Congressman Oblivious

February 22, 2007 Uncategorized 9

Rep. John Campbell (R-Irvine) recently had a meet-and-greet at Peet’s in Tustin where he was met by a smattering of War Protesters and War Supporters.  But Congressman Obvilious uttered this powerful statement, captured by the Irvine World News:

“We are in a long war with people…who want to kill us.  No one has yet offered an alternative plan.”

That my friends is a bold-faced lie.  I suggest the Congressman look at the bi-partisan Iraq Study Group Report for a fast start.  I’m happy to mail him my copy if he’d like. 

This week’s Newsweek poll should tell Campbell a thing or two:

The latest NEWSWEEK poll finds that Bush’s call for a “surge” in troops is opposed by two-thirds (68 percent) of Americans and supported by only a quarter (26 percent). Almost half of all respondents (46 percent) want to see American troops pulled out “as soon as possible.”

How about fully implementing the recommendations from the 9/11 Commission?

What Congressman Obvilious really needs to answer is, how can he continue to support a plan that is and continues to be an utter failure and why won’t he even look at the alternatives on the table? 

But Joyce Cheng. an Irvine mother, said it best.  She told the IWN: “I don’t think he gave us any real answers.  He’s talking a lot about how hard it is to get things done but I don’t hear any real solutions.” 

Ms. Cheng, Rep. Campbell has no real solutions.  He’s a holdover from the Rubber Stamp Congress that never held the president to any accountability. 

9 Comments

  1. The problem with the bi-partisan Iraq Study Group Report is that it was 1/2 Democrats. So it was a compromise between wanting VICTORY & wanting Defeat.

    Citing polls as a basis for doing things is silly. Most voters don’t follow what is going on enough to be knowledgeable. Like Democrats, unfortunately the average voter has little in-depth understanding of issues. I realize that Democrats follow polls instead of using judgement and leading. That’s why we have a president to lead not follow. That is the George W. Bush the President of the United States. I’m sure you liberals like the sound of that since he beat both Gore & Kerry who liberals thought were so superior. George W. Bush the President of the United States.

  2. My big problem with the Iraqi Study Group was it’s insistence that Syria and Iran would like nothing more than stability in Iraq.

    Call me cynical, but both of ’em are having a grand ol’ time screwing with us right now in the Triangle of Death.

    But I will agree that Campbell offers nothing but simplistic bromides. I’m speaking as a former Bush supporter – the stalwarts around the adminstration tend to speak rarely about Iraq and only about “resolute” without the slightest realism about the difficulties of that country.

    As for the surge: There is evidence that it is producing some short-term good in cities such as Ramadi, according to the Feb. 22 edition of All Things Considered. The difficulty is in keeping those gains – on that front, I am very pessimistic, and am sad to see elected leaders so completely duck the issue.

    DU

  4. The difference between posters lemke and mechanical Eye is like night and day. lemke offers nothing really but scorched earth nastiness, appropriate for someone whose claim to fame is blogging on Powder Blue. Mechanical Eye raises two valid points that serious observers of the Middle East need to consider. ME is right that the Iraq Study Group put too much blind faith into believing that Syria and iran want stability in Iraq. At one time I believe they did but for tactical reasons I don’t believe thats the case right now. Our intervention has caused their tactical mind set to change and encourage instability. This shores up an otherwise unpopular Iranian regieme and a Syrian regieme anxious to reassert its authority in lebanon and elsewhere. The other point ME raises—that there are some reported short term gains from the short term surge, is undoubtedly true. I suspect this is more a result of opposition forces tacticly withdrawing until the surge ends then any long term permanent gain. However, if you look at some of the recent shifts in allegience of local Anwar tribal leaders to the Bagdhad government and away from AlQuida it gives one some sense optomism that a strengthened central government, with the assistance of Arab league or UN troops could hold out against the terrorists.

  5. John —
    I agree with you on the sense of wishful thinking the ISG report offers on Syria and Iran, but my comment about the ISG recommendations is that they offer a better solution about what to do in Iraq than what we are doing now. Short term gains in what? Iraq is in a Civil War and by being there, our troops are in the middle of it.

    If you have HBO, try to watch the “Ghosts of AbuGhrahib”; gripping stuff that might explain why we’re hated so much over there.

  6. Lee — only 24 percent of Americans approve of the way George W. Bush is handling the war in Iraq. Care to explain that?

  7. John Campbell’s slavish adherence to the “party line” and the ludicrous statement he repeatedly made last year that Baghdad is safer than Washington D.C.., are easily understandable when one remembers Dick Cheney threw Campbell a $1000.00 a plate fund raiser. You will never change a man’s mind, if his income depends on him staying the course.

    Mr. Campbell’s ineffectiveness while in the State Senate was due to demagoguery. He has not changed now he is in Congress. He is unwilling to consider any idea that deviates from his own. That is why despite all the alternative solutions on the political landscape (including mine of making the Arabs responsible for solving Iraq’s Arab problems), Campbell sees only one solution.

Comments are closed.