Once again, Spank That Donkey has tried to twist Gilmore’s Washington Post op-ed into a statement of support for the President’s Iraq policy last year, when it clearly was anything but. STD goes into detail in the comments here, but he’s not the first person who’s tried this, so I thought a post would be required to respond.
STD thinks he has me with Gilmore’s opening line:
As you know from my public statements, I have supported your increase in troops in Iraq in the belief that a new initiative was necessary to bring the Iraq war to a successful conclusion.
To STD, this meant Gilmore’s column was one of support for the President. However, if that’s what Gilmore really meant, he would have used the present tense (“I support”). Instead, he used the present perfect tense (“I have supported”) – meaning he backed the surge before June 18, 2007, but not necessarily on June 18.
To look at what Gilmore thought of the surge onthe 18th of June, we need to look at the rest of the op-ed. This is where STD’s logic train runs off the track. Here’s paragraph 3, in its entirety for context (emphasis added):
Like you, I reject the Democrats’ policy of an immediate withdrawal or a withdrawal on a timetable. Unfortunately, they are playing to the polls to obtain political advantage at home, to the detriment of the United States. But I also believe we cannot continue our present policy. We must find a third way.
With all due respect to STD et al, one cannot support the surge and look for a “third way” at the same time. Gilmore’s next paragraph reveals a something even more problematic, a spectacularly bad analysis of the situation on the ground:
First, I urge that we stop thinking it is our responsibility to solve the Iraq conflict. It is not.
As he was writing this, the evidence that the “Iraq conflict” was actually a de facto foreign infiltration was pouring in. Gilmore either ignored the information or was unaware of it – neither of which reassures me.
However, it is the final paragraph that contains the coup de grace (emphasis added):
American interests come down to protection of our national security, protection of Israel’s right to exist, and averting, if possible, a general war in the Middle East, nuclear or otherwise. Our present conduct in Iraq distracts from or is detrimental to those goals. I urge you to refocus American policy toward Iraq to further these strategic goals.
Supporter for the surge? I don’t think so.
Still, I’ll make this offer to STD et al; I agree with them that Gilmore supported the surge before June 18, 2007. Will they acknowledge that Gilmore opposed it on and after that date?
DJ:
I have already had to correct your wild budget analyst routine, and you were forced to post this:
http://rightwingliberal.wordpress.com/2008/01/09/no-spanky-gilmore-could-have-done-much-more-to-limit-spending/
and there is more coming to further discredit even that attempt:
Now, after calling you out on telling a bold face ‘untruth’, you are forced to put up this post, recanting your accusation that Gov. Gilmore was against President Bush’s Surge this summer.
Your 10th grade grammar lessons is real entertaining, but the facts are the facts… that you are unfactual in your assertions.
Furthermore, let me help you in your BGWFTS (Before Gilmore Was For The Surge) and your post period AGWFTS starting June 18th… I am sure somewhere they want to rewrite the calenders to meet your wild twisting logic….
But here is the point… The ‘Surge’ was an escalation of troops to secure previously unheld insurgent areas, to give the Iraqi Govt, and Armed Forces time to catch up…
It is not unlike D-Day.. it was a ‘tactical’ operation, not a long term plan…. You are either for D-Day or against D-Day…. Period. That was my point, and since it took three weeks to finally bring you to correct yourself, I figured I’d have to explain it one more time….
Then again I can understand this military concept, as I am a Military veteran same as Gov. Jim Gilmore, who also happened to receive honors serving in Army Intelligence. Who also happened to chair a National Pre 9-11 commission, whose recommendation were almost fully adopted it was so comprehensive in scope.
Furthermore, as Governor he enacted Executive Order 41 in 1999 almost 2 years prior to 9-11 setting out a chain of command in case of a terrorist attack in VA.
http://www.lva.lib.va.us/archives/gilmore/press/eorder/eorder41.htm
Face it DJ, you are forced to cross the ethical line to support your candidate, who lacks in every qualification above, while attacking a proven Leader in Gov. Jim Gilmore….
You’ve caused enough damage this weekend haven’t you, or is the worst yet to come?
Actually, it was Brandon Bell who first mentioned the car-tax-is-spending accoutnig issue, but still, it was an error and I corrected it.
This was not a mistake, or a lie. Gilmore came out against the surge on June 18, period. That was abundantly clear from the op-ed, no matter how you try to camouflage it, twist it around, or play the I-served-and-you-didn’t card.
I have crossed no ethical lines here, your desperation to smear me notwithstanding.
And I should note that you joined Brandon in noticing the accounting issue; he just found it first.
DJ:
The bottom line is I challenged your WAG (wild ass guess) at interpreting state budget spending. Your estimates were incorrect, and will be further discredited with a more thorough examination to come. Just one example will be Gov. Gilmore, who you say had a ‘spending problem’, leaving office with $1 Billion in the rainy day fund… Guess that was part of his spending problem too huh?
Your efforts in this area only mean to ‘slash and burn’ a critical issue that we need clarified as we take on Gov. Warner. This is not an issue we give away.
Furthermore, It is obvious you have very little military background as you cling to the ‘Surge’ being anything more than a Tactical military operation to deny the enemy territory. The only way it will become Strategic is by history assigning it as such. The results of the ‘Surge’ my friend are still being played out now, it could very well have a different outcome; only time and history will bear out it’s strategic value.
Gov. Gilmore supported the tactical operation of the ‘Surge’ period. Your statement, that he did not support the surge is FALSE. Why not just ‘Man Up’, and admit you have been peddling a false attack against Gov. Gilmore for three weeks now? Your efforts at trying to interpret Gov. Gilmore’s later statements as not supporting the tactical ‘Surge’, are dishonest at best.
Gov. Gilmore is speaking of future options to bring about a resolution to our involvement in the Middle East in general. Winning one battle (if we do) in the Middle East is nothing. Thousands of battles have been fought there over the centuries, the vast majority were tactical, while a minority had strategic value. The Governor my friend is discussing his view on a long term resolution, not a tactical operation.
On the contrary, my numbers were based on the budgetary figures as represented on the state budget web site, not a WAG.
Additionally, I don’t think leaving $1 billion in the “rainy day” fund is good government; I would prefer it returned to the taxpayers.
Finally, if you insist on living in denail about Gilmore on Iraq, I can’t change that. You are simply wrong, period. He came out against the President’s policy on Iraq.
[...] both the President’s surge in Iraq and the Democrats alternative, calling instead for a “third way” (which looked a lot like the Democrats’ plan [...]