Jan 08 2007

What To Do About Iraq?

Published by at 12:34 pm under All General Discussions,Iraq

Update: The fiasco has begun, and it is Dems against Dems as some Democrats see the danger of quitting Iraq without good cause and without trying to win first:

Some of the other leading Democrats in Congress aren’t ready to echo House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s suggestion that lawmakers might hold up funding for additional troops in Iraq.

But Pelosi’s second-in-command in the House Democratic leadership, Steny Hoyer, told Fox News he doesn’t ”want to anticipate” that possibility. And the Democrat who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Joe Biden, says Congress doesn’t have the power to second-guess Bush’s military strategy — because lawmakers had voted to authorize him to wage war. Biden appeared on NBC’s ”Meet the Press.”

When asked about Pelosi’s remarks, a White House spokesman said Bush welcomes any ideas on Iraq that ”lead to success.”

Like shooting dead fish in the bottom of an empty barrel. Dems need to explain why they cannot find a winning solution. That should be fun to watch. And Biden, for once, is showing what it means to think things out. The Dems authorized Iraq in greater numbers than they did the first Gulf War. They cannot go back on that now. And Pelosi is pulling a Clinton – by not supporting our troops. People may recall that the entire reason the Black Hawk incident happened in Mogadishu was because Clinton’s Sec Def refused to authorize sufficient support for the mission. They tried to do the mission without heavy armor on the ground – and people died brutally because of that decision. And the decision cost the new Sec Def his job. Pelosi is making a bush league mistake. Clearly she did not mastermind the win of Congress as much as the Reps gave it away from their bad decisions. Right now there is not a huge resevoir of good will towards DC pols. So if the mistakes keep coming at this pace 2008 will not even be close.

– end update

In a word: “win”. The Democrats and the left are truly misguided. Dangerously misguided. Today Michael Barone (ever the gentleman) applauds the Democrats’ sincerity in calling for America’s defeat. Sincerity doesn’t equate to “correct” or “wise”. Most people are absolutely sure of themselves when they make mistakes. Why else would they make them?

Iraq is very winnable, and is actually being won. We have established the Democratic government through high turn out elections. And the ugly process of consensus (vs armed progroms) is working its way as the Islamo Fascists do what they can to tear the country apart. Personally I think, if Iraq is still together after all of the bloodshed and the election of a defeatist party in the US, the democratic country of Iraq will no doubt succeed. Many do not share this view – but that is also typical.

Too many people live in the “now” and become obsessed with their views having to be 100% right. I tend to the long view and I know nothing will transpire as I think it will – never has and never will. I can navigate and prepare and plan for a lot. But in the end fate rules and rarely exposes what is to come. Few understood the power of the world wide web (www) when it first appeared around 1990-91. Few ever thought the iron curtain would fall. Few ever thought 9-11 would happen. The fact people do not see something coming is not a good indicator it is not there.

The Democrats do not grasp the danger of giving Iraq to Al Qaeda. In their insane world of upside down obsession, it is now OK to give Iraq’s weapons technology, natural resources and highly educated population over to Al Qaeda – because Al Qaeda was never in Iraq when Saddam was in power. Try and wrap that kind of thought process in logic and you will hurt yourself. Al Qaeda was not aligned with Iraq, so we should never have gone into Iraq, and so we should now give the country to Al Qaeda – which is the reason we went into Iraq: to keep Al Qaeda out of Iraq. That is painful just to type.

But that is Democrat ‘logic’! I really did not expect them to push for something in the majority that they were afraid to push openly all those years in the minority. The Democrats were afraid to tell the public they wanted to surrender Iraq to Al Qaeda during the election because they would, rightfully, be seen as pulling the rug out form all our heroic men and women in the military. They would be seen as throwing all the lives lost in the conflict into the trash can of political expediency. If the Dems cannot stand up for the Iraqis who are striving to be free and democratic, they will not stand up for anyone.

So why is it the Dems are emboldened now? Do they think the title ‘majority’ (as razor thin as it is) is some kind of special cloaking device that will fool the masses? Does Speaker Pelosi somehow think her historic position has bequeathed her with omnipotence and protection from ridicule? That seems to be the case. That which they dared not speak publically for years they now say openly because they think their new roles will protect them. Sort of pathetic really.

So let’s recap the Democrat surrender plan. Since Saddam was not in league with Al Qaeda (who are clearly trying to find a way to repeat 9-11) we should not have freed the Iraqi people and developed the first Muslim Arab democratic state. The logic here is also astounding. The only reason we would help establish democracy in Iraq is if Saddam had allied with Al Qaeda – otherwise no need. That is strange logic right there. And because Saddam was not aligned with Al Qaeda, we should surrender Iraq to Al Qaeda now and betray all those Iraqis fighting to be our ally. It truly is a wonder, that kind of thinking. A wonder this country will survive the next two years of Democrat ‘thinking’. Of course this all begs the question: if we surrender Iraq to Al Qaeda, will the Dems finally feel justified in having the US in Iraq and supporting the fledgling democracy? Will we then go back in to protect Iraq from Al Qaeda as was the original concern?

And we know more is coming from the Democrats (heaven help us). To protect us from terrorists Dems plan to stop listening in on terrorists as they make their plans, because we may accidentally listen in on an innocent American talking innocently to Bin Laden. And they will protect us by supplying enemy combatants with lawyers and trials, so we can never interrogate them on what bloody plots are in the works. And the Patriot Act will be repealed, so that terrorism is once again less of a threat than drug and crime lords.

Sadly, this upside down logic is all consuming for the Dems, since its genesis is anything Bush is for the Dems are against. Bush is for protecting this country from attack – he has said so many times. Therefore, the Dems are against his efforts. Which brings us back to what America will think of all this. If the Dem’s nifty logic pretzels don’t worry them, the fact the Dems are fighting our President and his efforts to protect us will surely be noticed. It seems the Dems are pushing to do more for Al Qaeda than for America these days. And they have sincerely come to the conclusion this is best for America. Winning in Iraq is best for America and anything else is a disaster.

104 responses so far

104 Responses to “What To Do About Iraq?”

  1. For Enforcement says:

    Ok thanks, I realize I just wasn’t patient enough.

  2. mikeyfil says:

    For Enforcement’s comments really prove the point that right wing nuts are not interested in facts, only in their precariously maintained delusions about the world. In an attempt to crack the hard shell of your ignorance, let me state that I HAVE served-in the first Gulf War–but that FACTdoesn’t fit with your prejudices about liberals, does it? You prefer to keep your mind darkened by your prejudices and assumptions.
    And Bush “volunteered” to fly a fighter jet over Vietnam? You are hopelessly ignorant. Bush wanted to get out of going to Vietnam (because he is a coward)–even though there was a long list to get into the National Guard–whose members were basically guaranteed to never face combat-unlike our present day N Guards who are sent over and over again to Iraq, so that the drunken Bush twins can continue to party on–his daddy’s connections got Bush Jr. a place the NG “Chanpagne Unit” pilot training program–over $1 million was spent (wasted) on Bush’ training–he failed to show up for a physical at least once maybe twice, no doubt because he knew he couldn’t pass it due to cocaine use–then he basically went AWOL, going to work on some guy’s campaign in North Carolina or thereabouts–he quit that too in the middle–Bush was asked to report to an NG base in Massachussetts to finish out his “service” but he never did–hey, when your dad’s the prez, you don’t get called on your actions and failures, which is the story of Bush’s life– something the US is finally waking up to–Bush has never stated for the record that he finished his stint, his records have been “lost”, then recovered, then lost again, portions have been deleted–whatever the issues with the documents CBS tried to use, that doesn’t change the FACT that the records have never been clearly presented–but I’m sure you’re much more comfortable thinking that the CBS debacle means Bush was some kind of “hero”–again, reality is just too hard for you loonies to deal with. Wake up and join the majority of the rest of this country, who are sick of seeing soldiers dying because some loser won’t admit that he’s been wrong wrong wrong.

  3. Barbara says:


    Bush was asked to report to an NG base in Massachussetts to finish out his “service” but he never did–hey, when your dad’s the prez, you don’t get called on your actions and failures,

    Do some research. Bush was in the TEXAS national guard not the Massachusetts national guard. Just shows you don’t have a clue about what you are talking about on any subject.

    In an attempt to crack the hard shell of your ignorance, let me state that I HAVE served-in the first Gulf War

    I doubt if you were a twinkle in your father’s eye at the time of the Gulf War.

  4. For Enforcement says:


    Served in what in 1st gulf war? Were you by any chance a civilian serving? in the national guard? For some reason you are skirting the issue.

    A person that relies only on Dan Rather’s forged documents for his information doesn’t have much to say. That Pres Bush volunteered to fly in vietnam is a well established fact, everywhere except in Dan’s Documents.

    You really are brilliant. Chip.