Surrender is the only acceptable option?

AJ Strata says that it sounds like the Democrats will accept nothing less than full surrender in Iraq. Pulling out the troops because we’ve done the job and the Iraqis will soon be capable of policing and securing themselves is not reality in their world, because Bushian SUCCESS cannot be a reality in their world – it destroys too many memes and it’s just bad politics for them…and heaven knows every issue for them is a political one.

AJ writes: Most of the country is now under Iraqi security operations with only some trouble spots left open. The transition, while not militarily a big deal since we will be available to provide support for actions when needed, is politically a big boon for Bush.

And of course, this is a briar-rabbit trap for the left. The left will want to say they forced America into a retreat and surrender! That will be their prime reason rationale for opposing Bush – they wanted to surrender years ago and Bush waited until now…God help the left when they try that line on. Oh, I see they beat me to the punch:

You can read the remarks of Pelosi and Lautenberg at his place. It’s a pretty sad day for a pretty sad party when defeat and surrender are what you dearly hope for, for your country, simply because it plays into your politics. It’s a very STUPID desire for the Democrats who VOTED for the war, though. Stupid and mindless. These unserious people cannot be given power on security matters.

Strata also considers how the DPW deal exposed some problems on the right, and wonders if the information that Ayman al-Zawahri was in the US before 9/11 has anything to do with the Able Danger/NSA-FISA debate. Good question.

This could ruin the case, not help it? He is a government witness? One thing to remember is about Able Danger is the effort by SOCOM to alert the FBI to possible terrorists in the US. Most reporting exclude the 9-11 terrorists themselves. But that is not to say other high profile terrorists could have been here. 9-11 highjackers Hamzi and Midhar were in San Diego communicating with Al Qaeda through Yemen and not detected. Probably because it was traditional for the NSA not to pass on leads against people in the US legally prior to 9-11.

Look at the dates again:

The testimony came during an ongoing terrorism-related trial involving a father and son from Lodi, an agricultural town about 35 miles south of Sacramento.

The government informant, Naseem Khan, testified that he often saw Ayman al-Zawahri, Osama bin Laden’s physician and top deputy, attending a mosque in Lodi in 1998 and 1999. Khan was living there at the time.

Read it all.