Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Okay, Where Are They?: I'm looking... I'm searching... I'm not seeing.
I checked CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, and Fox News. Nothing.
I checked the Washington Post, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and the San Francisco Chronicle. Zip.
Where the HELL are the anti-war protests? Seems like four days after the Russians invaded the souvereign state of Georgia, the anti-war protests would be all over the news! Russian embassies and consulates should be under siege by mobs of angry anti-warriors!
Where are the "No Blood for Georgian Oil" banners?
Where are the "Out of Georgia NOW!" signs?
Where are the marches and die-ins?
Oh, wait. I guess those things only happen when the U.S. removes a murderous, blood-thirsty dictator that slaughtered Kurds with chemical weapons and Shiite Muslims with his Sunni army. Only when the U.S. deposes a thug that attacks Kuwait and Iran and threatens Saudi Arabia. Anti-war protests are only apparently appropriate when the U.S. eliminates a tyrant and his two murderous sons who raped, tortured, and murdered women for fun!
Yep. It's apparently totally cool with the anti-war crowd if Russia crushes a democratic form of government. Guess that means that war can be okay once in a while as long as it's by a country the anti-war crowd likes.....
I checked CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, and Fox News. Nothing.
I checked the Washington Post, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and the San Francisco Chronicle. Zip.
Where the HELL are the anti-war protests? Seems like four days after the Russians invaded the souvereign state of Georgia, the anti-war protests would be all over the news! Russian embassies and consulates should be under siege by mobs of angry anti-warriors!
Where are the "No Blood for Georgian Oil" banners?
Where are the "Out of Georgia NOW!" signs?
Where are the marches and die-ins?
Oh, wait. I guess those things only happen when the U.S. removes a murderous, blood-thirsty dictator that slaughtered Kurds with chemical weapons and Shiite Muslims with his Sunni army. Only when the U.S. deposes a thug that attacks Kuwait and Iran and threatens Saudi Arabia. Anti-war protests are only apparently appropriate when the U.S. eliminates a tyrant and his two murderous sons who raped, tortured, and murdered women for fun!
Yep. It's apparently totally cool with the anti-war crowd if Russia crushes a democratic form of government. Guess that means that war can be okay once in a while as long as it's by a country the anti-war crowd likes.....
Labels: anti-war protestors, anti-war protests, Bush, Georgia, invasion, Peace, Putin, Russia, Russian Military, War, War in Georgia, War in Iraq
Monday, March 03, 2008
Military Advisers; Hillary's vs. Barack's: On Hillary's side, we see ex-General Wesley Clark as a senior advisor for military matters. On Barack's side we see ex-General "Tony" Merrill McPeak.
Ex-General Clark: Led the NATO effort during Kosovo. Almost broke NATO. As interested in attacking the Russians as in defeating the Serbs. Had no plan for what to do after the first five days of the "air war" failed to drive the Serbs out of Kosovo. Finally had to threaten a ground invasion even though he had no plan to do it nor any troops prepared or positioned to do it. Wrote an autobiography that was strangely reminiscent of Forest Gump.
Ex-General McPeak: Broke the Air Force. Destroyed Air Force intelligence. Drove most Air Force intelligence officers out of the service. Claims to fame include mandating v-neck t-shirts for male service members, institution of "TQM", eliminated Air Force Regulations (AFR's) based on TQM and instituted "Air Force Instructions". Investigated as Commander of Pacific Air Forces for misappropriation of funds.
Yep, some quality advisin' going on in the Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama camps!
(Thanks again to Sandpaper for the Soul)
Ex-General Clark: Led the NATO effort during Kosovo. Almost broke NATO. As interested in attacking the Russians as in defeating the Serbs. Had no plan for what to do after the first five days of the "air war" failed to drive the Serbs out of Kosovo. Finally had to threaten a ground invasion even though he had no plan to do it nor any troops prepared or positioned to do it. Wrote an autobiography that was strangely reminiscent of Forest Gump.
Ex-General McPeak: Broke the Air Force. Destroyed Air Force intelligence. Drove most Air Force intelligence officers out of the service. Claims to fame include mandating v-neck t-shirts for male service members, institution of "TQM", eliminated Air Force Regulations (AFR's) based on TQM and instituted "Air Force Instructions". Investigated as Commander of Pacific Air Forces for misappropriation of funds.
Yep, some quality advisin' going on in the Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama camps!
(Thanks again to Sandpaper for the Soul)
Labels: advisor, Barack Obama, campaign, Clark, Clinton, election, General, Hillary, McPeak, military, Obama, War, Wes, Wes Clark
Friday, December 28, 2007
bin Laden, al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda, and Mullah Omar; Apostates, Blasphemers, Usurpers, Miscreants: It can no longer be denied or ignored that Usama bin-Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda as a whole, and Mullah Omar are apostates, blasphemers, usurpers, and criminal miscreants.
This small group are responsible for the murder of hundreds of thousands of Muslims either directly or through their brainwashing of innocent Muslims who go out and murder in their names.
bin-Laden, al-Zawahiri, and Mullah Omar have turned their backs on true Islam (apostacy) and are pursuing their own courses of power (usurpation)and influence. Worse, they use the words of The Prophet and Allah (blasphemy)to justify their murderous war against Muslims. Using the words of The Prophet, they teach innocent Muslims to commint suicide in direct contradiction to the Koran.
This so-called "jihad" bin-Laden, al-Zawahiri, Omar, and al-Qaeda are waging is killing Muslims every day. The jihad, which is more of a world-wide killing spree than an actual "jihad", is damaging Islam and defaming the words of The Prophet and Allah.
Worse, the jihad is failing on two significant points. First, the jihad is specifically failing in Iraq where jihadists are only killing Muslims and are also being defeated on the field of battle by the Iraqi and American military forces. Second, they have lost the popular support of true Muslims. True Believers have come to understand the jihad is illegal, that Muslims are the ones losing their lives, and that the world is repulsed by the vision of Islam glorified by bin-Laden, al-Zawahiri, and Mullah Omar.
Jihad has failed! It is time for an appropriate influential Islamic authority to declare the "jihad" illegal and bin-Laden, al-Zawahiri, and Mullah Omar to be guilty of apostacy. They need to be stopped through the issuance of an authoritative Fatwa that will be respected and enforced by true Believers.
The time is now!
This small group are responsible for the murder of hundreds of thousands of Muslims either directly or through their brainwashing of innocent Muslims who go out and murder in their names.
bin-Laden, al-Zawahiri, and Mullah Omar have turned their backs on true Islam (apostacy) and are pursuing their own courses of power (usurpation)and influence. Worse, they use the words of The Prophet and Allah (blasphemy)to justify their murderous war against Muslims. Using the words of The Prophet, they teach innocent Muslims to commint suicide in direct contradiction to the Koran.
This so-called "jihad" bin-Laden, al-Zawahiri, Omar, and al-Qaeda are waging is killing Muslims every day. The jihad, which is more of a world-wide killing spree than an actual "jihad", is damaging Islam and defaming the words of The Prophet and Allah.
Worse, the jihad is failing on two significant points. First, the jihad is specifically failing in Iraq where jihadists are only killing Muslims and are also being defeated on the field of battle by the Iraqi and American military forces. Second, they have lost the popular support of true Muslims. True Believers have come to understand the jihad is illegal, that Muslims are the ones losing their lives, and that the world is repulsed by the vision of Islam glorified by bin-Laden, al-Zawahiri, and Mullah Omar.
Jihad has failed! It is time for an appropriate influential Islamic authority to declare the "jihad" illegal and bin-Laden, al-Zawahiri, and Mullah Omar to be guilty of apostacy. They need to be stopped through the issuance of an authoritative Fatwa that will be respected and enforced by true Believers.
The time is now!
Labels: apostate, bin Laden, blasphemer, Iraq, Islam, jihadists, miscreant, Mullah, Omar, Prophet, Qaeda, Qaida, War, War in Iraq, War on Terror, Zawahiri
Wednesday, August 01, 2007
Obama Announces Willingness to go to War- Against an Ally!: Barak Obama seems to have darted to the right in order to get the "let's go to war" vote with his announcement of his willingness to invade Pakistan- a U.S. ally. You read it right. Democrat Barak Obama announced that if President Musharraf of Pakistan didn't follow his (Obama's) orders, he (Obama) would be perfectly willing to invade the country to see his (Obama's) will done.
A couple points:
1. It's so early in the campaign we probably can't fault the U.S. Senator for being unfamiliar with diplomacy, foreign affairs, declaration of war, invasion of soveriegn allies, or consultation with the U.S. Congress.
2. It's also probably too early to expect the U.S. Senator to understand the ramifications of a jihadist government led by Ayaman al-Zawahiri- al-Qaeda's number two in command- taking control of Pakistan, Pakistan's military, and Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.
You don't need to believe me on this one, here's the source:
Obama might send troops into Pakistan
By NEDRA PICKLER,
Associated Press WriterWed Aug 1, 8:22 AM ET
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Wednesday that he would possibly send troops into Pakistan to hunt down terrorists, an attempt to show strength when his chief rival has described his foreign policy skills as naive.
The Illinois senator warned Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf that he must do more to shut down terrorist operations in his country and evict foreign fighters under an Obama presidency, or Pakistan will risk a U.S. troop invasion and losing hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid.
"Let me make this clear," Obama said in a speech prepared for delivery at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. "There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaida leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."
The excerpts were provided by the Obama campaign in advance of the speech.
Obama's speech comes the week after his rivalry with New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton erupted into a public fight over their diplomatic intentions.
Obama said he would be willing to meet leaders of rogue states like Cuba, North Korea and Iran without conditions, an idea that Clinton criticized as irresponsible and naive. Obama responded by using the same words to describe Clinton's vote to authorize the Iraq war and called her "Bush-Cheney lite."
The speech was a condemnation of President Bush's leadership in the war on terror. He said the focus on Iraq has left Americans in more danger than before Sept. 11, 2001, and that Bush has misrepresented the enemy as Iraqis who are fighting a civil war instead of the terrorists responsible for the attacks six years ago.
"He confuses our mission," Obama said, then he spread responsibility to lawmakers like Clinton who voted for the invasion. "By refusing to end the war in Iraq, President Bush is giving the terrorists what they really want, and what the Congress voted to give them in 2002: a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences."
Obama said that as commander in chief he would remove troops from Iraq and putting them "on the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan." He said he would send at least two more brigades to Afghanistan and increase nonmilitary aid to the country by $1 billion.
He also said he would create a three-year, $5 billion program to share intelligence with allies worldwide to take out terrorist networks from Indonesia to Africa
(Source Link: Obama Might Send Troops Into Pakistan)
A couple points:
1. It's so early in the campaign we probably can't fault the U.S. Senator for being unfamiliar with diplomacy, foreign affairs, declaration of war, invasion of soveriegn allies, or consultation with the U.S. Congress.
2. It's also probably too early to expect the U.S. Senator to understand the ramifications of a jihadist government led by Ayaman al-Zawahiri- al-Qaeda's number two in command- taking control of Pakistan, Pakistan's military, and Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.
You don't need to believe me on this one, here's the source:
Obama might send troops into Pakistan
By NEDRA PICKLER,
Associated Press WriterWed Aug 1, 8:22 AM ET
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Wednesday that he would possibly send troops into Pakistan to hunt down terrorists, an attempt to show strength when his chief rival has described his foreign policy skills as naive.
The Illinois senator warned Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf that he must do more to shut down terrorist operations in his country and evict foreign fighters under an Obama presidency, or Pakistan will risk a U.S. troop invasion and losing hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid.
"Let me make this clear," Obama said in a speech prepared for delivery at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. "There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaida leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."
The excerpts were provided by the Obama campaign in advance of the speech.
Obama's speech comes the week after his rivalry with New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton erupted into a public fight over their diplomatic intentions.
Obama said he would be willing to meet leaders of rogue states like Cuba, North Korea and Iran without conditions, an idea that Clinton criticized as irresponsible and naive. Obama responded by using the same words to describe Clinton's vote to authorize the Iraq war and called her "Bush-Cheney lite."
The speech was a condemnation of President Bush's leadership in the war on terror. He said the focus on Iraq has left Americans in more danger than before Sept. 11, 2001, and that Bush has misrepresented the enemy as Iraqis who are fighting a civil war instead of the terrorists responsible for the attacks six years ago.
"He confuses our mission," Obama said, then he spread responsibility to lawmakers like Clinton who voted for the invasion. "By refusing to end the war in Iraq, President Bush is giving the terrorists what they really want, and what the Congress voted to give them in 2002: a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences."
Obama said that as commander in chief he would remove troops from Iraq and putting them "on the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan." He said he would send at least two more brigades to Afghanistan and increase nonmilitary aid to the country by $1 billion.
He also said he would create a three-year, $5 billion program to share intelligence with allies worldwide to take out terrorist networks from Indonesia to Africa
(Source Link: Obama Might Send Troops Into Pakistan)
Labels: Barak, Barak Obama, bin Laden, Clinton, Democrat Party, Democrats, Musharraf, Obama, Pakistan, War, War in Iraq, War on Terror, Zawahiri
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Democrat Party and Iraq: I'm just going to throw this out on the table. It's a simple question for all to ponder. I don't even really need to weigh in after I pose it. Here it is:
"If the Democrats and the Democrat Party really did want the U.S. military to fail in Iraq, and if they really did want the U.S. humiliated on the battlefield and forced into an unconditional surrender to jihadists, what would they be doing different to force that outcome than they are doing now?"
"If the Democrats and the Democrat Party really did want the U.S. military to fail in Iraq, and if they really did want the U.S. humiliated on the battlefield and forced into an unconditional surrender to jihadists, what would they be doing different to force that outcome than they are doing now?"
Labels: Bush, Democrat Party, Democrats, Iraq, jihadists, Murtha, Pelosi, Reid, Sheehan, War, War in Iraq, War on Terror
Democrat Anti-War Hoax: I suggest the entire "anti-war movement" is a hoax. There is NO national outcry to leave Iraq. The thinking reader will ask how I can come to this conclusion. It's easy.
This country recently experienced a real "anti" movement- Immigration Reform. Look at the outcry and national response to that legislation. Stopped it in it's tracks.
Where is that outcry on Iraq? Have you heard of the phone bank at Congress being shut down due to overload? Are we hearing of e-mail blizzards? I rest my case.
I submit the entire "anti war" platform the Democrats and Democrat Party is standing on is a pure, political hoax. If so, the question becomes why are Democrats so anxious for our troops to fail and surrender in Iraq? Why are the Democrats actively working for the defeat and humiliation of the U.S. military on the field of battle? The answer can only be political....
This country recently experienced a real "anti" movement- Immigration Reform. Look at the outcry and national response to that legislation. Stopped it in it's tracks.
Where is that outcry on Iraq? Have you heard of the phone bank at Congress being shut down due to overload? Are we hearing of e-mail blizzards? I rest my case.
I submit the entire "anti war" platform the Democrats and Democrat Party is standing on is a pure, political hoax. If so, the question becomes why are Democrats so anxious for our troops to fail and surrender in Iraq? Why are the Democrats actively working for the defeat and humiliation of the U.S. military on the field of battle? The answer can only be political....
Labels: Dem-no-crats, Democrat Party, Democrats, Iraq, Murtha, Pelosi, Reid, Terrorism, War, War in Iraq, War on Terror
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Democrat Congress- Approval Plunge Continues: All those who continue to believe the "country has turned anti-war" should take note of the latest Gallup Poll that shows the Congressional approval ratings continuing their plunge. Congressional approval is now below that of George W. Bush. The only thing Congress has done over the last several weeks has been to delay funding the troops in the field.
Source Link: http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27589
And the article:
May 15, 2007
Congress Approval Down to 29%; Bush Approval Steady at 33%
Both ratings are slightly lower than 2007 averages
by Joseph Carroll
GALLUP NEWS SERVICE
PRINCETON, NJ -- A new Gallup Poll finds continued low levels of public support for both Congress and President George W. Bush. Twenty-nine percent of Americans approve of Congress, down slightly from last month's reading (33%) and this year's high point of 37%, while Bush's approval rating is holding steady at 33%. Both the ratings of Congress and the president are slightly lower than their respective 2007 averages. Approval ratings of Congress are higher among Democrats than Republicans, while Bush's ratings are much higher among Republicans.
Congressional Job Approval
According to the May 10-13, 2007, Gallup Poll, 29% of Americans approve and 64% disapprove of the way Congress is handling its job. Congressional approval is down 4 percentage points since last month, and is 3 points lower than the 32% average measured during the first five months of the year. The high point for the congressional approval rating so far this year was the 37% approval measured in February. Although ratings are quite low, Americans have been more positive in their assessments of Congress this year than last year, when an average of just 25% approved of Congress.
Even though Democrats now control both houses of Congress, the poll shows that only 37% of Democrats approve of the job Congress is doing right now. These marks are, however, significantly better than those given to Congress by independents (24%) and Republicans (25%). Democrats have been more likely than Republicans to approve of Congress this year, whereas Republicans expressed a higher level of approval prior to the change of power experienced after the midterm congressional elections in November 2006.
So far this year, Republicans' approval of Congress has gradually declined, from a high of 37% in mid-January to 25% in the latest poll. By comparison, ratings among Democrats have shown more fluctuation, ranging between 33% and 44% since January, and are down 6 points this month since early April. More generally, Democrats' ratings of the job the Democratic-controlled Congress is doing are down from a higher point of 44% in February, which is just after the control of Congress switched from the Republicans to the Democrats.
Presidential Job Approval
There has been little meaningful change in the public's rating of the president in quite some time. Thirty-three percent of Americans now approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president, while 62% disapprove. Bush's approval ratings have averaged 35% in 2007, and have fallen within a narrow range between 32% and 38%. Bush's ratings were slightly higher last year, averaging 38%. Bush has not received an approval rating above 40% in any Gallup polling since September 2006.
Republicans continue to be much more likely than independents or Democrats to support the president. Seventy-three percent of Republicans approve of Bush, substantially higher than the 27% approval among independents and the 9% approval among Democrats. Although the three party groups' ratings of Bush's job approval have been quite stable in recent months, since last May presidential approval ratings have shown somewhat more fluctuation among Republicans (ranging between 68% and 86%) than among independents (23% to 36%) or Democrats (4% to 15%).
Survey Methods
Results are based on telephone interviews with 1,003 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted May 10-13, 2007. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points. In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.
Source Link: http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27589
And the article:
May 15, 2007
Congress Approval Down to 29%; Bush Approval Steady at 33%
Both ratings are slightly lower than 2007 averages
by Joseph Carroll
GALLUP NEWS SERVICE
PRINCETON, NJ -- A new Gallup Poll finds continued low levels of public support for both Congress and President George W. Bush. Twenty-nine percent of Americans approve of Congress, down slightly from last month's reading (33%) and this year's high point of 37%, while Bush's approval rating is holding steady at 33%. Both the ratings of Congress and the president are slightly lower than their respective 2007 averages. Approval ratings of Congress are higher among Democrats than Republicans, while Bush's ratings are much higher among Republicans.
Congressional Job Approval
According to the May 10-13, 2007, Gallup Poll, 29% of Americans approve and 64% disapprove of the way Congress is handling its job. Congressional approval is down 4 percentage points since last month, and is 3 points lower than the 32% average measured during the first five months of the year. The high point for the congressional approval rating so far this year was the 37% approval measured in February. Although ratings are quite low, Americans have been more positive in their assessments of Congress this year than last year, when an average of just 25% approved of Congress.
Even though Democrats now control both houses of Congress, the poll shows that only 37% of Democrats approve of the job Congress is doing right now. These marks are, however, significantly better than those given to Congress by independents (24%) and Republicans (25%). Democrats have been more likely than Republicans to approve of Congress this year, whereas Republicans expressed a higher level of approval prior to the change of power experienced after the midterm congressional elections in November 2006.
So far this year, Republicans' approval of Congress has gradually declined, from a high of 37% in mid-January to 25% in the latest poll. By comparison, ratings among Democrats have shown more fluctuation, ranging between 33% and 44% since January, and are down 6 points this month since early April. More generally, Democrats' ratings of the job the Democratic-controlled Congress is doing are down from a higher point of 44% in February, which is just after the control of Congress switched from the Republicans to the Democrats.
Presidential Job Approval
There has been little meaningful change in the public's rating of the president in quite some time. Thirty-three percent of Americans now approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president, while 62% disapprove. Bush's approval ratings have averaged 35% in 2007, and have fallen within a narrow range between 32% and 38%. Bush's ratings were slightly higher last year, averaging 38%. Bush has not received an approval rating above 40% in any Gallup polling since September 2006.
Republicans continue to be much more likely than independents or Democrats to support the president. Seventy-three percent of Republicans approve of Bush, substantially higher than the 27% approval among independents and the 9% approval among Democrats. Although the three party groups' ratings of Bush's job approval have been quite stable in recent months, since last May presidential approval ratings have shown somewhat more fluctuation among Republicans (ranging between 68% and 86%) than among independents (23% to 36%) or Democrats (4% to 15%).
Survey Methods
Results are based on telephone interviews with 1,003 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted May 10-13, 2007. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points. In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.
Labels: approval, Biden, Bush, Clinton, Congress, congressional, Democrats, Funding, Hillary, Hoyer, Iraq, Levin, Murtha, Obama, Pelosi, Poll, ratings, Reid, War
Monday, May 07, 2007
The Return of U.S. Allies: Let's see, Angela Merkel- a pro-America candidate- elected Chancellor of Germany. Nicolas Sarkozy- a pro-America candidate- elected President of France. Seems like our allies are coming home.
Where exactly does that leave the Democrats? I'll tell you. It leaves them with a big gaping hole where their "Bush lost us the respect of our allies" plank used to be in their party platform.
Where exactly does that leave the Democrats? I'll tell you. It leaves them with a big gaping hole where their "Bush lost us the respect of our allies" plank used to be in their party platform.
Labels: Bush, Bush Administration, Clinton, Dean, Democrats, DNC, Hillary, Iraq, Kennedy, Kerry, Levin, Merkel, Murtha, Reid, Sarkozy, War, War on Terror
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
Democrats Illiterate on Iraq: Don't take my word for it. This is from The New Republic:
Congressional leaders are illiterate on Iraq.
Knowledge Gap
by Lawrence F. Kaplan Only at TNR OnlinePost date: 05.01.07
Source Link: http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w070430&s=kaplan050107
Whatever explains the literacy gap, this much at least is obvious: Having been called into being by politicians on both sides of the aisle, the war in Iraq no longer bears a relation to anything they say. You don't need to cherry-pick quotes to prove the point: Nearly every time a senator's mouth opens, something wrong comes out.
A typical example came a few weeks ago when Senator Joseph Biden took to the op-ed page of The Washington Post. In response to an equally surreal op-ed by Senator John McCain, Biden wrote,
"The most damning evidence that the "results" McCain cites are illusory is the city of Tall Afar. Architects of the president's plan called it a model because in 2005, a surge of about 10,000 Americans and Iraqis pacified the city. Then we left Tall Afar, just as our troops soon will leave the Baghdad neighborhoods that they have calmed."
A minor detail perhaps, but "we" never left Tal Afar. In 2006, the First Brigade of the First Armored Division replaced the Third Armored Cavalry Regiment, actually boosting the number of Americans in the city. Biden's analysis will also come as news for the 25th Infantry Division, whose soldiers were patrolling the streets of Tal Afar even as the senator claimed otherwise.
Not to single Biden out: Who can forget Representative John Murtha's suggestion that it would be a cinch for American forces to "redeploy" from Iraq to nearby Okinawa, 5,000 miles from Baghdad? Or House Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes not knowing whether Sunni or Shia populate the ranks of Al Qaeda? U.S. officers in Iraq say that, during their briefings to visiting delegations, they routinely find themselves subjected to examples of congressional oversight along the lines of: Is (the northern city of) Mosul east or west of Baghdad? What's the difference between a brigade and battalion?
As to why some of Capitol Hill's would-be war managers can't name more than a single Iraqi province, officers and journalists offer all kinds of theories. A common explanation points to the shrinking percentage of veterans in Congress, which amounts to a paltry fraction of the World War II cohort that legislated the war in Vietnam (and, incidentally, did a lousy job).
But the ranks of the confused feature enough veterans, most notably Reid and Murtha, to disprove the theory. Another blames the reluctance of delegations to venture beyond the Green Zone or the bases they visit--and, then, their reluctance to be dazed by the sheer unfamiliarity of it all. "I'll never forget the helicopters coming in at night delivering wounded to the hospital in the Green Zone," the Iraq Study Group's Leon Panetta marveled to The Washington Post.
"We've all seen 'M.A.S.H.,' and yet it was happening right there." Which brings us to yet another explanation for the literacy gap: Today's wise men don't exactly rise to the level of their predecessors. In place of William Bundy and Walt Rostow, we have Panetta and Vernon Jordan; as the custodian of William Fulbright's legacy, we have Harry Reid. The former hungered for the data and lacuna of war; the latter seem frankly uninterested.
More than that, congressional leaders often seem loath even to hear about events on the ground. During General Petraeus's visit to Washington last week, for example, House Democrats at first denied the Iraq commander an opportunity to brief them, citing "scheduling conflicts." And, when he finally did brief Congress, the evidence of progress that Petraeus was expected to present was dismissed before he even offered it. "He's the commander," Senator Carl Levin reasoned. "We always know that commanders are optimistic about their policies." The joke here, of course, is that Levin and his colleagues were not so long ago denouncing the Bush administration--and rightly so--for the sin of disparaging military expertise. True, civilians have no obligation to heed that expertise. They do, however, have an obligation to be informed or, at a minimum, to listen.
But, then, expertise may be beside the point. Obliviousness, after all, has its uses. It comforts the sensibilities of politicians whose varying levels of awareness allow them to favor certain facts and not others. Obliviousness testifies to the virtue and good intentions of members of Congress who, in truth, couldn't care less what comes next in Iraq. It invites Americans to indulge in the conceit that what happens in Washington obviates the need to think seriously about what happens in Baghdad.
Most of all, illiteracy makes for good politics. There is the conviction, to paraphrase McCain, that winning a war takes precedence over winning an election. But it isn't so clear that this conviction guides a partisan brawl in which the Senate majority leader can gush, "We're going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war." In such an environment, the subordination of facts to politics inform matters small and large, from the relatively trivial question of whether U.S. troops still operate in Tal Afar to enormous questions regarding the future of the U.S. enterprise in Iraq.
hese big questions, of course, are where literacy matters most--and where you won't find a trace of it. Consider a speech last week by Reid, who neatly summarized the strategic logic behind legislation mandating a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq. Speaking of "where things stand on the ground in Iraq," Reid insisted that the role of U.S. forces is to train Iraqi security forces, protect U.S. troops, and conduct targeted counterterrorism operations.
This transitions our mission to one that is aligned with U.S. strategic interests, while at the same time reducing our combat footprint. U.S. troops should not be interjecting themselves between warring factions, kicking down doors, trying to sort Shia from Sunni, friend from foe.
There are several problems with this formulation, not the least of which is that, far from being a "new strategy," it mirrors exactly the approach that was tested and found wanting when Donald Rumsfeld was presiding over the war and "reducing our combat footprint" was a raison d'être. Chaos, not stability, was the result.
Still, the idea dovetails neatly with Reid's insistence that it is "the specter of U.S. occupation [that] gives fuel to the insurgency"--and that, absent this specter, the violence will magically subside. But just the reverse has been true. Falluja and Tal Afar in 2004, Ramadi in 2005, Western Baghdad in 2006--these places became charnel houses when U.S. forces pulled back. The suggestion, moreover, that American forces ought to confine themselves to "targeted counter-terror operations" rather than trying to sort "friend from foe" misunderstands the most basic tenets of counterinsurgency, ignores the lessons of the past four years, and purposefully slights the testimony of Petraeus and his fellow experts. Living among the population and sorting "friend from foe" is precisely how the military generates intelligence tips, which, in turn, provide the key to "targeted counter-terror operations." It can't be done from Kuwait, and it can't be done from Okinawa.
Though Reid has no use for the Bush administration's military "surge," he does propose a "surge in diplomacy," in line with the cliché that the war has no military solution. As The Washington Post's David Broder has pointed out, "Instead of reinforcing the important proposition ... that a military strategy for Iraq is necessary but not sufficient to solve the myriad political problems of that country, Reid has mistakenly argued that the military effort is lost but a diplomatic-political strategy can succeed."
Nor is this the only reason to doubt the reasoning behind Reid's "diplomatic surge." To begin with, even if they were inclined to assist the American cause in Iraq, neither Iran nor Syria have much, if any, sway over Al Qaeda. Moreover, the violence in Iraq has its own, wholly internal logic. In fact, the one brand of diplomacy that truly matters in Iraq--the U.S. Army's tribal diplomacy, which accounts for the recent turn-around in Anbar Province--is precisely the mission that Reid's demand for a skeleton force would shut down.
Where all this leads is clear. Piece together a string of demonstrably false "facts on the ground" from a suitably safe remove, and you're left with a scenario where we can walk away from Iraq without condition and regardless of consequence. You don't need to watch terrified Iraqis pleading for American forces to stay put in their neighborhoods. You don't need to read the latest National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, which anticipates that a precipitous U.S. withdrawal will end in catastrophe. Why, in the serene conviction that things are the other way around, you don't even need to read at all. Chances are, your congressman doesn't either.
Lawrence F. Kaplan is a senior editor at The New Republic.
Congressional leaders are illiterate on Iraq.
Knowledge Gap
by Lawrence F. Kaplan Only at TNR OnlinePost date: 05.01.07
Source Link: http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w070430&s=kaplan050107
Whatever explains the literacy gap, this much at least is obvious: Having been called into being by politicians on both sides of the aisle, the war in Iraq no longer bears a relation to anything they say. You don't need to cherry-pick quotes to prove the point: Nearly every time a senator's mouth opens, something wrong comes out.
A typical example came a few weeks ago when Senator Joseph Biden took to the op-ed page of The Washington Post. In response to an equally surreal op-ed by Senator John McCain, Biden wrote,
"The most damning evidence that the "results" McCain cites are illusory is the city of Tall Afar. Architects of the president's plan called it a model because in 2005, a surge of about 10,000 Americans and Iraqis pacified the city. Then we left Tall Afar, just as our troops soon will leave the Baghdad neighborhoods that they have calmed."
A minor detail perhaps, but "we" never left Tal Afar. In 2006, the First Brigade of the First Armored Division replaced the Third Armored Cavalry Regiment, actually boosting the number of Americans in the city. Biden's analysis will also come as news for the 25th Infantry Division, whose soldiers were patrolling the streets of Tal Afar even as the senator claimed otherwise.
Not to single Biden out: Who can forget Representative John Murtha's suggestion that it would be a cinch for American forces to "redeploy" from Iraq to nearby Okinawa, 5,000 miles from Baghdad? Or House Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes not knowing whether Sunni or Shia populate the ranks of Al Qaeda? U.S. officers in Iraq say that, during their briefings to visiting delegations, they routinely find themselves subjected to examples of congressional oversight along the lines of: Is (the northern city of) Mosul east or west of Baghdad? What's the difference between a brigade and battalion?
As to why some of Capitol Hill's would-be war managers can't name more than a single Iraqi province, officers and journalists offer all kinds of theories. A common explanation points to the shrinking percentage of veterans in Congress, which amounts to a paltry fraction of the World War II cohort that legislated the war in Vietnam (and, incidentally, did a lousy job).
But the ranks of the confused feature enough veterans, most notably Reid and Murtha, to disprove the theory. Another blames the reluctance of delegations to venture beyond the Green Zone or the bases they visit--and, then, their reluctance to be dazed by the sheer unfamiliarity of it all. "I'll never forget the helicopters coming in at night delivering wounded to the hospital in the Green Zone," the Iraq Study Group's Leon Panetta marveled to The Washington Post.
"We've all seen 'M.A.S.H.,' and yet it was happening right there." Which brings us to yet another explanation for the literacy gap: Today's wise men don't exactly rise to the level of their predecessors. In place of William Bundy and Walt Rostow, we have Panetta and Vernon Jordan; as the custodian of William Fulbright's legacy, we have Harry Reid. The former hungered for the data and lacuna of war; the latter seem frankly uninterested.
More than that, congressional leaders often seem loath even to hear about events on the ground. During General Petraeus's visit to Washington last week, for example, House Democrats at first denied the Iraq commander an opportunity to brief them, citing "scheduling conflicts." And, when he finally did brief Congress, the evidence of progress that Petraeus was expected to present was dismissed before he even offered it. "He's the commander," Senator Carl Levin reasoned. "We always know that commanders are optimistic about their policies." The joke here, of course, is that Levin and his colleagues were not so long ago denouncing the Bush administration--and rightly so--for the sin of disparaging military expertise. True, civilians have no obligation to heed that expertise. They do, however, have an obligation to be informed or, at a minimum, to listen.
But, then, expertise may be beside the point. Obliviousness, after all, has its uses. It comforts the sensibilities of politicians whose varying levels of awareness allow them to favor certain facts and not others. Obliviousness testifies to the virtue and good intentions of members of Congress who, in truth, couldn't care less what comes next in Iraq. It invites Americans to indulge in the conceit that what happens in Washington obviates the need to think seriously about what happens in Baghdad.
Most of all, illiteracy makes for good politics. There is the conviction, to paraphrase McCain, that winning a war takes precedence over winning an election. But it isn't so clear that this conviction guides a partisan brawl in which the Senate majority leader can gush, "We're going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war." In such an environment, the subordination of facts to politics inform matters small and large, from the relatively trivial question of whether U.S. troops still operate in Tal Afar to enormous questions regarding the future of the U.S. enterprise in Iraq.
hese big questions, of course, are where literacy matters most--and where you won't find a trace of it. Consider a speech last week by Reid, who neatly summarized the strategic logic behind legislation mandating a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq. Speaking of "where things stand on the ground in Iraq," Reid insisted that the role of U.S. forces is to train Iraqi security forces, protect U.S. troops, and conduct targeted counterterrorism operations.
This transitions our mission to one that is aligned with U.S. strategic interests, while at the same time reducing our combat footprint. U.S. troops should not be interjecting themselves between warring factions, kicking down doors, trying to sort Shia from Sunni, friend from foe.
There are several problems with this formulation, not the least of which is that, far from being a "new strategy," it mirrors exactly the approach that was tested and found wanting when Donald Rumsfeld was presiding over the war and "reducing our combat footprint" was a raison d'être. Chaos, not stability, was the result.
Still, the idea dovetails neatly with Reid's insistence that it is "the specter of U.S. occupation [that] gives fuel to the insurgency"--and that, absent this specter, the violence will magically subside. But just the reverse has been true. Falluja and Tal Afar in 2004, Ramadi in 2005, Western Baghdad in 2006--these places became charnel houses when U.S. forces pulled back. The suggestion, moreover, that American forces ought to confine themselves to "targeted counter-terror operations" rather than trying to sort "friend from foe" misunderstands the most basic tenets of counterinsurgency, ignores the lessons of the past four years, and purposefully slights the testimony of Petraeus and his fellow experts. Living among the population and sorting "friend from foe" is precisely how the military generates intelligence tips, which, in turn, provide the key to "targeted counter-terror operations." It can't be done from Kuwait, and it can't be done from Okinawa.
Though Reid has no use for the Bush administration's military "surge," he does propose a "surge in diplomacy," in line with the cliché that the war has no military solution. As The Washington Post's David Broder has pointed out, "Instead of reinforcing the important proposition ... that a military strategy for Iraq is necessary but not sufficient to solve the myriad political problems of that country, Reid has mistakenly argued that the military effort is lost but a diplomatic-political strategy can succeed."
Nor is this the only reason to doubt the reasoning behind Reid's "diplomatic surge." To begin with, even if they were inclined to assist the American cause in Iraq, neither Iran nor Syria have much, if any, sway over Al Qaeda. Moreover, the violence in Iraq has its own, wholly internal logic. In fact, the one brand of diplomacy that truly matters in Iraq--the U.S. Army's tribal diplomacy, which accounts for the recent turn-around in Anbar Province--is precisely the mission that Reid's demand for a skeleton force would shut down.
Where all this leads is clear. Piece together a string of demonstrably false "facts on the ground" from a suitably safe remove, and you're left with a scenario where we can walk away from Iraq without condition and regardless of consequence. You don't need to watch terrified Iraqis pleading for American forces to stay put in their neighborhoods. You don't need to read the latest National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, which anticipates that a precipitous U.S. withdrawal will end in catastrophe. Why, in the serene conviction that things are the other way around, you don't even need to read at all. Chances are, your congressman doesn't either.
Lawrence F. Kaplan is a senior editor at The New Republic.
Labels: Biden, Congress, Democrats, illiterate, Iraq, Murtha, Okinawa, Pelosi, Reid, War
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Mission Accomplished- A Moment of Clarity: I notice this ancient, stale talking point has resurfaced among Democrats as some way they think they can make a point about W. I hear they're going to send him the funding bill for his veto on the day that coincides with the anniversary of the "Mission Accomplished" speech on the aircraft carrier.
I suppose it's fun for them, so let them enjoy their..... what exactly? Meanwhile, let's do some quick clarification for those who may not know. When a military organization- an aircraft carrier group for instance- goes to war, executes an assigned mission, and returns home having accomplished that mission, that organization will generally return to some type of celebration where they- shock of all shocks- celebrate the accomplishment of their mission!
The aircraft carrier that W. greeted upon it's return from the Persian Gulf had received war time order and tasking, executed it's mission- the initial attack on and defeat of Saddam's military- accomplished it's mission, and returned home. The aircraft carrier group accomplished it's mission.
When you listen to W's speech, he talks about the carrier group having done it's job, and then he talks about the remaining work. He never declared the "war" over. He said major military operations. Those would be division level maneuvers, large scale air campaigns, force-on-force engagements. Those were, indeed, over. He also said in that speech that much work remained to be done.
So, when you hear the hullabaloo about Bush's "Mission Accomplished", what you're really hearing the sound of the vacuum where a Democrat agenda should be. They have nothing else to present to the American public. So rather than focus on ways to win the war, or ways maybe to fix Social Security, they're going to spend a day or even a week going back four years in history to ridicule a photo op. That's all they got.
It's also worth considering that every time someone diminishes the "Mission Accomplished" banner, they're diminishing the accomplishments of that aircraft carrier group who really did accomplish their mission and splendidly at that. Those crews do not deserve the ridicule heaped upon them by the press and the Democrats who will twist their moment of glory into an insturment of shame to be used against President Bush. But hey, at least they "support" the troops, right? Just not enough to fund them......
"Mission Accomplished". It was always about the troops, not W. Just watch the video of his speech......
I suppose it's fun for them, so let them enjoy their..... what exactly? Meanwhile, let's do some quick clarification for those who may not know. When a military organization- an aircraft carrier group for instance- goes to war, executes an assigned mission, and returns home having accomplished that mission, that organization will generally return to some type of celebration where they- shock of all shocks- celebrate the accomplishment of their mission!
The aircraft carrier that W. greeted upon it's return from the Persian Gulf had received war time order and tasking, executed it's mission- the initial attack on and defeat of Saddam's military- accomplished it's mission, and returned home. The aircraft carrier group accomplished it's mission.
When you listen to W's speech, he talks about the carrier group having done it's job, and then he talks about the remaining work. He never declared the "war" over. He said major military operations. Those would be division level maneuvers, large scale air campaigns, force-on-force engagements. Those were, indeed, over. He also said in that speech that much work remained to be done.
So, when you hear the hullabaloo about Bush's "Mission Accomplished", what you're really hearing the sound of the vacuum where a Democrat agenda should be. They have nothing else to present to the American public. So rather than focus on ways to win the war, or ways maybe to fix Social Security, they're going to spend a day or even a week going back four years in history to ridicule a photo op. That's all they got.
It's also worth considering that every time someone diminishes the "Mission Accomplished" banner, they're diminishing the accomplishments of that aircraft carrier group who really did accomplish their mission and splendidly at that. Those crews do not deserve the ridicule heaped upon them by the press and the Democrats who will twist their moment of glory into an insturment of shame to be used against President Bush. But hey, at least they "support" the troops, right? Just not enough to fund them......
"Mission Accomplished". It was always about the troops, not W. Just watch the video of his speech......
Labels: Accomplished, Aircraft, aircraft carrier, Bush, Carrier, Congress, Funding, Iraq, Mission, Murtha, Pelosi, Reid, veto, W., War
General Petraeus Quote: Okay, let's straighten this out right now. If you're going to quote General Petraeus, get the quote right! I keep hearing Democrats quoting him inaccurately as saying "there is no military solution in Iraq".
What he really said:
"There is no military solution ALONE in Iraq".
Meaning there must be political and economic components to the solution. And when properly quoted and in context, you can see the military IS one of the components to the Iraq problem. If you pull the coalition forces out, you STILL HAVE AN INCOMPLETE SOLUTION!
What he really said:
"There is no military solution ALONE in Iraq".
Meaning there must be political and economic components to the solution. And when properly quoted and in context, you can see the military IS one of the components to the Iraq problem. If you pull the coalition forces out, you STILL HAVE AN INCOMPLETE SOLUTION!
Labels: Baghdad, coalition, General, Iraq, Iraqi, military, Patraeus, policy, Solution, War, withdrawl
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Iraq- Democrat Vote to Surrender: The Democrat Party leadership today in the U.S. Senate betrayed U.S. forces in Iraq and voted to unconditionally surrender to the jihadists waging war on the West. This party has no shame. They are playing political games with the lives of U.S. troops that are in combat.
Reid, Murtha, Pelosi, and Hoyer should resign NOW! They are cowards and cannot be trusted to look out for the U.S. national interests.
Reid, Murtha, Pelosi, and Hoyer should resign NOW! They are cowards and cannot be trusted to look out for the U.S. national interests.
Labels: cowards, Democrats, Funding, funds, Hoyer, Iraq, legislation, Murtha, Pelosi, Reid, surrender, vote, War
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Senator Harry Reid and Iraq- Part 2: Senator Reid, D-NV, is playing personal power politics with the lives of our troops in combat. The so-called "senator" is a disgrace and an embarassment to this nation.
This is an unambiguous call:
Mr. Reid- RESIGN IMMEDIATELY!
There is no room in our political leadership for those who would treat our troops in combat as chess pieces in a political game of chicken. The actions of "the senator" are emboldening Iran and the jihadists and he MUST RESIGN!
This is an unambiguous call:
Mr. Reid- RESIGN IMMEDIATELY!
There is no room in our political leadership for those who would treat our troops in combat as chess pieces in a political game of chicken. The actions of "the senator" are emboldening Iran and the jihadists and he MUST RESIGN!
Labels: al-Qaeda, Bush, Cheney, D-NV, Democrats, Funding, Iran, Iraq, Nevada, President, Reid, resign, Senate, Senator, troops, War, withdrawl
Monday, April 23, 2007
Harry Reid and Iraq: Okay, quick quiz for you political junkies out there. Name five parties that agree with Harry Reid on Iraq...
1. al-Qaeda
2. Iran
3. Syria
4. non-affiliated insurgents in Iraq
5. George Soros and MoveOn.org
That's quite an ecclectic group! Although one might wonder why it is a sitting U.S. Senator aligns himself with jihadists and tyrants against U.S. service members in the field. One might wonder why he takes to the podium to give speeches that encourage jihadists to continue and even increase their slaughter of innocents and grind down the morale of our own military force. Yep, one might wonder......
1. al-Qaeda
2. Iran
3. Syria
4. non-affiliated insurgents in Iraq
5. George Soros and MoveOn.org
That's quite an ecclectic group! Although one might wonder why it is a sitting U.S. Senator aligns himself with jihadists and tyrants against U.S. service members in the field. One might wonder why he takes to the podium to give speeches that encourage jihadists to continue and even increase their slaughter of innocents and grind down the morale of our own military force. Yep, one might wonder......
Labels: Funding, Harry, Iraq, jihadists, Majority, military, MoveOn, Nevada, redeploy, Reid, Senate, Soros, Supplemental, surrender, timeline, War, withdraw, withdrawl
Sunday, February 11, 2007
An Inconvenient Truth- The Democrat Party and The War: Okay, after listening to the Democrat Party- the Demo-quitters- for over a year, I want to present some "Inconvenient Truths" to rebut some of the disinformation and general garbage eminating from their leaders regarding the war.
1. The war in Iraq IS THE central front in the War against Terrorism (Jihadism). You don't need to listen to President Bush or Robert Gates, or Michael Hayden; simply listen to Ayman al Zawahiri in his media barrage. If you read the foreign press, including the Arab press, you will learn a lot about the importance to al Qaeda of a victory against America in Iraq. The truth the Democrat Party wishes to ignore- or worse doesn't understand- is that al Qaeda has decided to take on America by fighting us in Iraq.
2. Jihadist have gone to Iraq to take on our military instead of America to take on our civilians (a la 9/11). We pay our military to fight our battles and currently they are fighting radical Jihadists. The truth the Democrat Party wishes to ignore or doesn't understand- throughout the '90's, radical Islamic jihadists took on American civilians all over the world; World Trade Center '93, U.S. Embassies in Africa, and the failed attempt to attack L.A. Airport on New Years in 2000. FACT: Now they are now fighting our military force instead.
3. There is no one to negotiate with. Jihadist elements run through North Africa, East Africa, and Asia. What they want is a change in our behavior and lifestyle.
4. They want us to abandon our allies and surrender them to a life under Sharia law. When they watch our news- as they DO- and they see a U.S. Congressman sworn into office on the Koran, they see a victory in the war in the form of a U.S. Congressman swearing allegiance to Sharia Law instead of the U.S. Constitution.
5. They hate Israel. If we "quit" Iraq, it will be a sign to Hizballah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad that the West is too weak to stop them in any attempt to destroy Israel.
6. Jihadists the world over watch our news and read our press. In fact, many jihadist factions have elements or members living here that watch our media every day. Every time they see a story about Democrats trying to stop President Bush, or trying to stop deployments of troops, or ending the war, or bringing the troops home, or more importantly any story where it is said we have lost and cannot win, it signal victory to the jihadist and emboldens them to fight harder and kill more people. The Democrat Party is in total denial over this. They cannot possibly understand the concept of war and defeating an enemy because they persist in pumping up the morale of the jihadists with their public statements and behavior. The Democrat Party is responsible for lengthening this war because they encourage the jihadists to continue fighting. The jihadist believe they are winning this war and it's our own Democrat Party that keeps telling them that.
7. Our troops the world over watch our news and read our press too. A constant barrage of statements and actions from the Democrat Party indicating they have failed, are failing, and cannot win demoralizes them! The Democrat Party for a year now has pounded home the idea the U.S. military is unable to win, yet somehow they support the troops.
8. We are fighting in Iraq. Ethiopians are fighting Islamists in Somalia. Filipinos are fighting Islamists in the Phillipines. The U.K., France, and Spain are applying law enforcement and intelligence against their own internal jihadist threats in Europe. The Russians are fighting jihadists in Chechnya. What is the message we send the world if we "quit", if we "strategically re-deploy", if we bring our troops home from Iraq before the war is won?
9. Democrats conveniently forget that Saddam was embarked on a campaign to massacre the Shia living in Southeastern Iraq and that we were flying protection missions over the No-Fly Zone to stop him. They also forget that Saddam's military fired at our No-Fly Zone missions routinely- an act of war.
10. From 1998 forward, the official policy of this country was for "regime change" in Iraq. This was President Bill Clinton's policy. The entire Clinton Administration is on record on the fact that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, that he would use them again, and that he was a threat that had to be dealt with. Bill Clinton founded the policy and then did nothing about it. President Bush spent more than a year working with the U.N. and allies before he "rushed" to war. This is an inconvenient truth for Democrats because it under cuts their case that Bush was "reckless". By February 2003, President Bush had made the case for war which included far more than just WMD. It included the threat to Iraq's neighbors from a re-armed Saddam, unending human rights violations and mass murders, firing at our jets patrolling the no-fly zone, Saddam's support of suicide bombers in Israel, and it included assocations between Saddam and Islamic terror organizations including al Qaeda. They REALLY forget that one of the 1993 World Trade Center bomb planners fled the U.S. and sought shelter in Baghdad right after the attack.
Here are some relevant quotes:
Bill Clinton, February 17th, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
October 9th, 1999 Letter to President Clinton Signed by Senators Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry all Democrats
"We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions, including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Sandy Berger February 18th, 1998
"He''ll use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has 10 times since 1983."
Nancy Pelosi December 16th, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Al Gore, September 23rd, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Robert Byrd October 3rd, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of '98. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons."
Madeleine Albright November 10th, 1999
"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Senator Hillary Clinton, October 10th of 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock. His missile delivery capability, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including al-Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Senator Carl Levin September 19th, 2002
"We begin with a common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations, is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
John Kerry October 9th, 2002
"I will be voting to give the president of the US the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
11. The Democrats keep trying to draw the Vietnam parallel. They need to be VERY careful doing this. General Abrahms had turned the tide in the war up through 1972 and the ground situation had stabilized. Two things caused the disaster that occured in 1975; a faulty Peace Agreement that allowed several hundred thousand NVA troops to remain in South Vietnam AFTER the U.S. withdrawal and second, CONGRESS CUTTING OFF FUNDS to South Vietnam. The U.S. Congress pulled the rug out from under the South Vietnamese causing a collapse of the military and then the political system. This Congress, 32 years later, seems ready to re-create the Vietnam disaster that resulted in millions of deaths in Cambodia and Laos.
To me, it's clear the Democrat Party does not know how to lead, they don't understand our military or modern warfare, and they certainly do not understand the threat against America. Using the benchmarks of the modern day Democrat Party, we should have quit WW II after Normandy, or after the Battle of the Bulge, or Guadalcanal.
How can the Democrat Party be trusted with the security of this country?
1. The war in Iraq IS THE central front in the War against Terrorism (Jihadism). You don't need to listen to President Bush or Robert Gates, or Michael Hayden; simply listen to Ayman al Zawahiri in his media barrage. If you read the foreign press, including the Arab press, you will learn a lot about the importance to al Qaeda of a victory against America in Iraq. The truth the Democrat Party wishes to ignore- or worse doesn't understand- is that al Qaeda has decided to take on America by fighting us in Iraq.
2. Jihadist have gone to Iraq to take on our military instead of America to take on our civilians (a la 9/11). We pay our military to fight our battles and currently they are fighting radical Jihadists. The truth the Democrat Party wishes to ignore or doesn't understand- throughout the '90's, radical Islamic jihadists took on American civilians all over the world; World Trade Center '93, U.S. Embassies in Africa, and the failed attempt to attack L.A. Airport on New Years in 2000. FACT: Now they are now fighting our military force instead.
3. There is no one to negotiate with. Jihadist elements run through North Africa, East Africa, and Asia. What they want is a change in our behavior and lifestyle.
4. They want us to abandon our allies and surrender them to a life under Sharia law. When they watch our news- as they DO- and they see a U.S. Congressman sworn into office on the Koran, they see a victory in the war in the form of a U.S. Congressman swearing allegiance to Sharia Law instead of the U.S. Constitution.
5. They hate Israel. If we "quit" Iraq, it will be a sign to Hizballah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad that the West is too weak to stop them in any attempt to destroy Israel.
6. Jihadists the world over watch our news and read our press. In fact, many jihadist factions have elements or members living here that watch our media every day. Every time they see a story about Democrats trying to stop President Bush, or trying to stop deployments of troops, or ending the war, or bringing the troops home, or more importantly any story where it is said we have lost and cannot win, it signal victory to the jihadist and emboldens them to fight harder and kill more people. The Democrat Party is in total denial over this. They cannot possibly understand the concept of war and defeating an enemy because they persist in pumping up the morale of the jihadists with their public statements and behavior. The Democrat Party is responsible for lengthening this war because they encourage the jihadists to continue fighting. The jihadist believe they are winning this war and it's our own Democrat Party that keeps telling them that.
7. Our troops the world over watch our news and read our press too. A constant barrage of statements and actions from the Democrat Party indicating they have failed, are failing, and cannot win demoralizes them! The Democrat Party for a year now has pounded home the idea the U.S. military is unable to win, yet somehow they support the troops.
8. We are fighting in Iraq. Ethiopians are fighting Islamists in Somalia. Filipinos are fighting Islamists in the Phillipines. The U.K., France, and Spain are applying law enforcement and intelligence against their own internal jihadist threats in Europe. The Russians are fighting jihadists in Chechnya. What is the message we send the world if we "quit", if we "strategically re-deploy", if we bring our troops home from Iraq before the war is won?
9. Democrats conveniently forget that Saddam was embarked on a campaign to massacre the Shia living in Southeastern Iraq and that we were flying protection missions over the No-Fly Zone to stop him. They also forget that Saddam's military fired at our No-Fly Zone missions routinely- an act of war.
10. From 1998 forward, the official policy of this country was for "regime change" in Iraq. This was President Bill Clinton's policy. The entire Clinton Administration is on record on the fact that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, that he would use them again, and that he was a threat that had to be dealt with. Bill Clinton founded the policy and then did nothing about it. President Bush spent more than a year working with the U.N. and allies before he "rushed" to war. This is an inconvenient truth for Democrats because it under cuts their case that Bush was "reckless". By February 2003, President Bush had made the case for war which included far more than just WMD. It included the threat to Iraq's neighbors from a re-armed Saddam, unending human rights violations and mass murders, firing at our jets patrolling the no-fly zone, Saddam's support of suicide bombers in Israel, and it included assocations between Saddam and Islamic terror organizations including al Qaeda. They REALLY forget that one of the 1993 World Trade Center bomb planners fled the U.S. and sought shelter in Baghdad right after the attack.
Here are some relevant quotes:
Bill Clinton, February 17th, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
October 9th, 1999 Letter to President Clinton Signed by Senators Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry all Democrats
"We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions, including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Sandy Berger February 18th, 1998
"He''ll use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has 10 times since 1983."
Nancy Pelosi December 16th, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Al Gore, September 23rd, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Robert Byrd October 3rd, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of '98. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons."
Madeleine Albright November 10th, 1999
"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Senator Hillary Clinton, October 10th of 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock. His missile delivery capability, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including al-Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Senator Carl Levin September 19th, 2002
"We begin with a common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations, is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
John Kerry October 9th, 2002
"I will be voting to give the president of the US the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
11. The Democrats keep trying to draw the Vietnam parallel. They need to be VERY careful doing this. General Abrahms had turned the tide in the war up through 1972 and the ground situation had stabilized. Two things caused the disaster that occured in 1975; a faulty Peace Agreement that allowed several hundred thousand NVA troops to remain in South Vietnam AFTER the U.S. withdrawal and second, CONGRESS CUTTING OFF FUNDS to South Vietnam. The U.S. Congress pulled the rug out from under the South Vietnamese causing a collapse of the military and then the political system. This Congress, 32 years later, seems ready to re-create the Vietnam disaster that resulted in millions of deaths in Cambodia and Laos.
To me, it's clear the Democrat Party does not know how to lead, they don't understand our military or modern warfare, and they certainly do not understand the threat against America. Using the benchmarks of the modern day Democrat Party, we should have quit WW II after Normandy, or after the Battle of the Bulge, or Guadalcanal.
How can the Democrat Party be trusted with the security of this country?
Labels: Democrats, Inconvenient Truth, Iraq, Terrorism, War
