Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Friday, October 27, 2006
Kathleen Parker :: Townhall.com Columnist
Dying to win
by Kathleen Parker
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Are we winning yet?

As the body count mounts in Iraq, and midterm elections loom, that's the question of the moment.

Unfortunately, as Americans have come to expect, the answer depends on what the definition of "winning" is.

President Bush tried to clarify that definition Wednesday at a morning news conference -- and later in the day meeting with a small group of journalists in the Oval Office.

This is a little tricky, so pay attention.

First, "winning" is closely tied to "staying the course," another term seeking definition the past few days. As of this writing, "staying the course" means "winning," which means "not losing," but you knew that.

And what does "not losing" mean? According to Bush, it means not leaving. Which no one wants to hear, but there it is.

Leaving Iraq -- or "cutting and running," as the sound bite goes -- would be tantamount to surrender, Bush implied.

"The only defeat is leaving," he also said.

And finally, "If we leave, they will follow us here."

Aha, that's more like it.

Americans pilloried by platitudes and bludgeoned by body counts could use a little if/then perspective. "If we leave, they will follow" is pretty clear-cut.

But what happens if we stay? More Americans will die, surely. More sectarian violence will occur. The end, it seems, is nowhere in sight, but that doesn't mean we're losing.

I told you it was tricky.

The new plan is for the U.S. and Iraqi governments to create mutually agreeable benchmarks -- but no timetables. Meanwhile, Bush is urging Americans to see the big picture.

Part of the problem, he says, is that our enemy gets to define victory. Because Bush has made a conscious decision not to announce the enemy's body count, Americans hear only that 3,000 U.S. military personnel have died, or that 60,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed.

It's easy to infer from such news that we are losing. Big time. And as Bush put it, nobody wants to hear that we opened four more schools this week.

Although he was candid about his frustrations, Bush's mood in the Oval Office could be described as conditionally optimistic. He asked that we not characterize him as "trying to always put lipstick on the pig." He's realistic about the obstacles and the stakes.

At times the president seemed restless. One got the feeling he wanted to jump up on a chair with a bullhorn and shout: "What is wrong with you people?!"

In a quieter voice, he said: "I am in disbelief that people don't take these people (extremists) seriously." And, "Much of the thinking and decision-making that I do now is based upon my belief that we're in this grand ideological struggle. ... We need to be on the offense all the time."

That our continued liberty ultimately depends on liberty elsewhere seems an inarguable, if inconvenient, truth. The extremists who seek to subsume or destroy the West are relentless, patient and brutal.

If we leave Iraq too soon, they, indeed, will feel emboldened and see America as weak-willed. Our position may not be hopeless, but nor is it promising.

Whatever Bush's big picture perspective may suggest to him, discouraged Americans -- including most in the Democratic Party -- insist that Iraq was an unnecessary war of choice. There were, after all, no weapons of mass destruction.

Bush finally acknowledges the absence of WMD as "not encouraging," but insists that he made the right decision to remove Saddam Hussein. (It is worth recalling that even the possibility of Saddam's having WMD was unacceptable at the time.)

He also insists that Iraq is a central part of the war on terror, and that what happens there will affect what happens elsewhere, including Iran and Syria.

Bush talked of his efforts to build an alliance of reasonable people to clash with the radicals, though not necessarily militarily. He said he hopes to convince Syria to join the U.S. in the struggle, adding that military action should be the last option.

"I want people whose loved ones will be in harm's way ... to know that we tried everything else first."

At this point, the only real question, said Bush, is whether we can help the Iraqi government succeed. "Not only can we help them, we must help them," he said.

Which means not leaving. Which means not losing. Which means winning, maybe, as currently defined.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Kathleen Parker is a syndicated columnist with the Washington Post Writers Group.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Kathleen Parker's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Wilco writes:
"We need to revive Patton somehow.... get the stem cell science people on that...ASAP!"

I agree. Where is a Patton when you need one?

In my imagination, I can see a stem cell clone of Patton sitting there on the shelf and the stem cell people not allowing him to be cloned because "oh, my God, he loves war too much" and he might "kill people". Never mind the embryo they are killing.

What I really find so sad is all the people who decry our soldiers being killed and want to bring them home to safety. Well, who doesn't want that?
But, our soldiers are the ones who will fight this and somewhere in the world they will be killed. That is the unfortunate reality, whether it is in Iraq, Africa, Sudan, you name the place, perhaps our country. I don't see any escape from this war.
We either fight it or surrender to the beheadings.

If I could go myself I'd fight. I do not want to wear a burka.

Thoughtful post Peppermint
Yet, fundamentally, all involvement in the Middle East is about Oil. Its an ugly truth to the matter, we deal with the Saudi's just like China deals with Iran. Its nothing secret. Thats what was rather humorous about Moore's film, he tried to tar Bush as being 'connected to the Saudis' (GASP!). Well duh, every president since FDR has been close to the Saudis.

Of course, the people who say this is 'blood for oil' are wrong. They have this view of war that is so antiquated, like they imagine our soldiers will return to have a Roman parade throwing gallons of oil to the cheering masses. If we wanted oil we would strike a deal with Saddam.

Im with you though, the discourse in this country has gotten so low its unbelieveable. Its like pick your poison, republican incompetence or democratic cowardice. You have people saying Iraq was a dandy gumdrops and rainbows place before we came, and those who say that since Saddam paid money to Palestinian suicide bombers families (something the Saudi royal family does more of) he needed to be immediately stopped.

We need to revive Patton somehow.... get the stem cell science people on that...ASAP!

On "Dying to Win"
For all those who ever said there was no reason to fight in Iraq because there weren't any terrorists there, I found a statement by Rush Limbaugh to be one of the most rational. He said, and I paraphrase,"are we to believe from the libs that there were terrorists in every country "except Iraq".

Also, there have been many top terrorists killed in Iraq which seems to escape the MSM. These "victories" get little attention.

I wonder what the democrats will say when the body bags of the dead are not our soldiers in Iraq or other "foreign places", but are thousands of body bags of Americans on our own soil.

Personally I am sick to death and weary of all the politically fighting while the terrorists watch with glee. After all, they are media masters. They are watching us as a nation fight viciously against one another while they (the terrorists) are plotting to come get us as soon as they believe we are successfully divided enough as a nation.

For those that think it is fear mongering, reality comes hard in heavy doses. But, this is life and it happens in all areas. People do not want to believe what is going on under their own noses until a crisis hits. I thought that happened on 9/11, but apparently we fools here have to have an even bigger attack before everybody gets together on this Islamic war.

When I read posts that Bush started a war for oil or any other crazy purpose, this rationale escapes me.

I see no evidence of this. It doesn't even make sense that anyone, including Bush, would start a war for no reason to take all the bashing, criticism, and downright hatefulness from I guess half of the country.

Now I don't agree with our borders being open either, but I do agree with going on the offensive instead of sitting here waiting for them to come get us. My wish is that we would go after them harder and put the political correctness down the garbage disposal.

Davidmac

.....don't forget that COLOSSUS has it's limitations...it can only use facts and logic to solve problems...it cannot implement them...

......nor can it make moral judgements or calculate emotional reactions...it cannot "feel pain" like boy Clinton...

.....however I think it would recognize that Clinton would look favorably on pardoning Saddam...since he was pretty big on pardons himself...Mark Rich and other assorted other criminal types...also Jimmy Carter who pardoned all the girlie boys who ran away to Canada and John Kerry in the bargain...

.....COLOSSUS would probably compute that both Clinton and Carter would make excellent diplomatic envoys to Saddam.....BBdoc

Saddam's WMD's were NOT found:
DeMolay, I read the article from Faux News. Did you???

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html

"The Iraqi Survey Group confirmed today that a 155-millimeter artillery round containing sarin nerve agent had been found," Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt (search), the chief military spokesman in Iraq, told reporters in Baghdad. "The round had been rigged as an IED (improvised explosive device) which was discovered by a U.S. force convoy."

Key phrases: "...confirmed today that A 155-millimeter artillery round...." and "The round had been rigged as an IED (improvised explosive device)..."

In other words, a SINGLE round of jury-rigged artillery was found. This hardly constitutes a cache equal to the supposed amount Saddam had hidden or destroyed.

The article goes on to say, "...the mustard gas shell may have been one of 550 projectiles for which former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein failed to account..."

And further evidence that this was a one-off rigging by ignorant insurgents was that:
"...The round was an old "binary-type" shell in which two chemicals held in separate sections are mixed after firing to produce sarin, Kimmitt said.

He said he believed that insurgents who rigged the artillery shell as a bomb didn't know it contained the nerve agent, and that the dispersal of the nerve agent from such a rigged device was very limited.

The shell had no markings. It appears the binary sarin agents didn't mix, which is why there weren't serious injuries from the initial explosion, a U.S. official told Fox News."

Guess you got so excited contemplating your own fantasy world that your forgot to actually READ the article?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you just forgot key elements of the article that argue against your interpretations. It IS over 1 1/2 years old, after all.

Homer-
I'll say you just hit a homer with your post-
Awesome, you're the MAN!

COLOSSUS. . .
that's not a bad idea (for a mere computer).

We could appoint Bill (Slick Willie) Clinton as the first ambassador.

COLOSSUS, how would the Shia react to that? Would Clinton feel their pain?

We are in trouble.
The whole "if we don't retreat we don't lose" argument is silly.

We are losing where it matters most: public opinion. The American people are never going to support a president who cannot secure the borders of Iraq or secure the borders of the United States. They are not going to support an indefinate occupation, because thats not what they were told.

Certainly, Pelosi couldn't do the job either, but Im not advocating that. Im saying we need leadership and we are not seeing it anywhere, which is really depressing.

It isn't about military defeat either. We are not going to be defeated militarily, not in a thousand years. But should we sit in the green zone for eternity, doing scattered patrols in the middle of a failed state? Support the troops, I guess.

The Wilsonian-"Conservatives" who believe that our boys can turn Iraq into a western-style democracy are as delusional as those who believe a comb can turn Carrot Top into a handsome man.

Also, the idea that Iraq is distracting terrorists has been disproven by Michael Scheuer, a ph.D-rank analyst who led the CIA's Osama Bin Laden team while Clinton was fooling around with interns and people like Mrs. Parker were busy whining about it. You can say I trust his judgement.

They are waiting to attack us again, and they will do so at will until we secure the borders and turn America into a police state, like it needs to be.

Derek Leaberry
"It has been revealed..."

By who? Is this a new gospel or something????

"....that Kathleen Parker met the president recently along with other obsequious court reporters.."

How do you KNOW they were "obsequious"?

"....in what must have been partly a mutual admiration meeting and a media programming session."

How do you KNOW it "MUST have been" ANYthing?


"Miss Parker has been given her marching orders by the president, who is always right about everything."

As a Catholic, I thought infallibility was confined to the Pope... and then only on certain matters... but it seems that President Bush is also infallible. Thanks for telling me. I'll pass that on to my students.

"But I wonder if dear Kathleen had the guts to tell the president that his base wants the immigration laws to be enforced. Or that the base doesn't support demographic revolution. Probably not."

I'm sure Miz Parker could do well without your condesending "dear" stuff. As for what she would or would not "tell" the President, I'm quite sure he is well aware of what his base thinks.

Your judgement again, Sir, has to be called into question. Whether she would "tell" or not tell isnt a matter of "guts." But a matter of good manners. I dont doubt that you could learn quite a lot from Miz Parker at least in that. Your "probably not" is nothing but the rudeness of a spoilt child.

"Kathleen Parker, along with Fred Barnes, Tony Blankley, Don Lambro and Sean Hannity, have no credibility. They do not deserve the respect of serious conservatives just as the president does not."

Goodness. NO credibility???? Not even the tiniest fragment??? That is a harsh judgement indeed. I wonder if that is also "infallible"?

Oh. One other thing. What on EARTH is a "serious" conservative? One who never.... laughs????????

Bountyhunter, Mike, etc...
"9/11 was essentially a result of flawed immigration policies which are still in place."

- Bountyhunter

Yeah, that's it. No way these guys would 'follow us home.' Just a misunderstanding of what they were doing 9/11/01. They were just trying to STAY in the country. The hard way. Seems they 'miscalculated' and spread themselves a little thin. Visa violations ARE a stone-cold b*tch after all...


"Interventionist foreign policy does not work and Iraq is the perfect example!" - Mike

See United States, Japan, Germany, Italy, France, Taiwan, Okinawa, the Phillipines, Poland, S. Korea, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Kuwait - and those are just the relatively recent quickies off the top of my head. Yep. Never works. For inverse examples of nonintervention: See Rwanda, Sudan, Darfur, Cambodia, N. Korea, prewar Germany, China, turn of the century S. and central America, etc.

In fact, just start reading pre-1960's history books (pre-eisegesis standards) and don't stop.
Not as easy as just having an opinion, but just having an opinion seems to leave you lacking in oh - substance.


"When it becomes apparent to every sentient being in this country that we aren't 'winning' over there it will reflect badly on Republicans and take away their prize issue: National Security." - Gregdn

Uh Greg, over there - we're flat out kicking a$$. We go where we want. We do what we want. They can't fight, only murder and can only impose their will if we eventually allow them too. Ask anyone who's OVER THERE doing the work! (very easy to get in touch with active vets.) Sound like 'losing?' It's over HERE that we have issues. Too many flabby self-indulgent, uninformed, non-critical (logically) and ultimately 'cheap' opinions here. And thank you very much for that btw - from ALL of THEM - OVER THERE. They will tell you to your face they are dismayed by the MSM's characterization of their efforts. Anywho - thank YOU. Your non-supporting 'support' of the troops is completely unappreciated. and far too typical of the modern american male. thankfully, none of your type actually have to be depended upon to man a foxhole. we've got a good mix of grown men and even some kids that get it and are volunteering to go that are a lot more mature, patient, wise and visionary than you.

Left-Angle - I used to think you were just misguided or uninformed or what not. Have thought about that a lot and decided that doesn't cover 'the fact' of your posting history. In short, there are no words to describe how vile your lying treacherous mouth is - every word purposely, intentionally false. Trust me jack, it has not even begun to pay you back. But it will. Reality has just that kind of inescapable reflexive quality. You enjoy that when it happens sport. I know I will.

When KP intuited a hidden desire to shout "what's wrong with you people" - the 'you people' referred to were in fact 'YOU' people. Congrats, and thanks. Your online clownshow couldn't have illustrated it any clearer.









If we don't beat em in Iraq we'll have
to fight them here in America. Libs you can count on it. If we elect a bunch of DIM-OLD-RATS and the get the majority back funding in Iraq will end. Then our soldiers, sailors, and airmen who died over there will have sacrificed for what? Nothing!!! If the libs get there way that is what will happen! AND lets not forget, if we come home before we win, we have lost again and that little fact will not be lost on the Jihadists!
They will be over here blowing up trains, buildings, planes, chemical plants, and any other target that hurts our system.
Even hear the phrase give them an inch...? Well if we give them a millimeter, they will be giving it back to us on American Soil. So what the Democrats are offering us November 7... is the same they offered us in 1998 NOTHING!!!

Mountain Rose
I second that!

Korea & Vietnam?!?
Did I really just read a comparison of Iraq to Korea & Vietnam here? I thought you lefties were uber-intellectuals, better educated, more knowledgeable, etc. than the rest of us? Stop pulling your pants down. (your brains are showing) There is ZERO - get it - ZERO comparison to the conflict in the 50's on the Korean peninsula. Eventually, there might be a comparison to Vietnam in that should we 'lose' it'll be another one where we won every battle on the ground but lost the war. The lesson I get from this is that we might want to concentrate on defeating the 5th column at home before engaging abroad. The enemy on the battlefield has proven more than manageable.
YOU are the common enemy in these two conflicts, and your implicit support of terrorists and their tactics is killing my fellow Americans - brothers, sisters and neighbors all. I would trade all of your lives for one of theirs. Will be sitting here waiting patiently for the chance.

It gets a bit tiring
to hear the same drivel out of the same stupid mouths day after day. I am SO sick of hearing about "Bush lied, etc..". So what are the naysayers prepared to do? What do they propose, besides whining and crying everyday?
Illegal immigration is not a new problem! Terrorism is not a new problem, everything that is wrong in the world is not George Bush's fault, can't these stupid lefties see anything clearly?
Sorry,...
It is Friday, and I have about had my fill of political cr@p for the week...

Left Angle- Chewing Leather
You both have a myopic view of history to the present.
There are no winners in war,but'only one is given the power to dictate the others future.
I personally prefer to be the Dictator in the middle east,not the obverse.

This view you have of the war is very small,it also involves Iran/Syria and were not retreating only moving towards the battle with Islam!
So get used to it,we are in power and we will dictate,yes dictate the outcome of the war.
Yes I said Dictate'if that ofends some,
too Da*n bad!
I call a duck'a duck.

Pres. Bush's new lady friend?
It has been revealed that Kathleen Parker met the president recently along with other obsequious court reporters in what must have been partly a mutual admiration meeting and a media programming session. Miss Parker has been given her marching orders by the president, who is always right about everything.

But I wonder if dear Kathleen had the guts to tell the president that his base wants the immigration laws to be enforced. Or that the base doesn't support demographic revolution. Probably not.

Kathleen Parker, along with Fred Barnes, Tony Blankley, Don Lambro and Sean Hannity, have no credibility. They do not deserve the respect of serious conservatives just as the president does not.

COLOSSUS SPEAKS

.....Kathleen....

.....this situation in Iraq has everyone confused so I put the problem to my computer COLOSSUS and here is the print-out...

.....Hello! I am COLOSSUS...
.....problem...the stabilization of Iraq...suggested solution...return Saddam to power...
.....method...Saddam pleads guilty to his crimes and throws himself on the mercy of the court...the plea is accepted and Saddam is granted a full pardon with the following conditions:

.....1: Saddam is reinstated as the President of Iraq...
.....2: Saddam maintains his Army with imbedded American Military Command...
.....3: Saddam signs a long term lease for American bases to operate in Iraq and a treaty to provide an unlimited supply of oil in exchange for security and for Iraq becoming an American Protectorate...
.....4: Saddam agrees to assist the US in the war on terror and to sign a non-agression pact with Israel...end of print-out...

.....keep in mind Kathleen that COLOSSUS is totally apolitical...
......the Libs are into forgivness and redemption so they should go along...I mean what purpose would killig Saddam accomplish?...he already has experience running the country so why not let him do it as our ally?....

.....solutions by COLOSSUS

DeMolay:You wer'nt dreaming
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html

I remembered the same story a couple of years ago.
Which I refered to in a post to Cowboy recently,
The funny thing is the only link I found was,
FOX news,the MSM completely ignored it.
Good call,buddy.

Chewing Leather . . .
we "lost" in Korea and Vietnam because the politicians refused to allow the military to win those wars. Does ANYBODY remember that we completely DEFEATED North Korea in 1950? Does ANYBODY think we couldn't have beaten North Vietnam in 1965?

The MSM accentuates the bad and downplays the good our military people do. The MSM gives a skewed view of the Battle for Iraq in particular and the Islamofascist War in general. Just as they did in Vietnam and Korea.

History repeats.

Historical Ignorance
Our country got caught with it's pants down on
December 7, 1941. We paid a heavy price. Korea, same story...no win. Vietnam is also a shining example...no win. Now we have Iraq, and again we have forgotten our history. Yes, the twin towers and the pentagon was indeed a massive tragedy, but once again we were caught with our pants around our ankles and the body count continues to mount.
Just how are we supposed to police the world when we have lost control of our nation? There is some good news for Exxon/Mobile and Walmart shareholders though. Their stock just went up. Surely that must be pure luck because hindsight has gone completely blind. Perhaps we will learn some lessons from history by the continued multi-billion dollar funding of space exploration, congressional visitor's centers, border fences, and rebuilding our houses on sand. Quicksand that is. Mr. President, you are in a maze with no exit. Perhaps its time to consult Paris Hilton, Martha Stewart, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and Donald Trump. They have the resources to buy a exit.
Kathleen Parker continues to hit the nail squarely on the head. She has enough wisdom to stay out of politics, but I do have one nit to pick with her. Good men and women don't look away for lack of concern about the condition of our nation's pending disaster. We stare at our children and wonder what lessons we teach them today will be historically insignificant when they are adults.








There is No winning or losing in Iraq
Because Iraq has nothing to do with the War on Terror or the events of 9-11-01.

The premises Bush used to attack Iraq proved to be fictitious and his follow up rationale after that blunder for nationbuilding and "staying the course until victory is achieved" are weak and irrevelant. Sadaam Hussien was never a "major imminent threat" to the U.S. Bush and company simply sought to morph Osama Bin Laden into Sadaam Hussien.

Staying in Iraq is a waste of time, money and american military lives because absolutely nothing accomplished by The Bush administration in Iraq is going to stop another domestic terrorist attack on the U.S.

The "fight them over there so we wont have to fight them here" is ridiculously flawed because the FBI and CIA have testified that Al Queda cells are already in the U.S. as we speak.

DYING TO WIN
Once again, Ms Parker has written a good think piece. I remember the turbulent 1960's and the Vietnam war era, and the resignation of a United States President. Too, I remember a U.S. President saying on national television that he didn't have "sex with that woman!" I remember the Iran-Contra affair. I remember too many lies told by politicians, particularly U.S. Presidents affiliated with both political parties. Politicians haven't changed very much since...forever.

to Demolay
You did NOT hallucinate about that story. It did happen. I really believe that the public is not being told about some of the discoveries in Iraq. We just don't know the full story and so President Bush is taking the heat for it.

one more thing
Let's take a look at the Dem's argument about wmd.

(Disregard the fact that there were U.N. weapons inspectors in Iraq from about 1991 until they were expelled in 1998, so between the expulsion in 1998 and the invasion in 2003 there was a 5 year gap. That was all a hoax from the far right cabal which resulted in the most massive intelligence failure in history - we were all fooled into believing that they did exist.)

If you follow the dems arguments about wmd they get to this - A none too bright, ethically challenged President Bush was the tool of his neo-con staff and others. They all knew that the world's 2nd largest oil reserves are in Iraq and they wanted to get there first so they could control the situation. So together they cooked up the story of the wmd and sold it to a gullible public as their justification for invading Iraq.


In other words - to enrich himself and his neo-con buddies and God only knows how many others, President Bush put American fighting men and women in harm's way - for no reason other than to enrich himself and others.

One other thing - there were U.N. Weapons inspectors in Iraq for 7 years between 1991 and 1998. That means that President Bush's coming to office in 2001 and launching the invasion in 2003 was the culmination of a plot that had been hatched in 1991 - 12 years prior. And noone even suspected it.

Wow - Wait until Oliver Stone gets wind of this.

No WMDs?
Did I hallucinate reading a story last summer about our troops finding over 500 artillery shells loaded with mustard and nerve gas in Iraq? I guess I did, because EVERYBODY keeps chanting about not finding ANY WMDs there. I'll go back to sleep now....

wmd
whatever happened to them?

More to the point - did they ever exist?

The answer to that question, according to Bill Clinton, john "war hero" kerry, Ted Kennedy, John Edwards and numerous others of the demo stripe, is a resounding yes - disregard their disclaimers. (Do chemical weapons that wipe out a village of 5,000 Kurds qualify? Does the name Al Tuwaitha ring a bell?)

So what happened?

My opinion - Saddam knew that Bill Clinton, for all his bluff and bluster, didn't have the cojones to actually do anything about them, so he basically told clinton to have sex with himself and went about his merry way.

in 2000 George Bush was elected president and Saddam knew that Bush meant what he said. Since the invasion in 2003 there have been no large caches of wmd found.

So where are they?

My opinion

1)Saddam had plenty of advance warning and he sent a lot of them out of the country to Iran, Syria, Lebanon and Russia.
2)Some have been found but the discoveries are so horrendous that they are being kept from the public.
3)Some have not been found yet.

One more thing - don't forget that as of July 14, 2005 allied forces had discovered 271 mass graves containing the bodies of at least 20,000 people. Don't forget that according to the most conservative estimates by human rights organizations between 1980 and 2003 Saddam's regime killed at least 300,000 people.

My source for the above - Molly Ivins, Chicago Tribune Thursday July 14, 2005.

p.s. - Joe T. - good post. Worth reading twice.

woops
Please excuse the double post...don't know how it happened

What's Happening
I have come to the conclusion that it is nearly, if not altogether impossible for the common man to get an accurate picture of what is happening in Iraq. I hate spin, but spin is about all we get from both sides of the argument.

There is no question that many of those on the left would be glad to see our effort in Iraq fail if it would result in the emabarrasment and disempowerment of Bush, and by extension, the entire republican party.

There are elements in the right that will try to make every effort of the Bush administration look good for fear that any admission of a mistake will embolden the enemy (i.e. the democrats) as they seek to undermine the war effort.

As nearly as I can discern, one of the great problems on the domestic side of the equation is Bush's inability to charismatically communicate what is going on. Or, as I suspect, the problem is that he is trying to communicate "presidentially" as his handlers think he should. Bush is not that kind of person, so when he communicates that way, it appeaers artificial and that smells like deceit. I for one, prefer the real Bush, fumbled English and all. Despite his errors in polished English, when he speaks as the Texan he is, everyone - including our enelies - knows what he means. And the communication of meaning is what language is all about.

After 9-11, it was obvious to nearly everyone that, even though there were political boundaries dividing the various countries of the Middle East, there was a common thread in all of them: a rising faction of West-haters who were intent on overthrowing all that the West stood for. Among the West-haters was Hussein who had already shown a willingness to invade other countries. His ambitions were limited only to his power to carry them out.

Added to this was the reasonable asssumption that he possessed WMD. All the intelligence pointed that way, everyone believed he had them, and Hussein was acting like he had them. To have done nothing would have been a dereliction of duty on the part of those charged with protecting our country. If a policeman confronts a suspect, and that suspect has his hands in his pocket and it appears he is pointing a gun at the policeman, then the policeman has not only the right but the duty to shoot the suspect. If, after the supect is dead, it is discovered that he was merely pretending to have a gun, and was only pointing his finger at the policman, then he died for a stupid mistake - HIS mistake, not the policman's.

WMD was not the only reason to go into Iraq, but even if it had been the only reason, the fact that none were found there does not render the decision to invade a bad decision: it renders Husseins decision to deceive a stupid decision.

We won the war with Hussein, and now the more-diffcult job of helping build a reasonably stable and free society is before us. The left of this country is undermining that effort more assuredly than the insurgents. The enemy in Iraq is gaining moral support from the enemy here. Every blast at the president's policy emboldens the insurgents. They are tough and willing to endure years of suffering if they are convinced that, in the end, they will prevail. The enemies of the Bush administration in this country are telegraphing to the insurgents, "Your wait will not be long. We have nearly broken the will of the American people."

It is my opinion that we should give the Iraqi people a timetable, but not a timetable for our withdrawl, but a timetable for our taking over. If they do not take steps to halt the insurgeny and learn to live in a reasonable peace within the next year, then we are DOUBLING our military force, and we will be there for a generation, and they will be an American colony until we decide they have the maturity to run their own country.

It is time for the Iraqi nation to grow up and the leftist press in this country to shut up.

What's Happening
I have come to the conclusion that it is nearly, if not altogether impossible for the common man to get an accurate picture of what is happening in Iraq. I hate spin, but spin is about all we get from both sides of the argument.

There is no question that many of those on the left would be glad to see our effort in Iraq fail if it would result in the emabarrasment and disempowerment of Bush, and by extension, the entire republican party.

There are elements in the right that will try to make every effort of the Bush administration look good for fear that any admission of a mistake will embolden the enemy (i.e. the democrats) as they seek to undermine the war effort.

As nearly as I can discern, one of the great problems on the domestic side of the equation is Bush's inability to charismatically communicate what is going on. Or, as I suspect, the problem is that he is trying to communicate "presidentially" as his handlers think he should. Bush is not that kind of person, so when he communicates that way, it appeaers artificial and that smells like deceit. I for one, prefer the real Bush, fumbled English and all. Despite his errors in polished English, when he speaks as the Texan he is, everyone - including our enelies - knows what he means. And the communication of meaning is what language is all about.

After 9-11, it was obvious to nearly everyone that, even though there were political boundaries dividing the various countries of the Middle East, there was a common thread in all of them: a rising faction of West-haters who were intent on overthrowing all that the West stood for. Among the West-haters was Hussein who had already shown a willingness to invade other countries. His ambitions were limited only to his power to carry them out.

Added to this was the reasonable asssumption that he possessed WMD. All the intelligence pointed that way, everyone believed he had them, and Hussein was acting like he had them. To have done nothing would have been a dereliction of duty on the part of those charged with protecting our country. If a policeman confronts a suspect, and that suspect has his hands in his pocket and it appears he is pointing a gun at the policeman, then the policeman has not only the right but the duty to shoot the suspect. If, after the supect is dead, it is discovered that he was merely pretending to have a gun, and was only pointing his finger at the policman, then he died for a stupid mistake - HIS mistake, not the policman's.

WMD was not the only reason to go into Iraq, but even if it had been the only reason, the fact that none were found there does not render the decision to invade a bad decision: it renders Husseins decision to deceive a stupid decision.

We won the war with Hussein, and now the more-diffcult job of helping build a reasonably stable and free society is before us. The left of this country is undermining that effort more assuredly than the insurgents. The enemy in Iraq is gaining moral support from the enemy here. Every blast at the president's policy emboldens the insurgents. They are tough and willing to endure years of suffering if they are convinced that, in the end, they will prevail. The enemies of the Bush administration in this country are telegraphing to the insurgents, "Your wait will not be long. We have nearly broken the will of the American people."

It is my opinion that we should give the Iraqi people a timetable, but not a timetable for our withdrawl, but a timetable for our taking over. If they do not take steps to halt the insurgeny and learn to live in a reasonable peace within the next year, then we are DOUBLING our military force, and we will be there for a generation, and they will be an American colony until we decide they have the maturity to run their own country.

It is time for the Iraqi nation to grow up and the leftist press in this country to shut up.

The latest spin
From a purely political standpoint Bush is wrong to link Iraq to the war on terror. When it becomes apparent to every sentient being in this country that we aren't 'winning' over there it will reflect badly on Republicans and take away their prize issue: National Security.

Kathleen: In your own words
What is wrong with you people?!"
We are,at war'Geez! You are such a dolt!
Besides,why leave now,we will just be back.
We still have Syria and Iran to take out.
If we leave now,just the logistics of packing it all up only to return,would cost billions..
So'stay the course,and finish it.

You sound like my girlfriend,once a month when she get's unreasonable....

fine tuning the fear mongering
Bush's latest spin on Iraq is nothing more than fear mongering garbage. There is no logic behind his statements. Interventionist foreign policy does not work and Iraq is the perfect example!

Border
George Bush signed the legislation approving the 700 miles of fence (like that's going to do a lot of good) and the Mexican presidente immediately sent his disapproval, and threatened that it would not stop Mexicans from illegally crossing the border.
We've already seen how border patrolmen have been prosecuted for doing their job, and civilian volunteers chased out of an American University.
It seems the only people concerned enough about the security of the United States to want to do something to protect her are the Townhall readers.

Follow us back to here?
I really enjoy Ms. Parker's columns, but in this one she fails to see a crucial flaw in Jorge Bush's rhetoric. This is the part that if we leave Iraq the terrorists will follow us back home. This argument is laughable from a president who has totally failed in his Constitutional duty to protect our country from invasion. How many terrorist cells have made it across our essentially unguarded borders? Who knows? And I sure hope we do not find out the hard way once again. 9/11 was essentially a result of flawed immigration policies which are still in place. Eventually the Republican/Wall Street elite are going to have to come to grips with the fact that it is total lunacy to allow the unrestricted immigration of people from hostile cultures that hate us and wish to do us harm. This is far more important than the fact that some of them work for peanuts, and then make up more than the difference from a living wage through being on welfare. I certainly hope that it does not take the annihilation of the Manhattan financial district under the mushroom cloud of a smuggled tactical nuke to bring our lords and masters to their senses. Close the borders now, and deport those who have already illegally infiltrated our country.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.