Wednesday, January 10, 2007
|
|
"Noble and Necessary"
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
9:24 PM
|
|
President Bush was at his best tonight: serious, detailed, and above all, resolute. He spoke to many audiences.
To the public weary and grieved by the death of many of the finest Americans, the president spoke of the crucial issue: "For the safety of our people, America must succeed in Iraq."
It isn't, he explained repeatedly, just about giving Iraqis hope, but maintaining American security for all of the reasons he detailed.
Iraqis who desire peace heard the commitment, but they also heard its contingent nature: The Iraqi government has run out of time to dodge the tough choices.
Our enemies did not hear what they had hoped to, a declaration of surrender, whether phrased as a "timetable" or a simple "We quit." They know that as long as Bush as in office, they will not win in Iraq.
Crucially Iran heard a hint of measures beyond the borders of Iran, though in the sort of terms that none can object to. When the president spoke of destroying the networks aiding the terrorists, he meant the Quds Brigades and the other Iranian agents at work in Iraq, and the placement of the paragraph cannot be misunderstood.
And to the military and their families, he said thanks, and set an example for all Americans. Even as the debate carries forward, we cannot often enough remember that all of the cost is born by the men and women in the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps Coast Guard, National Guard. and their families. The "decisive ideological struggle of our time" is being waged by them, and even the most sincere critics of the president's policy ought to convey that criticism while keeping in mind that not only are the troops real time observers of this debate, so too are our enemies.
|
|
It wasn't true that every major US intelligence agency said Saddam had WMDs. They all said they didn't have real evidence either way. They only said Saddam had WMDs after Cheney told them they had to say it, which doesn't count, or anyway it doesn't count if we're asking what I'd do if I didn't have Cheney to distort the reports for me.
Saddam had killed some sizeable numbers of revolting iraqis, but that's par for the course. Sukarno killed 2 million communists in indonesia. (Or maybe it was only half a million, he revised the estimates downward later.) Some of the iraqis went into open revolt because we told them we'd support them, and then we didn't. Hey, if you don't want a dictator to kill his own people, don't tell them you'll support them in a revolution and then withhold the support. And we're going to have to kill a lot more iraqis than Saddam did before we get the place settled down.
The official reasons for the war were a load of bull. Though there might have been good reasons that are still secret.
But that's all water over the bridge now. We're in this and if we're going to win it we need somewhere between half a million and two million troops there for at least 5 years, and we need most of them to know arabic. This business of shipping whole units over for awhile and then bringing them home for twice as long is no good. About the time you really know the ground you get sent home and by the time you come back like as not the situation has changed out of all recognition. We need about a million troops who're going to mostly be in iraq for the duration.
And we need to stop the lies about democracy. Iraq can have a democracy after they're beaten. Until we win we can't have a bunch of iraqis telling us how to fight. They aren't going to agree to the killing that's needed. They aren't even going to agree about who the enemy is. Get rid of them and start over with a new iraqi government when the situation has stabilised.
It will cost at least a trillion dollars a year for at least 5 years. We have to pay for it, we can't get by borrowing the money from china. The easiest way would be to use the social security money. Cancel social security benefits and apply the money to the war. Go on collecting social security taxes but the money won't go to social security, it will go to the national security. That comes first. If we can't protect the country then future social security benefits won't be worth anything, now will they?
Until we're actually ready to do what's necessary, we aren't serious. This war has gone for close to 4 years in let's-pretend mode. We're never going to win this way.
|
|
I have been in the service for 20+ years. I have been in Iraq twice and am getting ready to deploy for a third time. I have no problem with people saying it is time to go native. If you don't want to do the job than don't enlist.
I am bothered more by the left that feels there is nothing worth fighting for. They picket and raise hell here because they can. I hate to tell you that there are people that you just can't talk to or buy off. There are some real bad people in this world and sooner or later you are going to have to deal with them.
I have asked this question many times to lefties and have yet to get an answer.
If the responsibility for the safety of 300 million people was yours and yours alone, what would you do. Every major intel agency said he had WMD. He was a state sponsor of terror. He had killed hundred of thousands of his own people. Yes there was Al-qaeda in Iraq along with AAI.
Personally I would not have been so nice when we went in. I also feel we should stay along the borders and kill anything that comes across and let the Iraqis solve the Baghdad problem on their own. This is not my call and I will go and do my job because I volunteered and believe this is very important for the future safety of my country.
Have you been to Iraq LT? |
|
To all you folks that are so supportive of the war, and of "getting tough" and "we need to win"
I have this to say...
The individual services have set the following maximum ages for non-prior service enlistment:
Active Army - 42
Army Reserves - 42
Active Air Force - 27
Air Force Reserve - 34
Active Navy - 34
Naval Reserves - 39
Active Marines - 28
Marine Corps Reserve - 29
Active and Reserve Coast Guard - 27
I keep hearing from people here how "we need to bomb them more" and "we need" to do this and "we need" to do that...
THERE AIN'T NO "WE" GOING ON HERE PEOPLE... THE TROOPS ARE THE ONES FIGHTING THIS WAR, YOU ARE SITTING AT HOME EATING CHEETOS AND TALKING TOUGH.
So if you are so blasted all fired up about supporting the troops GO BECOME ONE. Take some of the load onto your PERSONAL shoulders if you want to help so much.
Don't go telling the folks who are really fighting this war what they should be doing if the only uniform you ever wore involved paper hats and the sale of french fries.
Otherwise your mouths are just writing checks your body is to afraid to cash.
|
|
|
I'm hoping that the 'surge' is just a diversion, and the real significance is the onset of a covert and serious campaign against Syria and Iran. Instead of ground troops slogging around and acting like targets, let's have the special ops go in, no holds barred, and fight like we want to kill terrorists instead of starting democracy. |
|
|
They bomb their own cities. They mine them in concentric rings. Theoretically we could send in engineers to "difuse" the bombs, and watch from afar as the whole place lights up. How can they blame us when their own IEDS can level their cities? That's a face saving option. B-52's are option number two. |
|
|
Bill Bennett said this (paraphrasing): If you were a citizen in some opressive, rathole of a third world country and saw, far in the distant hills,soldiers approaching, before you could see who they were you'd say, "God, let them be Americans". |
|
|
Well, shouting at the deaf, but here goes. Emila, we will be at war with these people for a long time becauses they have decided we are their enemies, not the other way round. Yes, I know this doesn't make sense. These people are not rational nor reasonable. (I recommend you read Lee Harris' book, Civilization and its Enemies.) The reason all this is hard for you, is you seem to believe that any use of force or projecting of power by the United States, and its military is, de facto, bad, wrong,or corrupt. All your snark, cynicism and blindness stems from this assumption. It is a type of bigotry. For some perspective on this, read Robert Kaplan's book Imperial Grunts. Yes, the United States is an imperial power. This being the case,(read Kaplan), why then have we not seized Mexico's oil? It's a lot closer to home, and Spanish speakers in the militrary aren't as rare as Arabic speakers. Same question about Canada; (similar language problems though.) But you should really try to get past your shameful contempt of the military; it reflects poorly upon your character. |
|
About a century ago we took the philippines. We said we wanted democracy, but we put down the filipino insurgents who'd been fighting the spanish for democracy and tried to set up our own puppet government. They fought us, and we took the gloves off, we killed women and children and set up mass starvation in places where the enemy was, and they caved in. Some of them went up in the mountains and fought our filipino government, but they couldn't do much. We eventually set up a plan to give them full democracy after 40 years, but as it turned out the japanese invaded first. The filipinos who'd collaborated with us collaborated with the japanese. The ones who fought us fought the japanese too. We gave themk weapons and aid and promised them democracy. Then after the liberation we set the puppet government up again and told them they were a democracy now, and the guys who fought the japanese went back up into the mountains. Eventually people got so sick of Marcos they threw him out and set up a democracy without us. Victory. The shooting war was over in 3 or 4 years, pretty much over by 1902 or so, because we were resolute enough to do the dirty work and to hell with what anybody else thought about it.
Now look at the french in algeria. They were resolute and they did whatever it took. The algerians did torture so the french did too. They shot civilians, they did mass killings. By the time the french public was sick of it and pulled out the army, 10% of the algerians were dead.
10% dead. And then the competing algerian insergents killed another 10% fighting among themselves. Killing the first 10% didn't prevent the next 10%. Would they have killed 20% if the french hadn't been there? Who knows? Maybe it would have been 25%. Possibly the whole thing wasn't a complete waste.
We can win if we take the gloves off. We have to be ready to dish out a lot of casualties. At least 15% of the population. And we have to give up on the current iraqi government. They've shown no sign of being reliable. Arrest them all and set up a new government, our way, after the violence has stopped.
We need at least half a million troops there to do the job. We have to draft them, for the duration. None of this softy stuff about one year there and two years recovering. Start teaching them arabic as they get out of basic, and send them to iraq for 5 years straight except little R&R, or until we get our victory. We can't afford to have vital troops gone for 2 years while some stranger tries to do their jobs.
And we have to pay for it. Borrowing the money from china is a recipe for future disaster.
|
|
|
"God does not need my help" |
|
Once again you refuse to answer the questions. What a pathetic coward. I am proud of the fact that I have terminated/killed some bad people. I have met some very nice Iraqi people that I am in contact with still. I have saved the lives of many very nice Iraqi people. What have you done to protect them. You will not answer because you are a coward and it will show just how shallow you really are. You will talk about saving the Iraqi's but are afraid to do anything. Pathetic.
Why do you keep bring God into this. I have not mentioned God yet. I don't think he really cares. God is God, if he wants you life to end he does need my help. I do not do what I do in the name of religion, I do it to protect my family. Emelia, do you know how much refined Anthrax it would take to kill everyone in America or what ever country you are in?
Do you really think the American economy runs on munitions. Sorry but it doesn't. You obviously know nothing about the American economy.
How about this time you answer a question. Doubtful you will but try. |
|
I expect you will be whooping yourselves into sweaty patriotic little frenzy for another war soon; no doubt god will be on your side in that one too…Cos we all know how much god loves American bombs, don’t we…eh! Hmmm, good for the economy too…..
Oh, shooter: Since you are the one that likes to indiscriminately killing human beings so much, why don't you clarify on YOUR justifications!
(or do you just think that god is on your side too)?
Quote shooter:"Most of the people I KILLED are were not Iraqi".
Hey, now THAT is something to be proud of.... Bet it makes you feel like a real man....eh?
@Dawna: Obviously you think war and killing is good then!
The actions of America are highly likely to push the world into Nuclear holocaust....again. |
|
|
Hey Fowl Mouth Emelia, go somewhere else, please. We don't use bad language on this site like they do on all the liberal blogs. I am so tired of all of negative and hate filled and un-informed liberals. I wish you would all just go away. Snapdigger calls us the Bush Cult. But no one has been more brainwashed by the Democrats and the Media's three-year campaign to tear down support for the President and the war effort than all of you. How does it feel to be so propagandized? You are like mind numbed robots that just take in and regurgitate the tired old Nazi cunnard. I think the Nazi's had a big media propaganda machine just like that used by the Democrats over here that convinced a majority of people to support them. The constant drip drip of everyone's bad but us. Just like the constant drip drip of President Bush bad. War bad. Republican's bad. Blah. Blah. Blah. Keep hammering people with it till they finally give in and believe the big lie. At the risk to our country's security and our soldiers. Don't talk to me about cultists. You guys are the cultists of the unthinking Bushhitler brigade. |
|
|
Ramsey Clark is a horses rear. A good reason for why we are in the mess we are in is because of his boss Jimmy. And yes this was typical heat America first crap. |
|
|
I sometimes wonder what TV programs HH watches. In presentation terms, a business I've spent my life in, it was appalling. Bush was rigid, obviously reading from his teleprompter, almost robotic in his delivery, while his facial expression suggested he had overdone the laxative that morning. Turning to the substance, the spin is that this is a change in strategy which suggests that white house speechwriters don't understand the three basic elements of military science. This is a tactical adjustment. It's hard to think that adding another 20,000 men to a force that has averaged 150,000 for the past four years is likely to make much difference anymore than proposing to spend another billion when 20 billion hasn't done it already. Domestically it's quite obvious Bush has lost the country and I suspect a goodly number of GOP representatives and senators are going to jump ship over this. Equally it is clear the HH and a goodly number of no doubt sincere posters on this site have totally lost contact with reality. I suggest they regain it or we are going loose big time in 08. |
|
If this had been about oil we would have done what the Franch and Russians were doing. Oil contracts to help lift sanctions. Most of the people I KILLED are were not Iraqi.
At the start of the war I was in the North fighting A.A.I. and yes Al-Qaeda along the border with Iran.
Now, if you have a mask on and are carrying an RPG or AK you will get shot. What have you done to protect the innocent in the middle east? Probably not a damn thing. When was the last time you put your life on the line for some one?
You have yet to say why Muslims killing Muslims is ok. So, which are you, Sunni or Shia. I would like to hear how you justify what is going on. I assume you are o.k. with the Muslims butchering the people in Darfur?
If you would please try and answer a question this time instead of ducking. Also complete answers would be nice. |
|
Do I read you to say that if the Malicki government fails to live up to the benchmarks the President has set, we simply go ahead and do what we think needs to be done anyway? That would not be very smart. The whole point of this enterprise is to make Iraq a functioning state capable of self-governance. If the Iraqis, at this late date, are incapable of taking the necessary steps, then we need to redeploy, continue the fight against Al Quaeda, but leave Iraq to the Iraqis.
|
|
|
|
@shooter
Quote: "I do believe many more women and children have been killed by Muslim on Muslim violence".
So that gives America justification to kill even more does it?
And who actually IS it you are killing while being nice and kind not to kill innocents?
Yeah, nuclear accuracy is well known isn't it.
Still, nice to know Iraqis are being liberated... of their oil...and their lives...eh?
@TheProudDuck
And what makes you think that the actions of America are any different to that of the Nazis?!?
And: he???
. |
|
Emelia,
I do believe that is the chant of Islam as they go on a bus or into a market or on to a plane. Thanks for clarifying that for me. I do believe many more women and children have been killed by Muslim on Muslim violence. We try very not to while they try very hard to.
Go ahead, try again. |
|
"disrespectful brats throwing feces and calling them opinions."
My one-year-old had a massive opinion this morning.
Emelia:
Sarcasm in measured doses can be lethal. Sarcasm as a substitute for serious argument is childish.
Sure, everybody seems to think God's on his side in a fight -- even the army defending Nazi Germany used "Gott Mit Uns" as a slogan -- but if the actual God would be neutral between Hitler and one of his victims, why again should he be worthy of admiration, let alone worship? |
|
|
that the Iraqi Army in Baghdad will be Kurds. Whether that means all Kurd or just predominantly, that seems a strong approach. I haven't seen verification of that anywhere, so take it with a grain of salt. |
|
@shooter.
Yeah and I have seen woman beaten and executed in the name of Islam, but hey lets bomb em! |
|
The change in the ROE is meant to carry two political messages.
1) The obvious is that Iran and Syria have been put on notice that they will not receive a pass.
2) To the nascent gov. of Iraq, either you get serious about the violence, or we will go ahead and take out the militias and sundry ourselves with or without your cooperation. |
|
Thou shalt worship no other God: for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.
Exod. 34:13
Ye shall destroy their alters, break their images, and cut down their groves. Exod. 34:14
Ye shall utterly destroy all the places wherein the nations which ye shall possess served their gods, upon the high mountains, and upon the hills, and under every green tree: And ye shall overthrow their alters, and break their pillars, and burn their groves with fire; and ye shall hew down the craven images of their gods, and destroy the names of them out of that place. Duet. 12:2, 3.
If there be found among you . . . man or woman, that hath . . . served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded . . . then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman . . . and shalt stone them with stones till they die. Deut. 17:2-5
Sense of déjà vu encountered!! |
|
I have pictures of children that had their throats slit by your beloved Muslims. Have you seen a US Soldier behead someone and put it on the WWW? What about the suicide bombers that go into a market and blow themselves all so they can spend eternity popping virgins. You have no idea how hard we have tried to fight a PC war you ignorant ****. I have seen friends shot because they did not pull the trigger because of possible collateral damage. This is not they way the insurgents do things. They use schools and children as shields.
How about you get an ticket for Sudan and go see what is going on there.
Emelia, when was the last time you were in Iraq? |
|
Although Hugh Hewitt does not need my help to defend himself I had to step in to point out the amazing Irony of the Left! So by using Google to translate Frenchy Snapdigger's Rant written in the French Tongue on Hugh Hewitt's Blog I am reminded again how the Vichy French of WWII were wrong about how they dealt with Hitler's German Imperialism and how Jacque Chirac and the French are wrong today when faced with the Islamic Imperialistic threat of our Era:
http://powdertracks.townhall.com/g/4660012e-164e-4648-ba70-91fa0f6aee40
Figures that Snapdigger("Femoir Extcavtrice") would write in FRENCH as his words and message in English are those of the "LOSER" France during WWII when Hitler used the Blitzkrieg to to DEFEAT the French in less than 5 weeks by ignoring their Defensive Strategy known as the Maginot Line! The only point Le Peu Snapdigger makes that is sort of on target is about Iran. Indeed Iran is the bigger threat to the West but now the US has a base of Operation in that part of the World. Yes, l'Amérique(America)has a base just we have a Base in Asia acting as a bulwark against Communist China and we have been there for almost 60 years! Here's a little history for you Pepi Le Pew Snapdigger by staying within our borders as a defense which is nothing more than a figurative Maginot Line will not work on Imperialist Decapitators who conquered a large portion of the World after the Islam came into existence!:
Islam appeared in Arabia in the 7th century .
Within a century of Muhammad's first recitations of the Qur'an, an Islamic state stretched from the Atlantic Ocean in the west to Central Asia in the east.
Le Snapdigger how do you think they did it? Just Read Al Qaeda's Political Platform and maybe you'll gain some insight!:
"The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies--civilians and military--is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty God, "and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together," and "fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God."
This is in addition to the words of Almighty God "And why should ye not fight in the cause of God and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated and oppressed--women and children, whose cry is 'Our Lord, rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will help!'"
We -- with God's help -- call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it. We also call on Muslim ulema, leaders, youths, and soldiers to launch the raid on Satan's U.S. troops and the devil's supporters allying with them, and to displace those who are behind them so that they may learn a lesson.
Almighty God said "O ye who believe, give your response to God and His Apostle, when He calleth you to that which will give you life. And know that God cometh between a man and his heart, and that it is He to whom ye shall all be gathered."
Almighty God also says "O ye who believe, what is the matter with you, that when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of God, ye cling so heavily to the earth! Do ye prefer the life of this world to the hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place; but Him ye would not harm in the least. For God hath power over all things."
http://www.mideastweb.org/osamabinladen1.htm
Read the rest here:
http://powdertracks.townhall.com/g/4660012e-164e-4648-ba70-91fa0f6aee40
or here:
http://powdertracks.blogspot.com/2007/01/hugh-hewitts-frequent-commentator.html
|
|
I hope USNJIMRET is wrong, but there is a lot of sense there.
Take off the gloves (not in Abu Graib) but on the battle field. |
|
In the old days it was easy! the bad guys were bad and the good guys were good, trouble was that: The bad guys thought they were good too, and the good guys thought they were better, so it all got a bit confusing....
Oh yeah, and only the good guys got to kill the bad guys, and god was always on the side of the good guys, because god is like, really kinda patriotic an all....
|
|
the more I am coming to believe that this latest "change" will NOT accomplish a victory in Iraq.
NOT because the situation there is unwinable in a military, or even political, sense. It certainly is. Our military, probably with no more assets then are currently there, CAN take out the militias, insurgent forces and anyone else identified as enemy.
And NOT because there aren't enough brain cells functioning even in Muslim brains to understand "deal or die" is the alternative.
Nope, I suspect that, like the 14 month warning given to Saddam (may he rot in hell), this announced change in tactics and strategy shows that the "plan" is STILL one of military action, muddied by political correctness, concern for 'world opinion' and the sensibilities of Muslims. (The Saddam reference means that I firmly believe that Saddam had WMD, and was given time/help to move them.)
In other words, we will NOT allow the military to take the gloves off and seek to kill the enemy.
The enemy knows, respects and understands nothing but force and power. Not all of the diplomacy that President Clinton tried prevented 9/11/01, or the USS Cole, or the U. S. Embassy bombings.
Why would ANYONE think that there is snowballs chance in hell of success that 'talking' to enemies that have declared their intent to destroy us is a mystery to me. Super duper J. Kerry himself said this very morning that he met and talked to the President of Syria just last week, and that he doesn't trust what he was told. But that we should give him a chance to prove untrustworthy. What is it with some, that they know damn well that they are being lied to by an enemy, but want to give them another chance to do dastardly things, first? It's a mindset that absolutely astounds me!
The current world situation is NOT the mouse that roared. It is a fact that we HAVE been attacked, and will be again. Even more so if/when our enemies come to believe that we lack the will to effectively respond with force and power. |
|
I've never liked the man but I was impressed with his candor and willingness to take the blame for the mess in Iraq.
Let's support this 'surge' but give it a six month timeframe. If violence isn't down let's pull the plug. |
|
|
|
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MzUwZmQ5ZGI1YWY4OTdlZTc3ZGYzYTYzYzgyZmEzMGQ=
If you dismiss Hicks, Derbyshire, Brownback and other people as mere pessimists (or dems and libs), you are unhinged from reality. The problem with this war is our leadership (steming from the President) have not looked objectively at what we are facing and dealt with it. I am all for escallating it and taking the fight to the enemy--but I am concerned that this plan of the President may not work.
I want the President's plan to work and I hope it does so, but pollyanish wishing will not make it so. If the President is serious about destoying safe havens in Iran and Syria all I can say is it is about time.
I am glad the President took repsonsibility for the outcome, too bad he has not admitted his own mistakes because it is that type of honesty and reflection that is need to change the current direction of this war. |
|
It's too bad the libs want defeat because if the Islamic fanatics ever get a hold in this country, they are going to be the first to endure beheading.
Islamic theology is contrary to all the libs represent. They should be the ones who are scared out of their wits. But, they persist in behaving as if there is nothing to fear except Bush.
Joe:
"Thomas Ricks, author of Fiasco, reports that his officer contacts have said 100% that the President's plan will not work."
We can listen all we want to the pessimistic people in this country, and dwell in the valley of defeatism. The officer contacts of whom Ricks speaks could be only the ones who support his opinion.
Frankly I'm tired of listening to pessimism for the last 3 years from the dems and libs.
|
|
Just up the road from you in Raleigh, I would have to agree with your analysis. When I have discussed this war with friends and family (who have a different mindset than mine), I bring up WW2. Do you know that we lost more people in training missions for DDay than we had lost in the Iraq war after 2 years? And before anyone gives me grief about that statement, I am not saying that those people who have been lost are not important. They are extremely important to everyone who has a mother, father, brother, sister, wife, husband, son or daughter. I continue to pray for the families of those who fight for us in far away places, for those who are serving, and for those who have been lost.
My point for bringing up WW2 is that we would NEVER have won against the formidable strength of the Nazis and Japanese if we had a media then that was so firmly entrenched against us as our agenda-based media is today. Instead of mocking Tokyo Rose and her outrageous statements, networks today would give her a nationally syndicated show!
By the way, Steve, your comments about ammo remind me I need to stock up at the next gun show.... |
|
Thomas Ricks, author of Fiasco, reports that his officer contacts have said 100% that the President's plan will not work. This is not liberal whinning and we should all take note. The flaw is reliance on the Maliki government and Iraqi forces (which are essentially Shia forces). They are convinced this will escallate fighting with the Sunnis and give the Jihadis political cover. It will make worse the Sunni Shia scism in Iraq.
Tom Ricks is no fool. I hope he is wrong on this. But we should take what he says seriously. |
|
I've read through the crap the Libs have posted here.
Draft: Libs just want to punish their opponents. They aren't serious other than they hope to get the Bush twins killed to get even with W.
Democrat Plan: There is none other than to defeat and embarass Bush. Too bad these idiots don't put that much time and thought into defeating the Islamofascists. |
|
I couldn't agree more with your sentiments. Dick Dirtbin hasn't seen an American who can do anything on his own, without US Government assistance.
As for the policy in Iraq, I think we have spent WAY too much time pussyfooting around there and being careful about everything we do. It reminds me of the whole 'don't bomb during Ramadan' concept during the Clinton years. Islamists don't take a day off for Ramadan, Christmas, Hannukah, or anything else. In fact, they are most active during our most sacred and important religious holidays.
We need to overly and publicly support our friends (unless they ask us not to) and destroy our enemies. Period. No pussyfooting around, no PC battle plans, no worrying about damage to Mosques that serve as fortresses. The enemy knows how to play on our fear of being called 'anti-Islam' - we need to remove that card from their playbooks. |
|
This only gets us up to the troops we had before we drew down troop levels preparing for the 2006 election. It isn't serious.
We need a draft. If we put a million men into iraq we can control the place. Then if anybody shoots at one of them in some iraqi city, just pull everybody back and do a quick air or artillery strike on that whole block. Follow that policy for 3 years and they'll settle down. It worked in the philippines even without airstrikes.
It would cost somewhere between a trillion and two trillion dollars a year. But the alternative is defeat.
To win this war we need to get serious. A draft, and whatever taxes it takes to pay for the war. Attempting the job with less than 20% of the needed troops and tax cuts isn't serious. |
|
I heard a couple good little buzzwords from the President. He alluded to the rules of engagement-using the word restrictions. I am just praying our guys can begin to use overwhelming force. I hope I am not reading too much into his words. But referring to Syria and Iran was good and the veiled threat was even identifiable by this novice. Unlike Durbins Deafotocrats, I think President Bush wants to get this right ,not just show up the other guy. I thought I saw resolution in Bush's eyes, not to let the media, through the staged violence, convince the general disengaged electorate there is no value in fighting the tide of evil swamping the civilized world.
I liked hearing the President correctly identify this as the defining ideaological struggle of our time.
I too pray that the Iraqi people step up and stop the insurgency. There is the word surge in insurgent. Maybe the stake they should get from their oil wealth can refine their wills to create their own country in their own image.
The liberals led by Durbin and Vilsack want polls to run our foreign policy. We elected a President to be our commander in chief, not a mob. They mention our treasury like the money defending our country should really be spent on social programmes, not the most important job our government has the responsibility to perform
|
|
It is now morally indefensible for those who are physically able to do so to advocate a "surge," or even ongoing war in Iraq, without either volunteering to fight or offering a good reason why they are not doing so. One of the war's key architects is sending out a desperate plea for volunteers in order to enable the U.S. to achieve "Victory" in Iraq. How can those who believe in the premise and cheer it on -- all the while depicting themselves as strong and resolute -- possibly justify not taking the necessary action to enable the U.S. to "win"? . . .
In light of the current troop shortages impeding Kagan's plans -- to say nothing of plans for confronting other countries and Terrorists beyond Iraq -- how can those who strut around as Churchillian defenders of American greatness in the face of Evil possibly justify their ongoing refusal of this call? The World War II values they are constantly invoking in order to justify endless war weren't defined by war cheerleaders but by war fighters.
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2007/01/attention-war-supporters-your-country.html
Those of you who subscribe to the cult of World War II metaphors need to put up or shut up. |
|
snapDigger said:
"So he's committed himself to less stringent rules of engagement -- which is to say, we should be less picky about killing Iraqis. How we're supposed to bring stability and security to a country that hates us by killing *more of them* is unclear."
The purpose of loosening the rules of engagement is NOT simply to "kill more Iraqis" -- and your attempt to interpret it that way is a rather pathetic straw man argument.
You know perfectly well that the purpose of changing the ROE is to increase our ability to kill the terrorists and militias that are killing our soldiers and other Iraqis -- just as you know perfectly well that if we accomplish that purpose, it would certainly improve stability and security.
You may, if you wish, argue that the looser rules of engagement won't help -- although you have already admitted that if we fought like we did against Japan and Germany we CAN win. But please spare us the ridiculous accusation that the only purpose of looser ROE is to increase the deaths of innocent civilians. You really must get control of your Bush hatred. |
|
the President could have said to please everyone. Which will not prevent some from their carping and whining.
If, as some have noted, the change in the ROE'S and stopping the infiltration of Iranian and Syrian cross border 'insurgents', then perhaps some good can yet come from Iraq.
Otherwise, leave, and do it sooner rather then later.
Oh yeah, scorch earth the place after we are out of there. Leave no terrorist behind!! I do NOT believe for a nano second that Islamic fundamentalists are going to stop until they are dead, dead, dead. |
|
|
|
Yes, I also scroll past anything authored with the words Snapdigger. That's of course unless I'm in the mood for a detailed instruction by a pompous know-it-all. Don't engage the guy, it's like having a discussion with a person screaming at you from the windows inside an insane asylum.
As for the libs, spent a little time watching Chris Matthews at MSNDNC last night and was struck by the balance of his shows contributors. 1). Lawrence McDonnell 2). Pat Buchanan 3). Some guy named Crowley who is the editor at the Nation. 4). Keith Oblerman. Three ultra-libs and Pat Buchanan who hates Bush 41 and therefore his son. Not once did I hear "win." Only re-deploy or get out. The lessons of 9/11 are lost on these four and many more like them. I pray we have no more attacks but this does not seem likely. I wonder what the response by libs would be if an attack was zip code specific on Manhattan or Beverly Hills. The libs of these zip codes would inevitably still blame Bush for causing the terrorists I mean "freedom fighters" to voice their aggrssion against the U.S. It took the Jews from 1932 to 1938 to figure out that something was terribly wrong with Hitler and that they were being methodically exterminated. The libs don't see they are on the same glide path as the Jews. The first to go under Islamic law will be the non-believers. It took the Jews six years,let's give the libs the rest of 2007 to see if they understand the threat. I'm guessing that they don't and the death and horror of a second attack will have to occur for them to understand. It will be difficult but we conservastives must not say "I told you so." |
|
SnapDigger said:
“This is a standard authoritarian myth about Vietnam, that our troops were forced by The Liberals to fight with "one hand tied behind their backs" and that's why we lost. It bears no resemblance to reality, but that's never bothered Bush.”
The statement above is a classic example of how liberals rewrite history to remove inconvenient facts.
From 1965 to 1972, American forces in Vietnam fought under rules of engagement that prohibited direct attacks on crucial industrial targets in Hanoi and Haiphong areas. Air power was limited to efforts to interdict supply lines running to the south. We fought a partial, limited war designed, not to achieve victory, but to appease pacifists at home and abroad by minimizing civilian casualties.
In December 1972, President Nixon finally came to his senses and ordered operation Linebacker II -- the unrestricted bombing of North Vietnam, including Hanoi and Haiphong. Eleven days later, the North Vietnamese cried “uncle” and returned to peace negotiations.
We wasted 7 years and 50,000 American lives fighting a snapDigger/liberal/leftist/pacifists - style war rather than unleashing our forces and achieving victory quickly. Once unleashed, it took our forces on 11 days to bring the enemy to his knees. Those are the facts that the snapDiggers of the world want to conceal. You may judge for yourself the reasons why. |
|
|
I believe that the left in this country are setting up another Vietnam in order to validate their anti-war agenda for the next 40 years. I believe they will not only succeed in this but will effectively turn around and blame the President for the inevitable massacre that will follow. I voted for Bush with great hopes for the Republican party and the diminishing of the insanity that's all around us created by the left. I've come to believe that President Bush simply isn't strong enough to fight the good fight He's an approval seaker and has disapointed so many of us that put him in office. I'm sick of being angry and now am just sad. I believe we will lose this partisan battle and in doing so will lose everything that has made this country great. |
|
Well, Hugh. You seem to be attracting a lot of those obnoxious, buzzing little horrors that remind me of mindless bluebottle flies on a hot summer day. They all call the President of the United States anything but President. It's a childish way to show lack of respect, not only for the man but the office. Then there's the name-calling, the Lefty memes, etc. Tiring, pointless and only indicative of the shallow thought behind the busy little fingers on the keyboard.
laborlawyer
Thank you for a rational, thoughtful Liberal post. I wish we would see more of those. Then maybe we could actually begin to engage in a dialog instead of having to put up with disrespectful brats throwing feces and calling them opinions. |
|
|
|
Would love to see how all the Chickenhawk neo cons respond to this. Because, you know, the oceans no longer protect us and 9/11 changed everything and Iraq is a vital front in the war on terror and we must kill Islamo fascists and dissenters are part of the "blame America first crowd" right? It's the same braindead talking points over and over, all of you, repeating not only the arguments but the actual language, word for word.
I'd love to see Laura and Jenna Bush outfitted with standard issue rifles and patrolling the streets of Fallujah. |
|
I also heard the quiet, iron glove threat to Iran and Syria, and the "networks". For one short moment I'd hoped he meant the 'TV networks', but I suppose hard targets predece the rotten ones.
Also it sounded to me as if the ROE manacles are coming off; Moqtada, call your office, it's going to burn soon. The things President Bush said about benchmarks etc., sounded like there'd been a "Come to Jesus moment" with Maliki. But those puerile who oppose everything just because errors are made, which in war means the death of innocents, will never agree and never committ. This is cowardice. Despite any million excellent arguments these wretched always have their millionth and one tantrums. Breaking news-the world is not perfectable. Resist evil, and it will flee from you.
Shooter-hooah!! Put a few on target for us.
Smittyhere: Thank your son for me too. (Would that I were 31 again) |
|
|
Does anybody else just scroll right through any comment by a poster whose name starts with SNAP...? I sure do. Very liberating I must say. |
|
|
Its a crying shame the troops are paying the price for the wobbly support for the war with all the rats fleeing the ship at the sight of a few leaking boards. I never thought I'd see the day where a lack of back bone persuades the President to promising that Americas commitment is NOT OPEN ENDED. |
|
And I might add the 50,000 dead in 12 weeks in 1918.
Yes every lost life is tragic. Yes I have relatives in the Iraqi theater (yes it is only a theater in the war against Islamic fanaticism).
True our culture has the staying power of a culture weaned on drive-thru big-Macs. But fortunately or unfortunately for us our enemy is not so short minded, and because of them we wont be able to forget them either--by hook or crook they will remind us, and it is just a matter of how many of us will have to die before we get the message. |
|
|
|
Tell your son we appreciate and honor his service for this country. There are still those of us around who regard our military with honor and love.
My best regards to you and God speed to you and your family for having to endure the daily onslaught to your emotional well being knowing you have your son in harms' way.
I say that because when my brother was in Vietnam, I suffered terribly, each and every day worrying about whether he would come back. It's an emotional nightmare that families have to bear. The families need to be honored for their sacrifices they make not having their loved one there with them. |
|
I wonder just how good you would look if you were president when 9/11 happened and the burden of what to do to protect the US, get our economy back up and running, having to meet with victims' families, go to war in Afghanistan, then Iraq, believing the whole time that he must do what he can to protect our country from Islamic fanatics.
Now, whether you or I or anyone else agrees with Bush, the dreadful burdens this man has had to carry over the last 6 years have made him old and tired.
I doubt seriously whether you or anyone else would have fared much better. |
|
Dolchstosslegende
La seule partie intéressante de la parole de l'échec de Bush (dans ce qu'il investit dans continuer des stratégies échouées) est le non-sens au sujet de la façon dont nous avons échoué parce que les règles de l'enclenchement étaient trop wimpy.
C'est un mythe autoritaire standard au sujet du Vietnam, ce nos troupes ont été forcées par les libéraux de combattre avec "une main attachée derrière leurs dos" et c'est pourquoi nous avons perdu. Il ne soutient aucune ressemblance à la réalité, mais ce n'est jamais Bush tracassé.
Ainsi il est commis aux règles moins rigoureuses de l'enclenchement -- qui doit dire, nous devrait être moins picky au sujet des Irakiens de massacre. Comment nous sommes censés apporter la stabilité et la sécurité à un pays qui nous déteste en tuant * plus d'eux * est peu claire. Mais encore, ceci n'a été jamais censé se comprendre. Comme avec le Vietnam, le point doit trouver une certaine manière de blâmer le peuple qui a eu le temerity à avoir raison au sujet de la chose entière. Et au moins le Vietnam était une guerre à l'origine lancée par des libéraux. L'Irak est une guerre républicaine conservatrice, une où les libéraux ont eu uniformément raison et où les libéraux ont montré qu'ils sont maintenant plus à faire confiance sur la sécurité nationale. Ceci conduit les righties fous, ainsi ils atteignent de nouveau dans leur sac des mythes du Vietnam pour montrer de façon ou d'autre que c'est tout le défaut de ces oeufs de poisson libéraux.
Quant au culte du cultish de Hugh de Bush, je pense que la plupart des personnes savent à ce jour que nos "ennemis" ne voudraient rien meilleur que pour que Bush soit président indéfiniment. Depuis qu'il a renversé l'ennemi de l'Islamists, Saddam le séculaire, il est fait exactement ce que nos ennemis ont voulu. Et maintenant il projette devenir "dur" sur l'Iran en allant après juste environ le seul Shiite vaguement anti-Iranien en Irak (Sadr) et en étayant vers le haut d'une marionnette iranienne (Maliki). Bush est le meilleur ami de l'Iran.
|
|
|
Collez-l'où le soleil ne brille pas. |
|
....that seems to dominate these comment pages (We Wannna WIN! You Wanna LOSE! Nanner nanner nanner....), count me as a liberal Dem who opposed the war but was perhaps for the first time, impressed with a speech by President Bush. The sneer was gone, the sarcasm gone, the manifest destiny attitude was gone, he was dead serious.
Believe it or not I don't want us to fail in Iraq. But the trouble is that this plan needs so much to go right that I just cannot see it working. We've set benchmarks for the Malicki government before and he's failed to meet them, with no sanction. The President laid out a detailed set of new benchmarks for him- reintegration of Baathists, control of Shi'ite militias, a new and more broadly shared oil/economic policy. What if he fails again? Does the troop increase also stop?
In the last analysis, the President is Commander in Chief, and despite my grave reservations I'm inclined to let him have one more chance at getting it right. But if the Iraqis still won't do what is needed, then we can't run their country for them, and we'll have to start redeploying. Meanwhile I'll say a prayer for the wellbieng of the men and women being sent into harm's way. |
|
Hey you bed wetting cowards, next time you are going potty why not check and see if you have a pair. Sign up and be all you can be. Trying doing something for someone other than your pathetic selves.
So far I have jumped into Granada (1983 fresh out of Ranger School), Kosovo (after Q course), Afghanistan, and Iraq 2. Plus some that no one can admit to. What have ya'll done lately to protect your country?
I have asked every screaming coward like yourselves the following question and have not received a single answer. If you and you alone were responsible for the safety of 300 million people what would you have done? Also, believe it or not there is still some intel that the NY Times has not been able to get their hands on and disclose.
I did not see the speech. I posted recently I have been there twice and was soon going for a third. I was a little busy and really did not care what the speech was. |
|
HNAV wrote: "But the Liberals aren't interested in our success, they want Bush to fail for their own personal greed, regardless of the Future of the Free World"
BINGO! As long as the liberals are holding the top of the bat when America falls they call it a win. They are already, by nature, enabled to be the Quislings needed to help subdue those of us who consider 500 rds of ammo for each gun low on stock.
Steve
Charlotte NC |
|
Regarding the question of Hugh's age, I believe he is 2 years younger than I, which would make him 50. My take was that the question had to do with service. So let me explain through my conservative at age 6 eyes, what America looked like when the choice could be made. And I say age 6 because my mother died and I knew then that the world owed me nothing. I could never be a liberal.
I graduated HS in 1972 in NYC. We had a color TV. But if the show wasn't in color, the show was watched on a black and white TV. If a tube blew you went down to the local A&P or drug store with the burned out one and replaced it. There were even names like RCA and Zenith and the TV were really "made in America".
I drew #51 in the draft. They did not call any numbers that year and I think in 1971 they called under 25,000. But Vietnam was lost thanks to the mindset of Walter Cronkite [who lied about losing Tet], Dan Blather, and the John Kerrys and Jane Fondas. The protestors were draft dodgers and mainly cowards; nothing more. How can I state that? Because at least 1 million died after we left [like will happen in Iraq] and the protests stopped when the draft stopped. Anyone see any protest about Rwanda and calls for Clinton to be tried for war crimes of ommission by the left?
That "me" generation knew nothing and now teaches your children. Good luck!
Was I going if drafted out of college somehow occurred? Of course I was. To use a phrase from my father regarding enlisting in WW II, "what do you think I am, a coward?" when I asked how he could enlist with a 1 year old son. Most will find that hard to imagine. I did and still do.
My older brothers were drafted. Both eventually were back home due to severe hearing loss exceeding 50%. Hearing aids back then were archaic. Neither thought anything about it other than it was their duty. Canada? That was the name of a soda company, right?
Some kids in the neighborhood got drafted with them being older brothers of friends. None died. Some enlisted in the Marines and served multiple tours. In 1968 everyone was behind the war. Then the work of subversive groups [laugh if you like] took hold and support dwindled. In HS I wanted to enlist when I turned old enough. We were fighting the Russians in a cold war and the Chinese and they were actively supporting out enemy. Freedom was known by those with brain to never be free. It's still pretty much a secret that those of us hold dear like a Masonic lodge. If one is a liberal, I can't explain it to them. It doesn't compute. And ow course I was going if called because as my father said "what do you think I am, a coward". But by 1972 the theme had changed. We had that bloated bufoon from Massachussetts stating we couldn't win a war, nor could we drive an Oldsmobile. Many of our own politicians, for their own political gain, were undermining the troops. We used to call them traitors. Now we call them liberals.
If you'd like a wake up about Vietnam read "Dereliction of Duty" by Gerald McMasters [not the one by Patterson, although a worthy book itself] and you'll see that LBJ wanted his great society and his (D) votes to achieve it. help the troops too much, no (D) votes. I suspect that McNamara will be joing LBJ in Hades for what they did to the troops.
So, to the initial question, I believe that Hugh was not old enough to have served in Vietnam by hook or by crook. And the liberals took a lot out of of a young man's desire to serve his country. I looked into ROTC in ernest and my cousin was training to pilot B-52s and ended up at SAC and he convinced me that the military was broken. Most people my age saw it that way. But we really looked more towards what we were doing that weekend and for beer money like most kids these days to. Vietnam was unwinable bcause we said it was unwinable.
To quote one of the most successful men in American history - "Whether you think you can or whether you think you can't, you're right" - Henry Ford
Steve
Charlotte NC
p.s. How do I change my user name? |
|
Thank your son for me and all of us that honor his service and sacrifice.
Godspeed. |
|
... and call me in the morning.
Bush looked like he'd been run over by a Haliburton 18 wheeler. It is any wonder how any one with half a brain can possibly take this incompentent dunce seriously any more.
Failing upward: A GWB Tradition. |
|
Howard Fineman is as even-handed and impartial as anyone in news analysis. Here's his take on the speech: "George W. Bush spoke with all the confidence of a perp in a police lineup. I first interviewed the guy in 1987 and began covering his political rise in 1993, and I have never seen him, in public or private, look less convincing, less sure of himself, less cocky. With his knitted brow and stricken features, he looked, well, scared. Not surprising since what he was doing in the White House library was announcing the escalation of an unpopular war."
Bush is out on a limb. The American people don't support him, and his generals have advised him not to do what he is doing. Even Republican senators are beginning to abandon him. Brownback, of all people, is against the surge!
Bush is on an insane course; he's even hinting at attacking Iran and Syria, even though we don't have any troops left. He's sending aircraft carriers. There's talk of nuclear weapons. He's sending thousands of Americans to their deaths on the one chance in a million that he might be looked at favorably by future historians. The man is out of control, afraid and confused, yet still willing to precipitate an Apocalypse. The only people who can stop him are you Republicans. Do it. Save your party. Save your country. Do it for our children.
|
|
...from Senator Dick Durbin
Hugh said:
"President Bush was at his best tonight: serious, detailed, and above all, resolute. He spoke to many audiences.
Our enemies did not hear what they had hoped to, a declaration of surrender, whether fphrased as a "timetable" or a simple "We quit." They know that as long as Bush as in office, they will not win in Iraq.
Durbin said:
Retreat, withdraw, and we are losing.
What will make headlines in the NYT and al-Jazeera tomorrow (I know its hard to decipher between the two these days)?
We know the answer.
Oh yeah, did you know that Ted Kennedy recently said "Iraq is George Bush's Vietnam"? |
|
|
I agree with you Hugh, the President did a great job on his speech. I believe this is the right course and I support him 100%. |
|
An anti war withdraw the troops from Iraq immediately and assume diplomatic discussions with all our enemies position coupled with a Strong Immigration Control Policy.
Yep Ives, that's a winner. Maybe just a bit tough on the diplo speak with your throat cut, but heck you guys could try it.
You libs would be the first to pee your pants, beg for your life, and fold like a cheap suit.
You are to be pitied; stay away and the adults will continue to protect your sorry asses, deserving or not. |
|
I think you're missing an important point: Bush's weakness on immigration is part and parcel of his hawkishness. Bush, McCain, Lieberman, Bill Kristol: all these guys are super-hawks who also want to let illegal immigrants in by the bushel.
Why? Because these people are part of a creed that Steve Sailer has dubbed "Invade the world, invite the world." They want to spread "freedom" around the world -- but while we're waiting to bring freedom to various countries, they think we might as well let more people in (legally or no) to share our freedom. After all, if someone's willing to expend blood and treasure to bring Freedom to Iraq, why wouldn't he be willing to sacrifice jobs and wages in order to let people come in and enjoy Freedom here?
So apart from the fact that "winning the war on terror" is no more likely than "rounding up all the magic ponies," if you want someone who's credible on immigration, you should look around for someone who's credible on Iraq -- that is, someone who wants us to leave. Because that's a consistent principle. We don't go around invading other countries, and we don't let people from other countries pour in here illegally. We mind our business, and they mind theirs.
Bush, McCain et al are incapable of understanding that a country should mind their own business. And people who don't understand that will never respect the idea of borders. |
|
You know, I think a possible factor in Bush and Bush cultists' thinking (so to speak) is their belief that religious fervor is always OK. Bush and the Republicans have turned religion into an arm of their party -- with Megachurches essentially becoming huge Republican party headquarters every Sunday -- so they're reluctant to admit the obvious: that allegiance to religion above all can be dangerous and that secularism is, all things considered, prefarable to theocracy.
So you tell them that Saddam (horrible as he was) wasn't in league with the Islamists because he was a secular dictator, and they can't process it. That Saddam was secular somehow makes him worse; at least he was a more tempting target than the theocrats, because to admit that our enemy is theocracy would mean that they'd have to admit it would be a bad thing if America were a non-secular nation with a non-secular government.
And that's part of what's going on in their inability to face what's going on in Iraq: the obvious truth -- that Iraqis will not pledge allegiance to the "unity" government over their own religious and tribal identities -- cannot be grasped by a party that is built on theocracy (Christian nation!) and tribalism (get those liberals!) |
|
Which platform would win the election?
1. An Excellent Believable Strategy to continue the War On Terror including continued support of the new Iraq government and promises to escalate the conflict with Iran and North Korea but coupled with a Weak Immigration Control policy.
or
2. An anti war withdraw the troops from Iraq immediately and assume diplomatic discussions with all our enemies position coupled with a Strong Immigration Control Policy.
Just curious, kind of an independent poll.
|
|
|
|
DrSavage writes: Wednesday, January, 10, 2007 10:06 PM "Remaining resolute"
The US must get for lack of better term get "medieval" in our strategy in Iraq.
_______________________________________________
While sympathetic with this philosophy on the one hand, I'm not so sure . . . .
Current levels of opposition to the war are less than required to bring adequate political pressure to force a stop of US involvement. Medieval strategies with MSM focus on atrocities, (death of civilians etc.) would provide a lot of political capital to anti war groups.
When Medieval strategies are employed the war must be won quickly to avoid significant growth in anti war sentiment. For example, use of US Gunships in Somalia to kill Al Qeda last week were Medieval and it appears the new Somalia government, Ethiopia, Uganda, and perhaps other African Union players will now maintain security Hopefully this is a quick win for the US who will not be visibly involved in grinding security conflicts should they occurr.
I don't see a medievel strategy that could end the war in two to three years, which means the war strategy needs to survive the 2008 presidential election.
Is there really a way to win this war before the election? I don't think so.
|
|
http://tinyurl.com/9gx78
"What the public, the Democrats running Congress, some Republicans and the bipartisan Iraq Study Group have been calling for is an actual change in strategy.
"They don't want American soldiers held hostage to sectarian violence and the Iraqis' inability to form themselves into a peaceful, Western-style democracy. They want the troops to start coming home. Their preferred strategy is to make it clear to the Iraqis that they'll soon be on their own -- and that they have to solve their problems themselves.
"For the White House to call Bush's speech tonight a change in strategy is understandable spin. For journalists, however, there's no excuse."
If Bush doesn't like the idea of timetables and telling the Iraqis we're going to leave if they don't shape up, he should come up with an alternative. He has not. He has committed himself to re-hashing strategies that have already failed. Because Bush would rather kill more Americans than admit that the hated dirty hippies are right about the biggest issue of our time. |
|
The only interesting part of Bush's failure speech (in which he commits to continuing failed strategies) is the nonsense about how we've failed because the rules of engagement were too wimpy.
This is a standard authoritarian myth about Vietnam, that our troops were forced by The Liberals to fight with "one hand tied behind their backs" and that's why we lost. It bears no resemblance to reality, but that's never bothered Bush.
So he's committed himself to less stringent rules of engagement -- which is to say, we should be less picky about killing Iraqis. How we're supposed to bring stability and security to a country that hates us by killing *more of them* is unclear. But again, this was never supposed to make sense. As with Vietnam, the point is to find some way to blame the people who had the temerity to be right about the whole thing. And at least Vietnam was a war originally launched by liberals. Iraq is a conservative Republican war, one where liberals have been consistently right and where liberals have proven that they are now more to be trusted on national security. This drives the righties crazy, so they're reaching back into their bag of Vietnam myths to somehow prove that this is all the fault of those liberal ROEs.
As for Hugh's cultish worship of Bush, I think most people know by now that our "enemies" would like nothing better than for Bush to be President indefinitely. Ever since he overthrew the enemy of the Islamists, Saddam the Secular, he's done exactly what our enemies wanted. And now he's planning to get "tough" on Iran by going after just about the only vaguely anti-Iranian Shiite in Iraq (Sadr) and propping up an Iranian puppet (Maliki). Bush is Iran's best friend. |
|
|
I liked the speech and i will continue to support the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think the Democrats made a mistake by attacking the speech before he ever gave it and I also think it will be interesting to see how some of the socalled Blue Dogs will vote. I know this district voted in a Democratic who stated emphatically that he would not support cut and run. We shall see. |
|
Terrorists won't win in Iraq.
Tells you someting...
Something big...
And while Terrorists, and Iran, were hoping for Democrats to win elections?
Tell us even more...
The first poster on this thread, also visited CQ, and looks as if they posted very quickly, which reminds us of the designed Liberal efforts to diminish Conservative support for this Administration.
I cannot tell you how many Liberals pretend to be Conservatives.
But then, why do Democrats have to lie?
They do it all the time...
The President is at a tough road, encountered by many courageous and righteous Leaders in the Past.
Liberals don't want us to deal with the idea, Iraq remains the central front to the GWOT.
We simply must persevere...
But the Liberals aren't interested in our success, they want Bush to fail for their own personal greed, regardless of the Future of the Free World. |
|
I'm 47. When I graduated from high school there was, of course, no draft but also there was no huge call for numbers to go into military service. There certainly was no campaign of the magnitude that we are facing now. I was actually offered a full Marine ROTC college ride, but decided 6 years as an ensign or 2nd Lt. and not getting out until I was 28 was not for me. Instead I chose a different, cheaper college and put myself through.
In any case, to get to my point...
Those who try to paint me (or anyone) into some corner because of the era we happened to become adults in are generally still waiting to become one. |
|
The President said in previous speechs that it was going to get tough. Well it is tough now and this is when Americans shine the brightest.
POTUS said that in the prism of History we will look back and Iraq will just be a footnote in the war on terror.
I know we have all been through this before but the whole of Iraq war had not produced the casulties of say Iwo Jima, Guadal Canal or Philipines.
I think we have to realize it is not the amount of troops in the "surge" but the change of strategy that should be emphasized here. 20,000 troops is just bring back to the 150,000 we already had last year. So people this is a matter of strategy not a surge. |
|
How old is Hugh?
And I mean this sincerely, and not in a chickenhawk way, but as a republican, I'm curious: Hugh has called for the young to serve if they want to (in adulthood) be recognized. I guess the same can be said for him... Where was Hugh during some of our more troubling times?
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You could post this particular half-thought any day of the week. Tonight we are considering our commander in chief's weighty decision on strategy and tactics in Iraq. Poor guy, you have ADHD really bad don't you (10 year army veteran)
|
|
I am not going to slam the President on his speech, it is what it is. Words alone won't do it. For all of Winston Churchill's oratory skills (which definitely rallied the British people)--the airforce still had to stay the German invasion. Had they failed--Churchill's words would have been meaningless.
We need to support victory, but Bush, his Administration, and the Department of Defense need to follow a strategy to get it done with the resources they have. The Marines and soliders on the ground are doing their jobs--now the President and his Administration need to do theirs. |
|
"And despite you avid HH fans, I am also one. But the non-stop-fear-give-it-one-for-the-Gipper-schtick is growing old. "
Hugh,
My son is currently in Baghdad. He is with the Army, 9th Eng, B Company, Task Force Blue Spader, FOB Camp Taji. I cannot express how much we appreciate your attitude. We are avid townhall radio listners. We support the war and our President.
My son carries a 16lb army saw on patrols and kicks down doors. He does this so we can sleep at peace. People like Ted Kennedy make us sick.
God Bless America.
|
|
I'm tired of Iraq and hearing about how vital it is to our country. Yes, I would love to see us win but when LA or Las Vegas or Phoenix goes up in smoke because our porous borders let in some Muslim terrorist with a suitcase bomb, then perhaps the rest of the country will wake up. I think it's too late for Mr. Bush.
I voted for Bush twice but am dismayed and continually dismayed by his blatant pandering to the ILLEGAL aliens in this country. My state, my county, my city, my neighborhood...we are burdened nearly beyond our capacity by the illegals. ALL streets and towns and cities and states under the banner of the United States deserve the attention of our government that, sorry to say, is so preoccupied with Iraq that it can't see the imminent danger on our southern border.
Great speech? Yep, heard those before. Doesn't seem to mean much any more. |
|
I thought that Senator Durbin's response was classic hypocrisy. He said that reducing America's support for Iraq would force Iraq to step up to the plate, not an unreasonable concept. I will leave it to people smarter than I to know what exactly is the right thing to do in Iraq.
However, would Senator Durbin say exactly the same thing about withdrawing support for those in this country who are on welfare? That they will never step up to the plate unless we withdraw support? I won't be holding my breath. |
|
Your email SUCKED!
If you need the enemy defined for you, you're in big trouble or asleep. |
|
And I mean this sincerely, and not in a chickenhawk way, but as a republican, I'm curious: Hugh has called for the young to serve if they want to (in adulthood) be recognized. I guess the same can be said for him... Where was Hugh during some of our more troubling times?
Yes, yes, he served under Justices, etc... But his clarion call to the young today makes me wonder where he was when the Armed Forces needed people to right the ship?
And despite you avid HH fans, I am also one. But the non-stop-fear-give-it-one-for-the-Gipper-schtick is growing old.
|
|
I have to agree with the previous writer. The US must get for lack of better term get "medieval" in our strategy in Iraq. Winning "hearts and minds" has it place in our strategy but first we need to grab the Iraqi by the lapels and get his attention and that is what I think is at the heart of POTUS speech.
I think those of us who supported the Presidents polcicy needs to stop doing a John Kerry flip flop and remain steadfast and resolute if we really want to win. |
|
Hugh - I must disagree. I sent this e-mail immediately after the speech:
Dear Mr. President,
I AM a supporter who has voted for you twice.
With all due respect, your speech SUCKED! No one cares any longer about process and mechanics. It is time to win!
You again failed to define the enemy, or to sufficiently emphasize the long-term goals for the U.S.. I believe it is terribly important that the U.S. succeed in Iraq, and in the wider war against Islamic radicals. I wish you well in your efforts, and pray for your success. But you did nothing tonight to help that cause.
With hope for the future,
|
|
|
|