his remarks on the Senate floor Mr. Schumer said this:
…[T]he violence in Anbar has gone down despite the Surge, not because of the Surge. The inability of American soldiers to protect these tribes from Al Qaeda said to these tribes, “we have to fight al Qaeda ourselves.” It wasn’t that the surge brought peace here. It was that the warlords had to create a temporary peace here on their own. And that is because there was no one else there protecting them…
Sher Zieve is an author, political commentator, and staff writer for The New Media Alliance (www.thenma.org). She wrote the following for
at http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/zieve/070906. We can't say it any better...
After multiple Democrat Senators (including both Levin and Durbin) said that the US surge in Iraq is working, New York Democrat Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) appears to have decided the time for treason against the USA has arrived and it's his job to affect it and the complete destruction of our troops. The same troops who are placing themselves in harm's way. Our troops have consistently and selflessly laid down both life and limb for the freedom of the Iraqi people. They have, also, done the same for back-biting US Senators and Congressional Representatives. One of these senators, Schumer, has now taken this viciousness to a new and unprecedented level - even for him.
On 5 September, Sen. Schumer blasted and severely denigrated our troops; troops that are also protecting this less-than-worthy-of-protection blowhard and traitor wannabee. Note: I believe he succeeded. On the surge - which again Democrats who have actually been to Iraq say is working - Schumer spat: "This is a policy of last resort! This is a policy of desperation!" Working hard on his attempt to rewrite recent history, Schumer continued his diatribe with: "And let me be clear: the violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge!" Then, in a decidedly mean-spirited, patently lying attack against our own soldiers, Schumer continued his invective with: "The lack of protection for these tribes from al Qaeda made it clear to these tribes, 'We have to fight al-Qaeda ourselves.' It wasn't that the surge brought peace here. It was that the warlords had to create a temporary peace here on their own. And that is because there was no one else there [US soldiers] protecting them!" No one else protecting them? What does Chucko think our brave men and women have been doing in Iraq? Apparently, Schumer would have us believe they have done and are continuing to do nothing.
Not only is what Schumer said unconscionable and treasonous but, he - himself - has become as unscrupulous as any politician I've ever heard. This is a blatant reminder and prime example of the depths to which some politicians will sink in order to retain their illusion of power. As Sen. Schumer has now signaled us, there is no one whom he and many of his colleagues believe cannot be scarified to the gods of greed, graft and totalitarian dominance. From his less than truthful (AKA lying) remarks, it is painfully obvious that he has decided more of our fighting men and women must be falsely accused and destroyed in order for him and his political party to achieve their increasingly dishonorable goals. Note: Selling one's soul to the devil has never been uglier.
This is the political party - the Democrat Party - that now controls both Houses of the US Congress and the same party that is increasing its aid and comfort to the enemies of both the United States of America and all civilized societies. This Democrat Party has - for reasons only known to it and its secularist disciples - has decided that allowing the enemies of humanity to succeed will also help Democrats to win. Of course, there is a definitive problem with this fallacious thought pattern; not only is it erroneous but the Democrats (unless they convert to fundamentalist Islam) will not be allowed to survive either.
Unless you are a dyed in the wool fanatical leftist, are these really the people you want running the county - the ones attempting to lead us blindly over the thousand foot cliff while telling us we're about to enter a shopping mall? If you can truthfully answer this question with a resounding "Yes," your indoctrination is already complete. You may now enter the shopping mall to purchase your burqas and turbans.
Knowing that the left will cry and scream that these remarks were taken out of context and that he really wasn't insulting our troops we, herewith, post the entire screed...
REMARKS BY SENATOR CHARLES E. SCHUMER
September 5, 2007
Thank you, Mr. President. I rise today to discuss the situation in Iraq and the continuing efforts of this administration to paint a rosy picture and cling to straws when the situation on the ground and common sense suggest just the opposite.
Now, some have argued that the surge in Iraq is working. But, Mr. President, all you have to do is look at the facts to know that that is not the case. The President went to Anbar Province, which at the moment he is touting as a place of success, but we all know what's happening in Iraq. Many other provinces are in terrible shape. In Iraq you get the certain sense that when you push on one end of the balloon and make things a little better, something pops out at another end.
And the fallacy of the President's new policy is just amazing. Are we placing our faith in the future of Iraq in the hands of some tribal leaders who at the moment dislike al Qaeda more than they dislike us? Make no mistake about it. They're no friends of Americans.
Is this the vaunted, clarion cry for democracy in the Middle East that the President announced when he started the build-up in Iraq? Obviously not.
This is a policy of last resort. This is a policy of desperation.
To say at the moment that some warlords in one province in Iraq happen to be shooting at al Qaeda when months from now they could easily turn around and resume shooting at Americans—which they did in the past—that's nothing to base a policy on. What kind of policy is it? What are the odds that six months from now the fragile and perilous situation in Anbar will reverse itself and collapse?
We've heard of success stories every six or eight months. This province, this town, this city. “They're cleared, they're safe.” And then because of the basic facts on the ground, we revert to the old situation. And let me be clear: the violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge.
The lack of protection for these tribes from al Qaeda made it clear to these tribes, “We have to fight al Qaeda ourselves.” It wasn’t that the surge brought peace here. It was that the warlords had to create a temporary peace here on their own. And that is because there was no one else there protecting them.
And as I said, Mr. President, we've heard about successes in the past. They're temporary. They're not based on any permanent structural change or any permanent change in the views of Iraqi citizens. We've heard about success in Baghdad and we've heard about success in Fallujah and they vanish like the wind.
So now, at a time when the American people are crying out for a change in course, some are pointing to a temporary situation in one province – Anbar – based on a few warlords, who don't believe in democracy and who don't like America, as a way to continue the present misguided policy? It makes no sense. It makes no sense because the fundamentals in Iraq stay the same. There is no central government that has any viability. The Shiites, the Kurds and the Sunnis dislike one another far more than they like or want any central government, and these two facts doom the administration policy for failure.
Just seven or eight months ago when the President began the surge, he said it was to give the present government breathing room, to strengthen the Maliki government. Today we have more troops, more military patrols, more death, and the Iraqi government grows weaker. How can we regard the Bush-Petraeus surge as a success when its central goal, to strengthen the government, has failed?
Again, more troops, more American deaths this summer than any other, and yet the government is weaker, when the very purpose of the surge was to strengthen the government. In the President's words, “to give it breathing room.” By the President's own words, the government is suffocating while the surge goes on. It doesn't have breathing room.
Why isn't it apparent to the President? Why isn't it apparent to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that the stated goal of the surge is failing? Strengthening the central government is not happening. As the surge and number of troops goes up, the strength of the central government goes down. That equation says failure in the Bush-Petraeus surge. The goal is not a military goal. In the president's own words, it is to give the government of Iraq greater stability, greater breathing room and that government, by just about every standard, is worse off than before. And again, because a few warlords and tribal leaders are now temporarily on our side for the moment—even though they are not loyal to us, they don't like us and they dislike the central government—that is why we should continue the present course in Iraq? It makes no sense.
Now then, those on the other side and the president say, “Give us a chance. You're already declaring defeat.” If this were 2003 or 2004 or 2005 or maybe even 2006, those words would have some resonance with the American people. But there's been new plan after new plan, new hope after new hope, and they all are dashed within months. Why? Why? Again, because the fundamentals on the ground don't change. The Kurds, the Shiites, and the Sunnis dislike one another more than they like any central government.
If you look at the benchmarks, they show that. The independent GAO report showed little progress being made in meeting the 18 military and political benchmarks set out by Congress. The draft report from last week showed that only three of the benchmarks had been met. However, over the weekend, the Pentagon revised the report, and now miraculously an additional four benchmarks were “partially met.” Despite the apparent efforts by the Pentagon to edit this independent report, it will, sadly, take much more than a red pen to correct the failures of the President's Iraq policy.
So the surge—by the President's own stated goal—is failing. The central government is weaker. The fundamentals on the ground continue to deteriorate. There continues to be no loyalty to a central government in Iraq and no loyalty to Maliki, who seems to almost revel in his incompetence. The bottom line is very simple. We are worse off, not better off. We’re not even in the same place in Iraq today than we were six months ago.
The position of America, the position of democracy, the position of stability all continue to erode. If there was ever a need for a change of course in Iraq, it is now. I plead with my colleagues from the other side of the aisle, you know that we have to change course.