.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

The Asylum

Welcome to the Asylum. This is a site devoted to politics and current events in America, and around the globe. The THREE lunatics posting here are unabashed conservatives that go after the liberal lies and deceit prevalent in the debate of the day. We'd like to add that the views expressed here do not reflect the views of other inmates, nor were any inmates harmed in the creation of this site.

Location: Mesa, Arizona, United States

Who are we? We're a married couple who has a passion for politics and current events. That's what this site is about. If you read us, you know what we stand for.

Wednesday, April 25, 2007

Protests Over Petreus Briefings; This IS The Unhinged Left That Democrat Leaders Are Pandering To

This sickens me. I cannot believe that the Democrat party has fallen so far from their legacy during World War II; further than anything they did during Vietnam's waning months. General David Petreus was giving briefings today to those in Congress wanting to hear "news" rather than Harry Reid's idiotic beliefs. According to The Politico's resident "Crypt" keeper, John Bresnahan, this is what it was like:

Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq, said the American military campaign in Iraq is "making progress," but admitted there have been setbacks amid a highly complex political environment among the various factions within the Iraqi government.

Petraeus also denied that he has come under pressure from President Bush or other political leaders to paint a false or skewed picture of the U.S. military campaign in Iraq.

"I am not being pressured by the president to say anything," Petraeus told reporters after 3 hours of back-to-back briefings of House and Senate members on the situation in Iraq. "I am not going to be pressured by political leaders of either party."

Petraeus, who was confirmed by the Senate in late January to take over command of U.S. forces in Iraq, also declined to be dragged into the controversy over the $124 billion Iraq funding bill being debated by Congress this week. The legislation includes a "goal" of having most American forces out of Iraq by March 31, 2008. Bush has threatened to veto the legislation, although Democratic congressional leaders have refused to back down in the face of Bush's position, saying the majority of the American public is on their side in seeking an end to the war.

"I am not going to get in the middle of discussion about various legislative proposals," Petraeus said.

Petraeus said he "tried to give an accurate assessment of the situation in Iraq" to lawmakers. He reported that sectarian murders were down significantly inside Baghdad itself, while adding that the security situation in Anbar province, the heart of the Sunni insurgency, is also improving.

He rattled off a list of insurgent "networks" that have been rounded up, including some responsible for IED attacks and car bombs.

But Petraeus also acknowledged that there have been significant problems with the U.S. campaign in Iraq. "In some other areas, we obviously have some work to do," Petraeus said.

Petraeus added that the U.S. military commanders "have learned a great deal more about Iranian involvement, very nefarious involvement" inside Iraq, including funding and training for insurgent forces. Petraeus made no further comments on what efforts he recommends for countering the Iranian activities he described.

Professional, to the point, and bluntly honest. He is giving the same lawmakers deliberating over a withdrawal from Iraq that the surge is showing a great deal of success. They choose, like Harry Reid, to disbelieve what General Petreus says and, as they say, ignorance is bliss. It is clear to me now that the Democrats are willfully ignorant on the surge, and that is something that shoul be waved like a banner by any and all serious GOP contenders for 2008. As a matter of fact, Mayor Rudy Giuliani made that point succincly clear in remarks at a campaign stop:

Rudy Giuliani said if a Democrat is elected president in 2008, America will be at risk for another terrorist attack on the scale of Sept. 11, 2001.

But if a Republican is elected, he said, especially if it is him, terrorist attacks can be anticipated and stopped.

“If any Republican is elected president —- and I think obviously I would be the best at this —- we will remain on offense and will anticipate what [the terrorists] will do and try to stop them before they do it,” Giuliani said.

The former New York City mayor, currently leading in all national polls for the Republican nomination for president, said Tuesday night that America would ultimately defeat terrorism no matter which party gains the White House.

“But the question is how long will it take and how many casualties will we have?” Giuliani said. “If we are on defense [with a Democratic president], we will have more losses and it will go on longer.”

“I listen a little to the Democrats and if one of them gets elected, we are going on defense,” Giuliani continued. “We will wave the white flag on Iraq. We will cut back on the Patriot Act, electronic surveillance, interrogation and we will be back to our pre-Sept. 11 attitude of defense.”

He added: “The Democrats do not understand the full nature and scope of the terrorist war against us.”

After his speech to the Rockingham County Lincoln Day Dinner, I asked him about his statements and Giuliani said flatly: “America will be safer with a Republican president.”

Giuliani, whose past positions on abortion, gun control and gay rights have made him anathema to some in his party, believes his tough stance on national defense and his post-Sept. 11 reputation as a fighter of terrorism will be his trump card with doubting Republicans.

“This war ends when they stop coming here to kill us!” Giuliani said in his speech. “Never, ever again will this country ever be on defense waiting for [terrorists] to attack us if I have anything to say about it. And make no mistake, the Democrats want to put us back on defense!”

Giuliani said terrorists “hate us and not because of anything bad we have done; it has nothing to do with Israel and Palestine. They hate us for the freedoms we have and the freedoms we want to share with the world.”

Giuliani continued: “The freedoms we have are in conflict with the perverted, maniacal interpretation of their religion.” He said Americans would fight for “freedom for women, the freedom of elections, freedom of religion and the freedom of our economy.”

Addressing the terrorists directly, Giuliani said: “We are not giving that up, and you are not going to take it from us!”

The crowd thundered its approval.

Giuliani also said that America had been naive about terrorism in the past and had missed obvious signals.

“They were at war with us before we realized it, going back to ’90s with all the Americans killed by the PLO and Hezbollah and Hamas,” he said. “They came here and killed us in 1993 [with the first attack on New York’s World Trade Center, in which six people died], and we didn’t get it. We didn’t get it that this was a war. Then Sept. 11, 2001, happened, and we got it.”

Democrats are bombarding Mayor Giuliani with boos and hisses. Sens. Obama and Clinton have both fired off comments about his statement, and witrh the venom fired back it is quite obvious that Mayor Giuliani struck a nerve. Of course the Democrats fell back on the tired, old "you are questioning our patriotism" straw man. Mayor Giuliani is not doing that at all. He is, however, utilizing history to illustrate the point that when it comes to national security, the Democrats do not understand the idea of being pro-active. He is wrong on one point, and it was the crux of his argument.

During the 1990s, America was not on "defense." America was stuck in a respond and prosecute (via courts) cycle regarding terrorism. We were simply not taking it seriously, and the administration in charge did not accept its inherent danger to the nation. Half-hearted efforts conducted by that administration (such as bombing Iraq over supposed WMDs they possessed -- those were the ones President Clinton cited in 1998 -- but additionally the strikes on Afghanistan that did not come close to taking out bin Laden) brought the '93 attack to our door. It left us with chaos in the wake of the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. The bombings in Riyadh should have gotten the president's attention. As we learned in 2000, not even an attack on a US warship -- the USS Cole -- could get his attention. And what I mean by getting anyone's attention is that equal reciprocity was delivered in response. It was not. It was respond, investigate, and seek out subpoenas.

Terrorists, ladies and gentlemen, could give a rip about being indicted in US courts. We saw how effective it was in the nineties. A Democrat president represents a return to that sort of mentality. But it would be worse because they will withdraw, eaving this nation vulnerable, and our allies in the cold.



Post a Comment

<< Home

weight loss product