The President Gets It Right: Democrats Whine
Pardon me for being about forty-eight hours behind on this, but these summer colds are no picnic. I felt like garbage yesterday, so I did not get to do anything on the computer except homework. But, this was started after the presidents speech Tuesday from Fort Bragg, North Carolina.
His speech was right on the money, and as plain-spoken, clear, and concise as could possibly be imagined. He laid out what we have done, and why we invaded Iraq—an invasion that the people in Congress supported. He laid out the failures by the insurgents and terrorists running through the country.
"The terrorists -- both foreign and Iraqi -- failed to stop the transfer of sovereignty. They failed to break our Coalition and force a mass withdrawal by our allies. They failed to incite an Iraqi civil war. They failed to prevent free elections. They failed to stop the formation of a democratic Iraqi government that represents all of Iraq's diverse population. And they failed to stop Iraqis from signing up in large number with the police forces and the army to defend their new democracy."
These failures are significant. It shows us—the little people over here—that this insurgency forces are losing. Further, how can the Left disavow that the terrorists are in "their death throes" when those terrorists will not engage our troops or Iraqi troops. They have targeted civilians; that is an act of pure desperation on their part, and it will not work. If Iraqis were willing to brave the terrorists the day they voted, and accept the fact they might die because they exercised their free, sovereign right, then what point can the terrorists make in blowing them up?
But after the speech, the Left took to the airwaves and savaged the president. They disliked his invocation of Sept. 11th. They carped that no WMDs were found in Iraq. One that I saw (A no-name Democrat from the House that I did not recognize) even stated that in no way was Saddam Hussein a threat. Bill Clinton jumped on the bandwagon yesterday with a truly idiotic statement. He asserted that Saddam Hussein was keeping terrorists out of Iraq.
Excuse me, Mr. President, but I guess you could make such a foolish statement like that if you were not paying attention to your job. But let me be frank, sir, you do not know what you are talking about. Andrew McCarthy—of NRO fame—laid out all the information that we had regarding Saddam’s ties to terrorism. The points he makes, that remind us of why Saddam was a threat are underlined by this piece of his column (link below. Read it.)
"Saddam Hussein’s regime was a crucial part of that response because it was a safety net for al Qaeda. A place where terror attacks against the United States and the West were planned. A place where Saddam’s intelligence service aided and abetted al Qaeda terrorists planning operations. A place where terrorists could hide safely between attacks. A place where terrorists could lick their wounds. A place where committed terrorists could receive vital training in weapons construction and paramilitary tactics. In short, a platform of precisely the type without which an international terror network cannot succeed."
http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200506290912.asp
And the cry-baby Left ratcheted up their temper-tantrum on Tuesday night by basically accusing the president, again (ho hum), or lying. These people just do not get it. They are content to stick with their talking points—never changing them—and refuse to do what is right, proper, and just for the nation. They are the fifth-column defeatists that this war does not need; much like we did not need them during Vietnam.
The president has stated over and over again that this war is not going to be short. It will last beyond his presidency, and beyond the next president’s term. To truly defeat these jihadists, they need to be eradicated; that means hunting them down, cutting off their funds and other support, and either taking them into custody or killing them. As the funny line from the Three Musketeers points out.
"Get those Musketeers. I want them dead or alive...I prefer dead." Tim Curry, as Cardinal Richelieu, in Disney’s remake of the Three Musketeers.
And we prefer our terrorists dead, as well. Dead men not only do not tell tales, but they don’t kill innocent people either. And the Michael Moores and the Ward Churchills that believe that we deserved what we got would be apt to remember that there are men and women, fighting and dying abroad, protecting the right in the Constitution for these people to sound like uneducated, inept, asses. And that goes for the rest of the fifth-column Left. If you have nothing to contribute to this world than your stupidity, then by all means, keep that under wraps, as well.
But there are plenty of people that think it is time we pull out of Iraq. Like the president, I disagree. To do so would be utterly disastrous to the fledgling nation. To pull out now would abandon that nation to not only the terrorists still plaguing it, but to neighbors like Syria (who invaded and occupied Lebanon for over twenty years) and Iran (who is a blood-enemy of the nation of Iraq).
And yes, I have seen the news story about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran’s new president, and the ongoing speculation that he was involved in the Iranian takeover of the US embassy in 1979. The photos are compelling, and I am not discounting the former hostages insistence that he was one of them. But I want more proof. Photo manipulation is common on the Internet, and quite easy to do.
But for the fifth-column Left that continue to state that the president’s speech on Tuesday was not a reminder of why we invaded Iraq, but rather a shifting of the reasons, I cite this from The New Yorker. (Hat-tip: Hugh Hewitt)
http://hughhewitt.com/#postid1750
"In his State of the Union address, President Bush offered at least four justifications, none of them overlapping: the cruelty of Saddam against his own people; his flouting of treaties and United Nations Security Council resolutions; the military threat that he poses to his neighbors; and his ties to terrorists in general and to Al Qaeda in particular. In addition, Bush hinted at the possibility that Saddam might attack the United States or enable someone else to do so. There are so many reasons for going to war floating around—at least some of which, taken alone, either are nothing new or do not seem to point to Iraq specifically as the obvious place to wage it—that those inclined to suspect the motives of the Administration have plenty of material with which to argue that it is being disingenuous. So, along with all the stated reasons, there is a brisk secondary traffic in 'real' reasons, which are similarly numerous and do not overlap: the country is going to war because of a desire to control Iraqi oil, or to help Israel, or to avenge Saddam's 1993 assassination attempt on President George H. W. Bush.
Yet another argument for war, which has emerged during the last few months, is that removing Saddam could help bring about a wholesale change for the better in the political, cultural, and economic climate of the Arab Middle East. To give one of many possible examples, Fouad Ajami, an expert on the Arab world who is highly respected inside the Bush Administration, proposes in the current issue of Foreign Affairs that the United States might lead 'a reformist project that seeks to modernize and transform the Arab landscape. Iraq would be the starting point, and beyond Iraq lies an Arab political and economic tradition and a culture whose agonies have been on cruel display.' The Administration's main public proponent of this view is Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, who often speaks about the possibility that war in Iraq could help bring democracy to the Arab Middle East. President Bush appeared to be making the same point in the State of the Union address when he remarked that 'all people have a right to choose their own government, and determine their own destiny—and the United States supports their aspirations to live in freedom.'"
As I stated above, Andrew McCarthy does an outstanding job in his column of showing the significant ties to terrorism, and al-Qaeda in particular, that Saddam Hussein had. The man was a threat. We dealt with that threat, and we are still dealing with all the little threats in that country. We will leave when the job is finished, and not a moment before then. To do so would not only be disingenuous to the people of Iraq, but it would also wave a white flag to the terrorist animals that want us dead, and this nation destroyed.
The Bunny ;)
Pardon me for being about forty-eight hours behind on this, but these summer colds are no picnic. I felt like garbage yesterday, so I did not get to do anything on the computer except homework. But, this was started after the presidents speech Tuesday from Fort Bragg, North Carolina.
His speech was right on the money, and as plain-spoken, clear, and concise as could possibly be imagined. He laid out what we have done, and why we invaded Iraq—an invasion that the people in Congress supported. He laid out the failures by the insurgents and terrorists running through the country.
"The terrorists -- both foreign and Iraqi -- failed to stop the transfer of sovereignty. They failed to break our Coalition and force a mass withdrawal by our allies. They failed to incite an Iraqi civil war. They failed to prevent free elections. They failed to stop the formation of a democratic Iraqi government that represents all of Iraq's diverse population. And they failed to stop Iraqis from signing up in large number with the police forces and the army to defend their new democracy."
These failures are significant. It shows us—the little people over here—that this insurgency forces are losing. Further, how can the Left disavow that the terrorists are in "their death throes" when those terrorists will not engage our troops or Iraqi troops. They have targeted civilians; that is an act of pure desperation on their part, and it will not work. If Iraqis were willing to brave the terrorists the day they voted, and accept the fact they might die because they exercised their free, sovereign right, then what point can the terrorists make in blowing them up?
But after the speech, the Left took to the airwaves and savaged the president. They disliked his invocation of Sept. 11th. They carped that no WMDs were found in Iraq. One that I saw (A no-name Democrat from the House that I did not recognize) even stated that in no way was Saddam Hussein a threat. Bill Clinton jumped on the bandwagon yesterday with a truly idiotic statement. He asserted that Saddam Hussein was keeping terrorists out of Iraq.
Excuse me, Mr. President, but I guess you could make such a foolish statement like that if you were not paying attention to your job. But let me be frank, sir, you do not know what you are talking about. Andrew McCarthy—of NRO fame—laid out all the information that we had regarding Saddam’s ties to terrorism. The points he makes, that remind us of why Saddam was a threat are underlined by this piece of his column (link below. Read it.)
"Saddam Hussein’s regime was a crucial part of that response because it was a safety net for al Qaeda. A place where terror attacks against the United States and the West were planned. A place where Saddam’s intelligence service aided and abetted al Qaeda terrorists planning operations. A place where terrorists could hide safely between attacks. A place where terrorists could lick their wounds. A place where committed terrorists could receive vital training in weapons construction and paramilitary tactics. In short, a platform of precisely the type without which an international terror network cannot succeed."
http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200506290912.asp
And the cry-baby Left ratcheted up their temper-tantrum on Tuesday night by basically accusing the president, again (ho hum), or lying. These people just do not get it. They are content to stick with their talking points—never changing them—and refuse to do what is right, proper, and just for the nation. They are the fifth-column defeatists that this war does not need; much like we did not need them during Vietnam.
The president has stated over and over again that this war is not going to be short. It will last beyond his presidency, and beyond the next president’s term. To truly defeat these jihadists, they need to be eradicated; that means hunting them down, cutting off their funds and other support, and either taking them into custody or killing them. As the funny line from the Three Musketeers points out.
"Get those Musketeers. I want them dead or alive...I prefer dead." Tim Curry, as Cardinal Richelieu, in Disney’s remake of the Three Musketeers.
And we prefer our terrorists dead, as well. Dead men not only do not tell tales, but they don’t kill innocent people either. And the Michael Moores and the Ward Churchills that believe that we deserved what we got would be apt to remember that there are men and women, fighting and dying abroad, protecting the right in the Constitution for these people to sound like uneducated, inept, asses. And that goes for the rest of the fifth-column Left. If you have nothing to contribute to this world than your stupidity, then by all means, keep that under wraps, as well.
But there are plenty of people that think it is time we pull out of Iraq. Like the president, I disagree. To do so would be utterly disastrous to the fledgling nation. To pull out now would abandon that nation to not only the terrorists still plaguing it, but to neighbors like Syria (who invaded and occupied Lebanon for over twenty years) and Iran (who is a blood-enemy of the nation of Iraq).
And yes, I have seen the news story about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran’s new president, and the ongoing speculation that he was involved in the Iranian takeover of the US embassy in 1979. The photos are compelling, and I am not discounting the former hostages insistence that he was one of them. But I want more proof. Photo manipulation is common on the Internet, and quite easy to do.
But for the fifth-column Left that continue to state that the president’s speech on Tuesday was not a reminder of why we invaded Iraq, but rather a shifting of the reasons, I cite this from The New Yorker. (Hat-tip: Hugh Hewitt)
http://hughhewitt.com/#postid1750
"In his State of the Union address, President Bush offered at least four justifications, none of them overlapping: the cruelty of Saddam against his own people; his flouting of treaties and United Nations Security Council resolutions; the military threat that he poses to his neighbors; and his ties to terrorists in general and to Al Qaeda in particular. In addition, Bush hinted at the possibility that Saddam might attack the United States or enable someone else to do so. There are so many reasons for going to war floating around—at least some of which, taken alone, either are nothing new or do not seem to point to Iraq specifically as the obvious place to wage it—that those inclined to suspect the motives of the Administration have plenty of material with which to argue that it is being disingenuous. So, along with all the stated reasons, there is a brisk secondary traffic in 'real' reasons, which are similarly numerous and do not overlap: the country is going to war because of a desire to control Iraqi oil, or to help Israel, or to avenge Saddam's 1993 assassination attempt on President George H. W. Bush.
Yet another argument for war, which has emerged during the last few months, is that removing Saddam could help bring about a wholesale change for the better in the political, cultural, and economic climate of the Arab Middle East. To give one of many possible examples, Fouad Ajami, an expert on the Arab world who is highly respected inside the Bush Administration, proposes in the current issue of Foreign Affairs that the United States might lead 'a reformist project that seeks to modernize and transform the Arab landscape. Iraq would be the starting point, and beyond Iraq lies an Arab political and economic tradition and a culture whose agonies have been on cruel display.' The Administration's main public proponent of this view is Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, who often speaks about the possibility that war in Iraq could help bring democracy to the Arab Middle East. President Bush appeared to be making the same point in the State of the Union address when he remarked that 'all people have a right to choose their own government, and determine their own destiny—and the United States supports their aspirations to live in freedom.'"
As I stated above, Andrew McCarthy does an outstanding job in his column of showing the significant ties to terrorism, and al-Qaeda in particular, that Saddam Hussein had. The man was a threat. We dealt with that threat, and we are still dealing with all the little threats in that country. We will leave when the job is finished, and not a moment before then. To do so would not only be disingenuous to the people of Iraq, but it would also wave a white flag to the terrorist animals that want us dead, and this nation destroyed.
The Bunny ;)
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 9:58 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home