Of course, you should be tempted to dismiss what follows as more propaganda from a warmongering lackey of the world Zionist neocon conspiracy. Still, did you know that Harry Reid once demanded that we go to war on the basis that Saddam had broken the 1991 armistice accords, but now claims he was duped about WMD by Chimpy?
This defeatist argument for withdrawal ("things have changed", or "the war is lost") is the one that disturbs me the most, not just for its false logic, but because of how it critically undermines morale and current efforts. Can you imagine being a soldier fighting in Iraq right now while a politician back home declares your efforts worthless?
Patraeus was confirmed by the Senate in a vote of 81-0 in January of this year. And yet, now some of those same Senators that unanimous confirmed him for the position (presumably because they believed his expertise was necessary for achieving our goals in Iraq?) now support legislation that would cut funding the troops --while they are still in the field fighting. Something Reid said he wouldn’t do:
“As far as setting a timeline, as we learned in the Balkans, that’s not a wise decision, because it only empowers those who don’t want us there, and it doesn’t work well to do that.” –Reid, 2005
"Now he's the commander in chief, and we're not going to do anything to limit funding or cut off funds, even though there are some on the outside who suggest that,'' House leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has said. "I think we want to make sure that the troops have everything that they need." -- Harry Reid, November 30, 2006
Absolutely shameless.
The original goals of the policy –to remove Saddam’s threat of WMD and affect a reform of the geopolitics of a backwards region that exports terror --remain as valid as when they were originally articulated, not just by the president, but by many democratic members of congress back in 2002. If we retreat, the enemy will not go gentle into that goodnight. They will take a withdrawal from Iraq as a sign of weakness, as they have in the past, and be emboldened to strike.
With the stakes involved, why isn't congress spending its energies supporting Patraeus's new plan instead of undermining it? How do democrats think things will play out if they succeed in their legislative aims???
Maybe the answer to that question is why they are so reluctant to engage in public dialogue about it.
The only thing that has changed from the original commitment by congress is their willingness to abandon our obligation to a policy they authorized for partisan, political gain. The Iraq insurgency, just as with the Vietcong, knows they can’t win militarily. Most of the attacks are basically publicity stunts aimed primarily at the MSM and American and western public opinion. America may very well lose the war through a collective loss of will and that is precisely the terrorist strategy for their success. Makes you wonder who Reid's constituency is.
Good times.
5 comments:
http://billroggio.com/archives/2007/04/al_qaeda_on_the_offe.php
These men are reckless fools who are ruining America specifically and Western Civilization on the whole.
Weak, prone to duplicity, lacking in leadership skills.
Durban likened the troops to Nazis and Pol Pot and now Reid says the war is lost.
His constinuency?
Syphillitic, Nietzschein supermen and women who are obssessed with how America is percieved by our European "betters", who can't seem to forward anything honest in terms of dealing with fanatical Islamic killers.
Oh... and there's probably some midgets in there also. Midgets always vote Democrat.
Midget always muck up the works. Why, there aught be a law.
A recent observation:
"Gen. Petraeus appeared before the Senate--Reid's Senate--to describe a new strategy in Iraq, backed by almost 28,000 additional US troops. Petraeus detailed his plans and warned he would need at least six months to achieve success. Reid voted to give him that chance. So did 80 other senators: Petraeus was confirmed 81-0."
Duplicity: advocating legislation that would guarantee failure even before a new strategy –one that you endorsed- is given time to work.
Why can't we see stories like this in the headlines?
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/06/ieds-in-iraq-summon-a-jin/index.php
Or this? Can you image the New York Times or ABC nightly news covering this GI's letter?
http://www.lvrj.com/news/7132181.html
Lawrence Kaplan, from “The Knowledge Gap”:
Maybe it was a slip of the tongue. But, when Nancy Pelosi confessed last year that she felt “sad” about President Bush’s claims that Al Qaeda operates in Iraq, she seemed to be disputing what every American soldier in Iraq, every Al Qaeda operative, and anyone who reads a newspaper already knew to be true. (When I questioned him about Pelosi’s assertion, a U.S. officer in Ramadi responded, incredulously, that Al Qaeda had just held a parade in his sector.) Perhaps the House speaker was alluding to the discredited claim that Al Qaeda operated in Iraq before the war. Perhaps. But the insinuation that Al Qaeda’s depredations in Iraq might be something other than what they appear to be has become a staple of the congressional debate over Iraq. Thus, to buttress his own case for withdrawal, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said, “We have to change course [away from Iraq] and turn our attention back to the war on Al Qaeda and their allies"--the clear message being that neither plays much of a role there.
What is going on here? There are two possibilities: First, Reid and Pelosi could be purposefully minimizing the stakes in Iraq. Or, second, they don’t know what they’re talking about.
Post a Comment