The title was a comment I received on a previous post and this person could not be any more wrong. Who according to our constitution is the Commander in Chief of the military and why do you think our founding fathers knew that a war run by a political committee was doomed to fail. Our founding fathers and other wise men after them did know that the people through their representatives needed to approve any war. They also knew once that approval was given the President needed to run things and not political parties. Congress approved the war, Congress approved the current military commander in Iraq, unanimously, and they approved the troop escalation his plan called for. But now suddenly when it has become politically expedient for them to do so some of these same people start calling for troop withdrawal plans, less than month after starting the new strategy they voted for they say it has failed. Then they choose to play political football with troop funding including increased compensation for the volunteer military personnel that are implementing the strategy congress approved. There is only disagreement with the President's strategy because Democrats and secular progressives see it as a political win to disagree. I applaud those in Congress who have asked for improvements, got those improvements and now want to provide our military commanders the time to enact new strategies.
We can only fail in Iraq by turning our backs on our military and all the freedom loving people of the world. The terrorist organizations that are arranging for beheadings' and road side bombings are the same terrorists that attacked the US, Spain, Britain, and other countries that love freedom. Anyone who thinks the people in Iraq causing trouble are not terrorist organizations needs to pay closer attention to the all the facts coming out of Iraq. If the people of Iraq were not interested in Freedom and getting the help they need then they would not have turned out for the elections in such large numbers under the threat of death from terrorist organizations.
Iraqi's genuinely want to be free and here is one example:
"He [top U.S. commander in Baghdad] said that in the Abu Ghraib area more than 1 500 fighters had volunteered to serve in the Iraqi security forces, with 300 new recruits showing up each day.[...] They also have to take an oath of allegiance to Iraq, Fil said."They want to fight with us. They are tired of Al-Qaeda and the influence of Al-Qaeda in their tribes and in their neighbourhoods, and they want them cleaned out," he said."
Here is the link to the full story Click Here
I have one last comment. Read as much testimony from Saddam's trial as you can find and then tell me we should not be there, he never had WMD's, and we should not stay.
4 comments:
Once again you're twisting my words... I have NEVER said that Saddam was a good guy or that he shouldn't have been removed from office. What I disagree with is the President's (and now your) continued linking of 9/11 with Iraq. Then when it's pointed out that they're not linked, he turns around and acts like he never said they were. Someplace I have a file that I put together of quotes from Mr. Bush, both in his writings to Congress asking for the war in the first place and then in speeches, where he puts the 9/11 attacks and Saddam in the same sentence. Then he turns right around and acts incredulous that anyone would have come to that conclusion. If he's going to react (and have the country react) to 9/11 and get the guy/people who did it, fine. If you want to attack Iraq and "remove" it's leader, that's a different topic and should be treated as such, openly and honestly.
oh and by the way, just where is Bin Laden these days... rotting in an American prison or hanging from the end of an American hangman's noose?
no, I didn't think so. So why shouldn't we believe that President Bush really cared more about attacking Iraq than taking care of the 9/11 attackers? Actions speak louder than words. When he gave his speech on 9/12 or whenever it was, about going after the attackers, I was all for it. We all were. But then he lead us off down this path of attacking Iraq instead. But hey, you just don't see how we could feel lied to or deceived at all.
But back on topic for this post. Tying disagreement with policy together with care (or lack thereof) for troops is what lead to soldiers coming back to America and being insulted and spit on back in the 60's and 70's. I see plenty of people - myself included - who disagree with the President's course of action but who at every opportunity thank their servicemen and women for doing their best job.
I'm not sure how anyone wanting to have American soldiers NOT being shot at can be accused of not supporting them - that's just the stupidest thing anyone's ever said. Gee, should I support the troops MORE by pointing MORE guns at them? I'm not advocating bringing every American home, building 100' tall walls and having us all cower in a hole hoping the rest of the world goes away, but c'mon if you don't want your foot to hurt, stop putting it out where people will step on it.
I "support the troops" completely - I want every single American serviceman and woman to have the very best equipment, training and leadership that they can use. I want them all to come home at the end of their tour of duty alive and with all their God-given parts & abilities.
I see that as a completely separate topic from agreeing with the President's policies, and if you don't then we'll just have to leave it at that. You believe one thing, I believe another, and I'll not bother you with it again.
Why is it we continue to capture Al Queda leaders in Iraq? Why is it Al Queda continues to take responsibility for the attacks in Iraq? The difference between what you want and what I want is that I want our soldiers to be allowed to do their job, which according to the Brookings Institutes latest research is giong well.
""Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration's miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily "victory" but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with," wrote O'Hanlon and Pollack.
The researchers noted that morale amongst U.S. troops in Iraq was high and that they believed in Gen. Petraeus' plans."
War is not a picnic from which we expect or plan on everyone coming home safe. War is hell and once committed to must be seen through to the end or else you allow evil to prevail. I will go with our troops assesment any time over the assesment of liberals. Comparing any politicians words from one day to the next is a useless endeavor. I only say we are doing the right thing for freedom and ourselves in Iraq. If we are doing the wrong thing then show me what is wrong, but only after reading as much of Saddam's trial trascripts as you have read Bush's speeches.
"The difference between what you want and what I want is that I want our soldiers to be allowed to do their job"
I'd love to know where you came up with that.
I may not agree that it's the right job to be doing, but I've never said that the soldiers in the field shouldn't be given every bit of support to do the job their tasked to do. That's only a given when YOU tie "support for the President's policy" together with "support for the troops." I maintain that those are two separate topics.
If the state legislature passes a law that says you can't carry groceries in the front seat of your car, it's the police officer's job to write you a ticket. You may not like that, but it's their job and they should do a good job doing it. At The Same Time you can work to have the law changed or repealed - BUT that has NOTHING to do with the officers doing their job.
I include the military commanders in my statement and this is where I believe the problem lies with liberals and their calls for pull out strategies, and going on TV and declaring the surge is not working. These people are fighting a policy that is working and is in the countries best interest. Trying to force a schedule for exiting Iraq is providing aid and comfort to the enemy. What we should continue to do is ask our military leaders what they need to accomplish the goals and when we have accomplished what is neccessary we can schedule a return trip.
Post a Comment