Sep 15 2006

War? What War?

Published by at 8:03 am under All General Discussions,Bin Laden/GWOT

The Democrats have really screwed themselves this year, and we are only seeing the beginning of the damage they have done to themselves. A year or two of claiming Bush is a fear monger culminated in the foiling of a spectacular new 9-11 plot in the UK. This was followed by a laundry list of attacks that were stopped by our intelligence and national defense efforts, publicized to show that all is not as quiet as it seems. The left complains Bush lost the focus on the war on terror, but their solution is the impeachment of Rumsfeld and Bush. Talk about firing on your own forces during a time of war. They are planning to take out our leadership to win votes in the fall. The Dems have cheered efforts to tear down the Patriot Act and our ongoing efforts to monitor our enemies so we can detect and stop their plans. Cheered?! The only ones cheering with the lunatic left are the terrorists whose jobs will be much easier if we run from Iraq AND remove the legal remedies we put in place after 9-11. Talk about a suicide pack. The Dems want to not pin down Al Qaeda in Iraq, but let them loose to use that country to launch attacks here.

Investor’s Business Daily has a similar take on the Dems here, and with a very telling quote from Pelosi which belies the left’s true beliefs unfettered with PR make-up:

If you believe, as we do, that America is engaged in such a global war, and you think it should be prosecuted to the fullest, be afraid — very afraid. For Pelosi made clear she doesn’t think the war in Iraq is even part of the war on terror. It’s more like a distraction.

“The war in Iraq is the wrong war,” she said. “No matter how many times the president wants to say it, the war in Iraq is not the war on terror. The war in Afghanistan was.”

Note the past tense in “was”. The Democrats desparately want to ‘return to normal’, normal of course being naively ignorant of the pending terror coming our way. We spent the entire 1990’s not listening to Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. We spent the entire 1990’s under Democrat National Security policies pretending the smoke rising in NY City, from our embassies in Africa, from the USS Cole off the coast of Yemen was nothing. We spent the 1990’s listening to people rationalize away all the clear and present warning signs and pretend legal theory was at risk and not human life. My problem with the Dems and their fuax 4th Amendment worries, and those now in Congress who are afraid to challenge a ridiculous article in the Geneva Conventions, is they ony have thin, theoretical future threats being argued on the one side against real threats being enacted on the other side. Will some future enemy torture our soldiers because we turned the room temperature down and the Hot Chilli Peppers up? Or will the Al Qaead leaders recently captured in Iraq have knowledge of plans to kill our brave men and women in harms way? Those are the ”stakes’ here because some senators are too damn lazy or incompetant lawyers to CORRECT the offending Geneva Convention language. We are allowed to interpret that vague language because it is vague. But I digress

We need to listen to our enemies because they too need to rally their followers to a common cause. And right now they are rallying their efforts on Iraq. Al Qaeda and Bin Laden are declaring the central battle for the war is Iraq. Pelosi doesn’t want to listen or believe. All those on the left foolishly calling for our surrender and retreat are not listening – again. This is how we ended up with 9-11. We wanted to pretend it was all over and done with. Pelosi tipped her hand when she said the war was in Afghanistan. She clearly signalled it is time to retreat from there as well. We need to face it, when the left calls for the UN and NATO to come in they are callinf for the surrender troops to step in and prepare the exit strategies. To them surrender is the only option.

3 responses so far

3 Responses to “War? What War?”

  1. HaroldHutchison says:

    The provision is not ridiculous.

    It’s just extremely subjective, and presently open for differing interpretations. At this poitn, it’s time to say what is, and is not degarding, and also require proof that the actions were inappropriate (rather than forcing American personnel to prove their actions were necessary).

  2. Barbara says:


    The terrorists have already tortured two of our soldiers and cut off the head of one of them. And wasn’t there a burned body of another one? The idea of adhering to the Geneva Conventions if full of hot air. It is a prime example of politicians ponticating on matters just to hear themselves talk. I have oftened wondered if they realize what they are saying. We need term limits to get these people out of Washington and stop their making laws detrimental of our welfare.

  3. MerlinOS2 says:

    It is not just us, a similar debate of reason is being carried on in the UK

    To quote a recent post over at Eureferendum

    A nation at war has certain responsibilities – party differences, internal and external, should be put aside and all the attention should be focused on winning, with as little cost to our troops (and our allies) as possible. And whatever resources are required to win, should be devoted to the fight, even if it means making sacrifices elsewhere. Fighting a war is not a fashion statement or a policy option that should have to compete for funds with schools ‘n’ hospitals. It is a deadly, vicious affair and we can only accept one outcome. We need to devote the resources to make that outcome a certainty.

    So indeed, lest we forget, we are a nation at war. It is about time we behaved as if we were.