Reply With Quote
Sorry, I hit the snooze button. What were you saying?
Now I just know that NBADan, boutons and SA210 have just got to be
chopping at the bit to get us out of Iraq along with a few dimm-o-craps
in Washington. So I submit this for your reading pleasure and comment.
And I, like David Limbaugh, just know this issue is going to carry the
dimm-o-craps to victory in November. Yeah, sure.
The good old cut and run. Let's jerk defeat from the jaws of victory
crowd. The dimms.
The Democrats' withdrawl conundrum
By David Limbaugh
Jun 20, 2006
The only thing more pathetic than the Democrats' floundering disunity on the war is their timing. They have renewed their demands for a precipitous withdrawal in Iraq at a time when even they would be hard pressed to deny that the momentum has changed against the terrorists.
Don't get me wrong. I think we have been winning all along in Iraq, despite the wall-to-wall negative coverage. But recent developments must surely give the naysayers pause as well.
The death of Iraq terrorist chieftain Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was a watershed event. That we were able to find this elusive leader in the Iraqi haystack was a remarkable achievement and one that signaled the fruits of a sustained intelligence effort. The event itself was monumental in that the primary leader of our enemy in Iraq was eliminated.
But perhaps the most significant aspect of the event is that it led to a bonanza of intelligence discoveries that both shed light on the enemy's mindset and provided information that allowed us to conduct further highly productive raids. Yet despite these developments, defeatist Democrats see only gloom and doom.
American bombs killed al-Zarqawi on June 7. As of a week later, American and Iraqi forces had conducted 452 raids, killing 104 insurgents, capturing 759 "anti-Iraqi elements" and discovering 28 "significant" arms caches. Iraqi forces carried out 143 of the raids and joined with American forces on 255 others.
Our forces found revealing do ents in al-Zarqawi's hideout, including one that appeared to express al-Zarqawi's opinion that the insurgents were losing the war and steadily weakening.
The do ent was a validation of the president's war plan from the very beginning. Remember when he said we would fight the terrorists on multiple fronts, including diplomatic, financial, intelligence and military? Well, the do ent said the National Guard had succeeded in forming an enormous shield protecting American forces and substantially reducing their losses. It said the insurgency was being damaged by our military's program to train Iraqi security forces, our massive arrests and seizures of weapons, our tightening of their financial outlets and our creating of divisions among their ranks. In desperation, Zarqawi confessed that the terrorists' only hope to regain the upper hand and reverse "this crisis" was "to involve the U.S. forces in waging a war against another country or any hostile groups."
Zarqawi thus acknowledged that his side is losing the war. Just think if during the Cold War we had discovered secret Soviet communiques revealing that Khrushchev was just kidding when he said to the United States, "We will bury you." But leave it to prominent Democrats like John Murtha and John Kerry to offer the beleaguered and now dead Zarqawi another out: withdrawal of American troops. It's as if they're saying to Zarqawi's ghost, "Don't worry, Abu Musab, we'll take care of this for you. There is another way. We can surrender."
On "Meet the Press," Murtha, after saying that Bill Clinton made a correct decision to "change direction" when he had actually cut and run in Somalia, said (referring to Iraq), "There comes a time when you have to say to yourself, 'OK, we've done everything we could do, we can't win this militarily.'" Zarqawi must be rolling over in his grave -- with posthumous joy.
Last November, when cut-and-run Democrats were making similar noises, Republicans called their bluff and scheduled a surprise vote on Murtha's motion to withdraw our troops. Caught with their pants down, Democrats folded. So long as there was no way to hold them accountable for their irresponsible demands for withdrawal, they would carp to their heart's content. But when Republicans forced a vote, only three Democrats voted to withdraw, and the measure went down in flaming defeat, 403 to 3.
Fast forward back to the present, and we see history repeating itself with Republican congressmen, once again, challenging Democrats to put their money where their mouths are. Senate Republicans forced a vote on Sen. Kerry's withdrawal resolution, which was defeated 93 to 6. Now we see why Kerry has been so afraid to come out of the closet as an unambiguous antiwar advocate. Heretofore he has been simultaneously an ambiguous antiwar advocate and an ambiguous supporter of the war, having refined fence-straddling into a sophisticated, nuanced art form.
House Democrats were a little bolder, which you might expect, given the ongoing disconnect between their policies and reality. One hundred and fifty out of 192 Democrats refused to approve a resolution affirming that it was not in the national security interest of the United States to set an arbitrary withdrawal (or redeployment) date. The resolution was approved 256 to 153. Again, history had repeated itself because last December, 108 congressional Democrats voted "no" and 32 voted "present" on a similar resolution.
Please explain to me again that theory about Democrats regaining legislative control in November.
David Limbaugh is a syndicated columnist who blogs at DavidLimbaugh.com. He is also the author of Persecution and Absolute Power: The Legacy of Corruption in the Clinton-Reno Justice Department.
Copyright © 2006 Creators
Find this story at: http://www.townhall.com/opinion/colu...20/201892.html
Sorry, I hit the snooze button. What were you saying?
Really just a tiresome piece of Republican talking points.
The so-called Zarqawi do ents that validate the Bush administration talking points, I personally question their authenticity. I don't trust this administration on intelligence matters when there have been numerous examples of them "cooking" the intelligence to support their views rather than giving a picture of reality.
What Murtha and Kerry say is quickly characterized by the supporters of the Iraqi debacle as cut and run. That is a marketing phrase. It sounds good to the right wing base and is thus repeated over and over to make the case.
We have the power and ability to crush the insurgency. Saddam did it and so can we if choose to vist a reign of terror on the country and rule it with an iron fist. That is not the goal though and even the administration admits that.
We will stand down when the Iraqis are ready to stand up for themselves. Why aren't they ready? Saddam brutalized dissent within the borders of Iraq because that will be the only way to hold that country together. The new government doesn't have a prayer of staying together without U.S. military might.
You can pick when we leave and then the country will heat up the existing civil war even more as the vacuum left by exiting U.S. forces will be filled.
It is time to admit the grand experiment of creating a Jeffersonian democracy in the middle east to serve as a shining beacon to the other middle eastern countries was the pipe dream of a handful of neo-con "intellectuals."
Could this not have been more easily achieved in Afghanistan where Bin Laden slinks under some rock? Rather Afghanistan was conquered and became secondary to the focus in Iraq.
Recall Iraq was probably the most secular Islamic nation along with Turkey and Jordan in the middle east. Now the country inches toward theocracy.
That is what liberals disagree with.
Why should American blood and treasure be spent to form a nation where there was no uprising against the tyrant prior to our being there. Why should American blood and treasure be spent to build and Islamic theocracy?
Iraq was a mistake and it is long past time to leave.
Explain how al-Zarqawi's death is a watershed event? How does that change anything? Don't you think he can easily be replaced?
that is too funny.
it shows just how partisan you are that you framed the Iraq war as a Democratic problem and Republican triumph.
Spare me.
I welcome your response in the "Subverting..." Thread.
Last edited by pussyface; 06-20-2006 at 11:44 AM.
And I suppose you all think what happened to our two missing soldiers is okay too.
Where the is your outrage and condemnation. Oh, I know we should expect
that, but if we harm a hair on on of the terrorist heads we are condemned no end.
Tell you what folks, let me have one of the little bas s for a little while. I will
humiliate him. The sorry bas s all of them. So for all you cut and run groupies, do
your thing. You bunchy of sniveling idiots. SA210 I suppose it is all Bush's fault.
You idiot.
The Way Out of Iraq: A Road Map
By Mowaffak al-Rubaie
Tuesday, June 20, 2006; A17
There has been much talk about a withdrawal of U.S. and coalition troops from Iraq, but no defined timeline has yet been set. There is, however, an unofficial "road map" to foreign troop reductions that will eventually lead to total withdrawal of U.S. troops. This road map is based not just on a series of dates but, more important, on the achievement of set objectives for restoring security in Iraq.
Iraq has a total of 18 governorates, which are at differing stages in terms of security. Each will eventually take control of its own security situation, barring a major crisis. But before this happens, each governorate will have to meet stringent minimum requirements as a condition of being granted control. For example, the threat assessment of terrorist activities must be low or on a downward trend. Local police and the Iraqi army must be deemed capable of dealing with criminal gangs, armed groups and militias, and border control. There must be a clear and functioning command-and-control center overseen by the governor, with direct communication to the prime minister's situation room.
Despite the seemingly endless spiral of violence in Iraq today, such a plan is already in place. All the governors have been notified and briefed on the end objective. The current prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, has approved the plan, as have the coalition forces, and assessments of each province have already been done. Nobody believes this is going to be an easy task, but there is Iraqi and coalition resolve to start taking the final steps to have a fully responsible Iraqi government accountable to its people for their governance and security. Thus far four of the 18 provinces are ready for the transfer of power -- two in the north (Irbil and Sulaymaniyah) and two in the south (Maysan and Muthanna). Nine more provinces are nearly ready.
With the governors of each province meeting these strict objectives, Iraq's ambition is to have full control of the country by the end of 2008. In practice this will mean a significant foreign troop reduction. We envisage the U.S. troop presence by year's end to be under 100,000, with most of the remaining troops to return home by the end of 2007.
The eventual removal of coalition troops from Iraqi streets will help the Iraqis, who now see foreign troops as occupiers rather than the liberators they were meant to be. It will remove psychological barriers and the reason that many Iraqis joined the so-called resistance in the first place. The removal of troops will also allow the Iraqi government to engage with some of our neighbors that have to date been at the very least sympathetic to the resistance because of what they call the "coalition occupation." If the sectarian issue continues to cause conflict with Iraq's neighbors, this matter needs to be addressed urgently and openly -- not in the guise of aversion to the presence of foreign troops.
Moreover, the removal of foreign troops will legitimize Iraq's government in the eyes of its people. It has taken what some feel is an eternity to form a government of national unity. This has not been an easy or enviable task, but it represents a significant achievement, considering that many new ministers are working in partisan situations, often with people with whom they share a history of enmity and distrust. By its nature, the government of national unity, because it is working through consensus, could be perceived to be weak. But, again, the drawdown of foreign troops will strengthen our fledgling government to last the full four years it is supposed to.
While Iraq is trying to gain its independence from the United States and the coalition, in terms of taking greater responsibility for its actions, particularly in terms of security, there are still some influential foreign figures trying to spoon-feed our government and take a very proactive role in many key decisions. Though this may provide some benefits in the short term, in the long run it will only serve to make the Iraqi government a weaker one and eventually lead to a culture of dependency. Iraq has to grow out of the shadow of the United States and the coalition, take responsibility for its own decisions, learn from its own mistakes, and find Iraqi solutions to Iraqi problems, with the knowledge that our friends and allies are standing by with support and help should we need it.
The writer is Iraq's national security adviser.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
xray check out my thoughts in the "Deficit" thread...i'd like you to respond.
Turn off the AM Radio and read a book.
OG, go screw yourself and get a little self satisfaction. I have no time for you
either. Your support for the troops is sickening. As well as your support for your
country.
xray...saying you support the troops is such a hollow gesture.
what have you done to support the troops? put a ing bumper sticker on your car?
its all well and good to sit around and say "hey i support the troops," but in the end it doesn't have a real big real world effect.
save it, you self rightous partisan hack.
If you disagree with xray then you don't support our troops.
Do you see how stupid that sounds, bra?
"your outrage and condemnation"
The US is the phony invader, the violator, the destroyer, the bogus occupier of Iraq.
Iraqis have every right to be outraged and to be condemning of the US, just as US would be outraged if Iraq invaded USA to prevent dubya from using WMD.
shhhhh.....al queda is listening, your liberal thoughts are emboldening the terrorists.
^^all of the above. You are all a bunch of dumbass twerps. As far as me
supporting the troops. I was one for many years.
And boutons, your opinions carry about as much weight as a bushel of feathers. You
only know three words and have a hard time putting them into any coherent sentence.
I suppose us invading Iraq caused 9/11, right. And all the other deeds they
did to this country. See how hollow you argument is. Us getting out of Iraq
will have the same effect. They will still attack us. You are so damn stupid.
Well, X-ray, I am not one that says to just do whatever the terrorists want to appease them, trust me, but I don't agree with the principle of your last statement.
You claim that no matter what we do, they will still attack us. Well, this would be true if they were doing this just because they hate freedom, or theyre jealous of us. Well, this is not the case...and every-1 knows that.
They have specific reasons for attacking us. And before you get your panties in a knot, I don't claim them to be good reasons, and I don't justify any of their means. They are sick bas s, I will agree with you there.
However, they are not stupid. They want something, and the more things that we do to piss them off, the more they will attack us. Being in Iraq has only caused more terrorists to spring up out of the woodworks, and if we took some steps toward ending their anger, we would have less to deal with.
Again, Im not saying we should send them birthday cards, but it is true that they think they have reasons for attacking us, so our actions lead to more anger.
...im still waiting for xray to respond to my outing him in the "short lesson on the deficit thread," page 2.
i think that is pretty telling, as this guy responds to just about everything.
looks like your options are:
a. man up and rebut
b. admit that what you believe is dictated by the GOP and otherwise does not conform to any consistent principals.
The main reason the want to hurt us. We are the great Satan to them.
We are Christian and as such we are wrong as two left feet. Muslims that
don't agree with their form of Muslim are also in line to get theirs also.
That is one reason they don't mind killing Muslims. They aren't as far
as they are concerned. Believe me when I tell you that people in that
part of the world do not think like we do. Because my friend they don't.
How do I know. I lived with them and I worked with them. I worked for
them and had them work for me. What we would consider mundane they
consider inhumane. What we consider inhumane they consider mundane.
They considered all Western women, our wives, s. Free to do
as they pleased. Pinch, feel and insult in many ways. Steal from our
children and us. Our government, President Kennedy at the time, told
us to lay off them. Don't be the ugly American. If you woke up and
found yourself being robbed, don't do anything to prevent it, we were
reimbursed by the government. President Eisenhower signed what is
called: The Status Of Forces Agreement. It gave them jurisdiction over
US troops in a foreign land. First of its time.
No, I am telling you that we didn't ask for 9/11, the embassy bombings,
the Cole bombings, the barracks bombing nor even the killing of our
troops in Mogadishu.
What these people want is their idea of their religious belief imposed on
all people. And they will not stop.
If we pull out of Iraq it will be another VN, where over one million people
were killed after we left. Our fine folks on the left will not take any
credit for that, will they. No it is of no matter. They made their point.
Just as they would today. And damned if I will sit on the sideline and
let it happen again.
Just call me a flag waver an old man with lots of patriotism or just silly,
but you still got me to contend with and that is a fact some may not
like. But I am here and put me on the ignore list if you don't want
to read my post.
I love my country, its people and what we have stood for for many,
many years or all my life and damned if I let a bunch of silly, lilly livered
liberals try to take it away from me.
So keep waiting, I will answer when I get ready to.
Dang xray, ol buddy ol' pal, I haven't even been here for 3 weeks and you pointed Me out?
Would you give me a chance to read the thread first?
It probably is Bush's fault though.
Last edited by SA210; 06-20-2006 at 04:03 PM.
Two more dead soldiers due to BushCo's bungling. Does the buck stop with the President or not?And I suppose you all think what happened to our two missing soldiers is okay too.
Where the is your outrage and condemnation.
No, the buck stops with you for not blaming those that did the deed. The
terrorist. You give them aid and confort.
He's got al queda (sp?) in his basement.
Bush is a liar!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
