New Vets For Freedom Ad Insists The Surge Has Worked
Vets for Freedom, the pro-war third party group that's vowed to spend huge sums on ads pushing for "victory" in Iraq, goes up with a new ad insisting that the surge has worked and that Dems have their heads in the sand about it...
The ad will air in multiple markets in the battleground states of Ohio, Michigan, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and New Mexico.
The ad reflects the GOP's strategy of focusing the discussion of the Iraq War on nothing but the narrow question of whether the surge has produced military gains -- a strategy McCain has adopted. Intriguingly, the only mention of whether those gains have also achieved their stated goal of facilitating political reconciliation is this: "The Iraqi government grows stronger each day."
No mention of the fact that Iraqi government officials have also said they won't accept any security deal with the United States without specific withdrawal dates.
Notice that they take a dig at Chuck Hagel in it.
July 16, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I find this ad strange, frankly. "We need to finish the job no matter who is president" is an interesting ending.
I interpreted it to mean "We need to draw things down, no matter who is President".
I don't know if the message that this ad is sending is the message the creators want it to send.
July 16, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just watched it again. Here's what I come away with: the surge is working, things are definitely improving, al qaeda has been vanquished....and then "we need to finish the job, no matter who is president".
Given all the great things that the surge has produced, isn't the job pretty much finished?
As someone who wants the troops out of Iraq, I actually think this ad is pretty good. For my side of the argument, that is.
July 16, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a self-comforting way of saying: "Holy shit, we really fucked things up politically in Iraq... now we really can't leave."
July 16, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think that was the intended message, no. it may be that they're banking on such major gains between now and election day that public pressure will mount on even president obama to stay, right?
July 16, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since the media seem to have wholesale bought into treating "the surge worked" as fact, I suspect they're counting on things not deteriorating enough to make them abandon that narrative, rather than betting they'll continue to improve.
The other clue from McCain's speech yesterday is that the administration will once again put on a full court press to paint the troop reductions that will happen because there's no one to replace them as ones they've chosen to draw down because of "success."
July 16, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
To be fair, Chris Matthews yesterday was hammering Buchanan over his assertion that the surge worked. It was great.
July 16, 2008 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg maybe we need to define exactly what success means in Iraq and then we can be level.Does success mean?
Playing scrabble in downtown Baghdad without a flak jacket without being blown to bits?
The end of the Green Zone
Sunni and Shi'ite muslims playing hug-the-bear, (a la Bush/McSame)wearing western "we love CocaCola" t-shirts?
July 16, 2008 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ask a real veteran who has fought in this stupid Iraqi invasion and occupation.
Odds on favorites are they will strongly disagree with the posers in this ad.
July 16, 2008 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Surge did fail. The first few months were a comlete disaster, forcing the Pentagon to begin bribing many of those who had been insurgents and "terrorists" months earlier.
Of course, while this has bought a temporary lull in violence and a false validation of the failed "surge" strategy, it has empowered Sunni militias to the point where the prospect of a stable, unified Iraq is an even bigger pipe dream than before.
Of course, the reality that faces us is too complicated to fit the sound-byte understanding of the American press, so we will not see any politicians making these arguments. Which is sad because our nation's security is on the line.
July 16, 2008 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point and would make a great response ad.
"Does the outright bribery of Sunnis make a success of the surge?" "I think not."
July 16, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
One of those Repubs is from outside Columbus.
I notice they took out "casualties are down from previous levels," that they had in their first ad.
An argument they always make, but sounds extremely crude on a commercial.
July 16, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama and Democrats need to respond by hammering home the real costs of the war in treasure and in lives: 4,000 lives, $1 trillion in debt and taxpayer dollars, $3 billion a week, 400% increase in oil and gas prices etc., etc.,
July 16, 2008 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right. I'd like to see Obama's surrogates make this point more often. What have we gotten out of this war? We occupy one of the world's largest oil producing nations and our gas prices have skyrocketed. Personally, I think that is a narrow way of talking about the war (and for that reason, I wouldn't want Obama himself to push that reasoning), but it sure would be helpful if people started talking that way on talk radio, etc.
July 16, 2008 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not to mention the outrageous fees paid to contractors, billions of dollars disappearing into thin air, the no-bid contracts, the labor conditions for imported labor, the boondoggle jobs given to politically connected, but unqualified Republicans, Ahmad Chalabi, the under-the-table oil deals, etc.
All of this argues against the Iraq invasion and continuing the occupation, yet for some reason, the cable networks - who have all types of trouble filling airtime - can't find the time or resources to cover these scandals. None of this stuff seems to get covered by the popular media, yet it is so relevant and I'm sure that if the American people had even an inkling of what has gone on, their antipathy towards the war and those who have executed it and supported it would be even greater.
July 16, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
The surge was a small tactical success in the middle of a huge strategic failure.
Soldiers don't decide when their job is done; that is decided at a much higher pay grade, no matter who is president.
The job is finished when the president says it is finished.
July 16, 2008 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the SURGE worked - why will we continue to have MORE troops in Iraq (not less) than we had there BEFORE the SURGE?
Usually, if something WORKS - that means there's less work to be done therefore, less workers (troops in this case).
Perhaps they'll announce a HUGE withdraw before Nov election day?
July 16, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the SURGE worked - why will we continue to have MORE troops in Iraq (not less) than we had there BEFORE the SURGE?
Usually, if something WORKS - that means there's less work to be done therefore, less workers (troops in this case).
Perhaps they'll announce a HUGE withdraw before Nov election day?
http://coonsey.wordpress.com
July 16, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Awesome! Excellent! The surge/escalation/throw more troops into the quagmire worked! Great news! So that means we can declare victory and get the f*ck out yesterday! When are our brave men and women coming home?
July 16, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wouldn't call the group "Pro-war"...they're more "Anti-antiwar"...
July 16, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's kind of flipping the "pro-life" moniker on it's head, as opposed to just saying "anti-abortion." I guess it's all semantics. I wouldn't call this group pro-war, I would call them pro-line the pockets of the republican war profiteers at the expense of the lives of our troops and the iraqis. That would make more sense.
July 16, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can be "anti-pro-life" without being pro-abortion...you know what I mean?
July 16, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are very funny, even though I disagree with your politics.
July 16, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
They are correct as I myself saw it on the documentary, War Inc.
July 16, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain was pretty clear the other day too that the surge has already succeeded (past tense). If the surge worked (past tense) then why aren't we drawing back down to pre-surge levels?
Also since we are waaaaay past the scheduled surge end-date, can we stop calling it the "surge" and start calling it the "escalation"? I use a surge of energy to open a pickle jar.
July 16, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
This AP article may describe the reason for the recent switch to past tense:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080716/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq
It sounds like we are back or nearly back to pre-surge levels.
If we continue to cut troop levels, is it possible the republicans & democrats will see their positions on Iraq merge into one (essentially: we're done, it's time to pull out)? Will we start to debate permanent bases and things like that?
July 16, 2008 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Iraqis will celebrate their new Independence Day when the last US troops leave. A strong or weak Iraqi government will always be more allied with Iran than the US. They will dance in the streets for their "victory" over the occupiers. It's one thing all Iraqis will agree on, no matter who is president.
July 16, 2008 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink