Slower Than Ever...
(Hat-tip: Captain's Quarters) http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/005841.php
Today "Slow" Joe Biden had an op-ed in the WaPo. (No, running checks show this is one he did not steal from someone else, unless you consider Democrat talking points as being stolen.)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/25/AR2005112500864.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns
The question most Americans want answered about Iraq is this: When will our troops come home?
We already know the likely answer. In 2006, they will begin to leave in large numbers. By the end of the year, we will have redeployed about 50,000. In 2007, a significant number of the remaining 100,000 will follow. A small force will stay behind -- in Iraq or across the border -- to strike at any concentration of terrorists.
That is because we cannot sustain 150,000 Americans in Iraq without extending deployment times, sending soldiers on fourth and fifth tours, or mobilizing the National Guard. Even if we could, our large military presence -- while still the only guarantor against a total breakdown -- is increasingly counterproductive. A liberation has become an occupation.
There is another critical question: As our soldiers redeploy, will our security interests in Iraq remain intact or will we have traded a dictator for chaos?
So what, pray tell, is Sen. Biden stating with his last question? This is the meat-and-potatoes question that has been on many people's minds, including the Democrats. But in this question is an inherent error. First to what he is stating here: I question whether Sen. Biden would prefer to have Saddam Hussein back in power. I only state because of how the question is worded. Sen. Biden, and numerous other elected representatives in Congress had to know the gravity of the president's request. We were no back to Iraq to push Saddam's forces out of another country. The president precisely stated the phrase "regime change" in his request. Did those elected reps, like Sen. Biden, think that the transition would be easy?
We were dealing with a nation that was going to be hostile to us for awhile. We went through similar times post-World War II in the former Axis nations. This is no different. We knew that his hardliners would dig in, and give us some problems. We even knew that the minimal al-Qaeda presence in Iraq, and the terror-sponsoring nations of the region, would cause havoc for us. And they have. But, this is better than what we removed.
Why do I say that? Simply put, we have witnessed three succeeding elections in a new nation where they have chosen their interim government, their parliament, and approved of their brand, new constitution. And I urge doubters to truly read that constitution. It offers freedoms much like those that our own Constitution offers us. Yes, there are differences, but Iraq is not America. Iraq has not stood on it's own for 229 years. America has, despite her numerous historical short-comings. But, that is the beauty of a free society like our own; despite the falls, we all get back up, and try again.
Further, Sen. Biden fails to see the three conditions for success in Iraq. He prances around the first two (only because he must grudgingly acknowledge and accept it), and proceeds to screw up the third.
--To depose Saddam Hussein and his genocidal regime after twelve years of defying the cease-fire accord which left him in power and seventeen UN resolutions demanding that he comply with disarmament.
--Determination and resolution of any WMD that Saddam hid away, to ensure that they do not fall into terrorist hands.
--Most importantly to the overall war on terror, to establish Iraq as a stable, secure, prefereably democratic nation that can defend itself against its neighbors and deny transit for terrorists across Southwest Asia.
And here is how Sen. Biden goes after the third point.
The third goal is to transfer authority to Iraqi security forces. In September, Gen. George W. Casey Jr. acknowledged that only one Iraqi battalion -- fewer than 1,000 troops -- can fight without U.S. help. An additional 40 can lead counterinsurgency operations with our support.
The president must set a schedule for getting Iraqi forces trained to the point that they can act on their own or take the lead with U.S. help. We should take up other countries on their offers to do more training, especially of officers. We should focus on getting the security ministries up to speed. Even well-trained troops need to be equipped, sustained and directed.
Captain Ed aptly points out that if this was the marker for success and failure, then our post-World War II efforts were a dismal failure. Now, to be fair, we put Europe in the grip of Communism for fifty years at Yalta. We sat there with Stalin and bargained away Eastern Europe. Fine, our mistake. We corrected that mistake, step-by-step, throughout the Cold War. From the Berlin Airlift to the Vietnam War, we engaged--actively and openly--Communist regimes in Europe and across the globe. And eventually, through America tenacity and hard work, we eventually finished off the Soviet Empire; Pres. Reagan dealing the death blow at Reyjkavik.
The scedule would not be a bad thing, but Congress is never told. These fools cannot keep to keep their lips shut for love or money. These idiots would be the first ones to blab the information, tipping off our enemy, and making all the work we have put into this new nation all for naught. I am almost positive, from reading this editorial, that Sen. Biden would prefer to see a revisitiation of Vietnam--that lone chopper taking refugees off the roof of the American Embassy amidst the chaos below them.
No, we will stay this course. We will abide by the timetable the administration has set, not the one Congress wants to set. The president is the commander-in-chief of all American military forces. He calls the shots, not Congress. Congress' two primary jobs during a war footing is: Approve or deny the call to go to war, and approve or deny the funding for the war. The last thing Congress wants to try right now is cutting off the funding. I can envision a multitude of citizens descending on DC very irate at them for doing something like that. Besides, these fools know they are about to enter an election cycle. That would not be good for the individual representative, or for their party.
Sen. Biden has best stick to doing what he does best. That would be...um, give me a minute.
Oh hell, just let him run for president again so we can laugh when he falls on his face again. But this editorial is precisely the reason why his party should NEVER be allowed to deal with our national security again. They are misguided, foolish, and overall, their inept. They refuse to accept that there is a difference between good and evil in this world, and that sort of stupidity cannot be accepted in a leadership position of this nation. It is simply too dangerous, and we should thank Sen. Biden for making that clear to mainstream America.
The Bunny;)
(Hat-tip: Captain's Quarters) http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/005841.php
Today "Slow" Joe Biden had an op-ed in the WaPo. (No, running checks show this is one he did not steal from someone else, unless you consider Democrat talking points as being stolen.)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/25/AR2005112500864.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns
The question most Americans want answered about Iraq is this: When will our troops come home?
We already know the likely answer. In 2006, they will begin to leave in large numbers. By the end of the year, we will have redeployed about 50,000. In 2007, a significant number of the remaining 100,000 will follow. A small force will stay behind -- in Iraq or across the border -- to strike at any concentration of terrorists.
That is because we cannot sustain 150,000 Americans in Iraq without extending deployment times, sending soldiers on fourth and fifth tours, or mobilizing the National Guard. Even if we could, our large military presence -- while still the only guarantor against a total breakdown -- is increasingly counterproductive. A liberation has become an occupation.
There is another critical question: As our soldiers redeploy, will our security interests in Iraq remain intact or will we have traded a dictator for chaos?
So what, pray tell, is Sen. Biden stating with his last question? This is the meat-and-potatoes question that has been on many people's minds, including the Democrats. But in this question is an inherent error. First to what he is stating here: I question whether Sen. Biden would prefer to have Saddam Hussein back in power. I only state because of how the question is worded. Sen. Biden, and numerous other elected representatives in Congress had to know the gravity of the president's request. We were no back to Iraq to push Saddam's forces out of another country. The president precisely stated the phrase "regime change" in his request. Did those elected reps, like Sen. Biden, think that the transition would be easy?
We were dealing with a nation that was going to be hostile to us for awhile. We went through similar times post-World War II in the former Axis nations. This is no different. We knew that his hardliners would dig in, and give us some problems. We even knew that the minimal al-Qaeda presence in Iraq, and the terror-sponsoring nations of the region, would cause havoc for us. And they have. But, this is better than what we removed.
Why do I say that? Simply put, we have witnessed three succeeding elections in a new nation where they have chosen their interim government, their parliament, and approved of their brand, new constitution. And I urge doubters to truly read that constitution. It offers freedoms much like those that our own Constitution offers us. Yes, there are differences, but Iraq is not America. Iraq has not stood on it's own for 229 years. America has, despite her numerous historical short-comings. But, that is the beauty of a free society like our own; despite the falls, we all get back up, and try again.
Further, Sen. Biden fails to see the three conditions for success in Iraq. He prances around the first two (only because he must grudgingly acknowledge and accept it), and proceeds to screw up the third.
--To depose Saddam Hussein and his genocidal regime after twelve years of defying the cease-fire accord which left him in power and seventeen UN resolutions demanding that he comply with disarmament.
--Determination and resolution of any WMD that Saddam hid away, to ensure that they do not fall into terrorist hands.
--Most importantly to the overall war on terror, to establish Iraq as a stable, secure, prefereably democratic nation that can defend itself against its neighbors and deny transit for terrorists across Southwest Asia.
And here is how Sen. Biden goes after the third point.
The third goal is to transfer authority to Iraqi security forces. In September, Gen. George W. Casey Jr. acknowledged that only one Iraqi battalion -- fewer than 1,000 troops -- can fight without U.S. help. An additional 40 can lead counterinsurgency operations with our support.
The president must set a schedule for getting Iraqi forces trained to the point that they can act on their own or take the lead with U.S. help. We should take up other countries on their offers to do more training, especially of officers. We should focus on getting the security ministries up to speed. Even well-trained troops need to be equipped, sustained and directed.
Captain Ed aptly points out that if this was the marker for success and failure, then our post-World War II efforts were a dismal failure. Now, to be fair, we put Europe in the grip of Communism for fifty years at Yalta. We sat there with Stalin and bargained away Eastern Europe. Fine, our mistake. We corrected that mistake, step-by-step, throughout the Cold War. From the Berlin Airlift to the Vietnam War, we engaged--actively and openly--Communist regimes in Europe and across the globe. And eventually, through America tenacity and hard work, we eventually finished off the Soviet Empire; Pres. Reagan dealing the death blow at Reyjkavik.
The scedule would not be a bad thing, but Congress is never told. These fools cannot keep to keep their lips shut for love or money. These idiots would be the first ones to blab the information, tipping off our enemy, and making all the work we have put into this new nation all for naught. I am almost positive, from reading this editorial, that Sen. Biden would prefer to see a revisitiation of Vietnam--that lone chopper taking refugees off the roof of the American Embassy amidst the chaos below them.
No, we will stay this course. We will abide by the timetable the administration has set, not the one Congress wants to set. The president is the commander-in-chief of all American military forces. He calls the shots, not Congress. Congress' two primary jobs during a war footing is: Approve or deny the call to go to war, and approve or deny the funding for the war. The last thing Congress wants to try right now is cutting off the funding. I can envision a multitude of citizens descending on DC very irate at them for doing something like that. Besides, these fools know they are about to enter an election cycle. That would not be good for the individual representative, or for their party.
Sen. Biden has best stick to doing what he does best. That would be...um, give me a minute.
Oh hell, just let him run for president again so we can laugh when he falls on his face again. But this editorial is precisely the reason why his party should NEVER be allowed to deal with our national security again. They are misguided, foolish, and overall, their inept. They refuse to accept that there is a difference between good and evil in this world, and that sort of stupidity cannot be accepted in a leadership position of this nation. It is simply too dangerous, and we should thank Sen. Biden for making that clear to mainstream America.
The Bunny;)
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 7:27 PM
1 Comments:
Biden and others that call for a time table to get out of Iraq are giving aid and comfort to the enemy. They are traitors. Grrrrr
Rawriter
Post a Comment
<< Home