Representative John Murtha today said that the war is unwinnable - that there is nothing good that is coming of us being there. Among other things. He called for us to withdraw our troops from Iraq - basically, starting now:
"The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion...It is evident that continued military action in Iraq is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf region."
Really? Right - 'cause throwing the Iraqi people to the terrorist wolves is a MUCH better idea. Letting Al Qaeda dictate government policy - like they did in Afghanistan - is a wonderful plan. Worked great in Afghanistan...oh, wait, no. I seem to remember this planes-into-buildings, coupla thousand Americans killed thing.... But once we leave Iraq, things will be rosy and sunny there; the streets will be paved with gold, and the terrorists will join hands, sing Kumbayah, and everyone will be happy, right?
I have about reached my limit of anti-Bush, anti-war rhetoric in the Democratic party. The reality is that the terrorists are looking to people like this to bolster their efforts. They are citing the comments from people like this as evidence that the U.S. will turn tail and run, "just like they did in Vietnam." The reality is that people like this are some of the terrorists' best friends.
Knowledgeable people on both sides of the political aisle say that even if they don't agree with the decision to go to war, pulling troops out before Iraq is in a stable position, and can take care of things themselves, is absolutely ridiculous. How can anyone possibly believe that an immediate and total withdrawal of troops from Iraq is a good idea?
My problems with Murtha's statements today are many.
For starters - nothing good? When was the last time Iraqis voted in free elections? And no, a choice between "Saddam is great and we swear eternal loyalty to him" and "Death" is NOT a free election. Maybe in pacifist, anti-Bush, anything-but-actually-standing-up-for-ourselves Wussland, but not in the real world.
Nothing good? Kurdish people not having to worry about the next time Saddam is going to gas several thousand of them in a campaign to exterminate them is a bad thing?
Nothing good? Roads rebuilt, power stations and water treatment plants rebuilt, women with seats in the government, and self-determination are bad things?
Nothing good? The removal of a psychotic dictator who murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people, sanctioned rape and torture ad nauseum, who killed anyone he thought might eventually be thinking about maybe not liking him much, is a bad thing?
Nothing good? The capture or elimination - and yes, I mean the killing - of lowlife terrorists is a bad thing? I don't lose a single minute of sleep over the death of a terrorist. In fact, I actually - gasp - am glad when we kill a terrorist - 'cuz one less terrorist makes the world a better place.
When are these people going to wake up? Harry Reid is saying we should take the "training wheels" off the Iraqis. Of all the insulting, pompous, arrogant statements....he's a jackass. Just like Kerry. John Kerry doesn't want to play the "politics of smear and fear." Oh, no. He just wants to play the game of turn tail and run. Duck and cover. Roll over, pull the blankets over your head, and hope the terrorists forget we exist. There's a reason they've got a jackass as their mascott.
And it was only recently that the President started fighting back. It's about flippin' time. As for the rest of our "wonderful" politicians, I'm with this guy - Not.One.Freakin.Dime. Grow a spine and we'll talk. Then again, if you have to fling that dime somewhere, here's a guy who deserves it: Texas Congressman Sam Johnson, who said yesterday that "Pulling our troops out of Iraq now is unconscionable and irresponsible...We’ve got to support our troops to the hilt and see this mission through." Bravo - maybe there is hope after all.
Of course, this kind of talk from the Left is nothing new -- the libs have been trying this stuff almost from day one in Iraq. And now they want closer oversight of operations there. Great - liberal politicians in charge of a war. Worked real well in Vietnam - NOT.
And they steadfastly refuse to deal with the reality that Saddam Hussein, and his Iraq, were absolutely threats to this country. They were absolutely the enemy. Hell, even the libs said so - often. Whether or not he had the immediate ability to launch a nuke is not the point. He was - Iraq was - an enemy of this country. And I, for one, am not of the opinion that we should have waited until he had weapons that could reach this country to deal with him. If we had, of course, they'd now be blaming Bush for NOT going in. These are, after all, the same people that griped about not "finishing the job" when we listened to the morons and left Iraq fairly quickly the last time. The people that have perfected the arts of surrender speak, "political correctness," and descending to any low as long as it's anti-Bush.
Apparently, we have lost the ability to identify the enemy. They're guerillas, freedom fighters, insurgents now. How civilized. Goodness, we wouldn't want to call a terrorist a terrorist. We might offend the terrorists. We wouldn't want to call a bunch of people who behead innocent people the enemy - that might upset them. Well, boo flippin' hoo.
No, Saddam did not apparently have a direct role in the planning or execution of the attacks on this country on September 11, 2001. Then again, Bush didn't say he WAS directly connected to the attacks. He said Saddam had ties to Al Qaeda. And he did, though it's unclear as to who approached who, and the exact extent of those ties. And, of course, he also had a nifty little mural that glorified the events of that day. Doesn't that tell you where he was at?
He DID fund terrorism. He paid rewards to the families of suicide bombers.
What happened to the resounding cry of "YES" uttered by Americans when President Bush said, "We fight the terrorists and we fight all of those who give them aid. America has a message for the nations of the world: If you harbor terrorists, you are terrorists. If you train or arm a terrorist, you are a terrorist. If you feed a terrorist or fund a terrorist, you're a terrorist, and you will be held accountable by the United States and our friends." ?
Saddam funded terrorists. He gave them aid. Ergo, he was a terrorist. He's not in power anymore. And I say, job well done on that score.
By early 2004, mass graves - almost 300 of them - had been found, representing the loss of approximately four hundred thousand people. And nearly another 300,000, by some estimates, may have just "disappeared."
If these numbers prove accurate, they represent a crime against humanity surpassed only by the Rwandan genocide of 1994, Pol Pot's Cambodian killing fields in the 1970s, and the Nazi Holocaust of World War II. (USAID)
He did have chemical weapons. He used them on the Kurds. He did work to develop nuclear and chemical programs. Am I supposed to feel sorry for him because he didn't quite get there? Because he couldn't nuke our troops? You're going to be waiting a L-O-O-N-N-G time for that one.
The UNITED NATIONS - not just the U.S. - gave him an order to fully disclose ALL records, or face action. He didn't. He jerked weapons inspectors around for over a decade. Throw them out here, deny them access there, and let them back in when it's convenient.
In the no-fly zone, he shot at our planes almost daily at some points. According to General Tommy Franks' statement to Congress in 2001, "Our forces have been engaged by surface-to-air missiles or anti-aircraft fire more than 500 times during the period, and coalition forces have responded to these provocations on 38 occasions."
Maybe it's me, but isn't that an act of war? Don't we see shooting at our pilots as something that we can respond to? Don't we see shooting at our pilots as something that identifies an enemy?
He did NOT comply with the U.N. resolution. Period. The resolution told him if he didn't comply, he'd face action. He didn't comply. He faced action. We kicked butt, and continue to, and I'm not one bit sorry about it.
Not to mention the fact that since I'm finally ticked off enough to wade into this WMD discussion after all, it's a little hard to say for sure he didn't have the things. Give the guy months and months while the U.N. drags its feet about enforcing its own resolutions - heck, give the guy TWELVE YEARS after he surrendered the first time we had to do the work of the U.N. in Iraq - and he can hide or move a whole heap of things. Geeeez, we dug MiG 25's out of the flipping desert!!!
He did have banned weapons - stuff he wasn't supposed to under the resolutions - things he'd claimed were destroyed. And the U.N. passed resolution after resolution after resolution. Stop it, or we'll tell you to stop it. Comply, or we'll.....well, we'll pass yet another resolution you can ignore.
Dammit, when are these people going to stop being such a bunch of spineless, fickle, self-serving cowards? When are they just going to realize that we can NOT afford to wait until we are attacked to deal with a threat? When are they going to stop playing this political game and realize that we are at war - and that it's a war we need to be in? Why don't they devote their energies to improving benefits for the military, improving equipment, assisting the wounded, saying "Thanks"?
I won't hold my breath. Nor will I apologize for supporting our troops - and the wars they're currently fighting.
Tracked at the Mudville Gazette
Labels: Al Qaeda, Iraq, John Murtha, Left-Wingnuts, My Two Cents, politics
(right click image, then "Save as")
Stumble It!
