The MSM and the anti-Bush crowd are fairly purring over the casualty counts lately. Many of them note that May was the “deadliest month in Iraq so far,” and they're quick to note that we’ve now reached 1,700 fallen heroes in Iraq. But what they aren’t saying is the usual –
* Troops in Iraq have removed a murderous dictator from that country, and free elections have been successfully held there for the first time in 60 years.
* The Iraqi people are beginning to emerge from so many years without self-determination. Iraqi citizens are still signing up to join that country’s rebirthing military. Villagers are starting to fight off terrorism. Even the discussions and arguments in the new Iraqi government are a good sign. Our Continental Congress didn’t agree on a whole lot to start with either. And has anyone taken a look at Congress lately??
* Our fighting men and women continue to display exceptional courage, fortitude, and heart; just as they always have. Yes, there have been a few incidents. But just as with most things, the MSM has taken a few incidents and hyped them sufficiently to make it appear as if our military is engaging in inappropriate conduct as the rule, not the exception. And that just ain’t true.
The media and, sadly, some of our own governing officials want us to fail in Iraq. They need
us to fail in Iraq. And if that isn’t going to happen on its own, well then, they’re going to continue to hype the stories so that the people believe
it’s happening, even if it isn’t. Let’s face it; no one likes to be associated with the losing team. And the reality is that the larger populace is only going to be as good as the news they’re getting. What would the recent polls say if all we heard was good news? If what we heard were stories about our heroes improving the infrastructure of Iraq, bringing clean water, electricity, sanitation, to areas that didn’t have it? Providing medical care to friend and foe? Defeating the terrorists any time they face them?
The MSM, and the politicians who just flat-out want to see us fail because it advances their agenda, are seizing on a few particulars its worth addressing:The Casualty Count:
1,703 dead since hostilities began in March of 2003. Deeply sad, yes. Each hero lost is a wound to this country. Each hero lost should be mourned, honored, and remembered in perpetuity.
But for a sense of perspective, how often have you heard that casualty count referenced against these numbers?Gettysburg, Civil War:
17,000 dead in the first day (8,000 Confederate, 9,000 Union)Pearl Harbor:
2,403 dead, including 68 civiliansD-Day:
Nearly 4,500 Allied troops killed on June 6, 1944Vietnam:
Total American KIA: 58,169. An additional 10,000+ were lost to non-hostile causes. In 1968 alone, the US lost almost 15,000.Desert Shield / Desert Storm:
150 between the start of Desert Shield in August, 1990, and the cease-fire on February 28, 1991 (100 hours after the commencement of ground hostilities).
So clearly, this isn’t the bloodbath the MSM slathers over. I wish we didn’t have to lose a single Soldier, Sailor, Airman, or Marine, but that just isn’t reality. And looked at a little more objectively, this casualty count should prompt some re-evaluations of tactics, equipment, and weaponry, but it doesn’t mean we’re losing. And let’s not forget one more important statistic:September 11, 2001
– 2,948 confirmed dead. 24 reported dead, 24 missingTreatment of Detainees:
The MSM and our rabid politicians are still screaming and yelling over “stress positions” and pouring water over someone’s head. And, of course, a few tasteless photos. This is torture? What about Nick Berg, shrieking as he was decapitated? Where is the outcry about that? The detainees at Gitmo are there because they are terrorists, or folks who like to help terrorists kill Americans. They’re not innocent, help-an-old-lady-across the street types. They are murderers, and let’s face it, given half a chance, it’s likely that any one of them would kill any one of us. Stop and think for one minute about how these murderers would (heaven forbid) treat one of our heroes if captured, and tell me how much sympathy you really have. Or, not to put too fine a point on it, what if that captured hero were your husband or wife? Son or daughter? Mother or father? Exactly how would you view our getting them a little wet in order to prevent future attacks, future deaths? Would you see it as torture? I sure as heck don’t. It’s nice that we give them Korans, food, and doctors. It shows, once again, how different we are than them. But these are not, repeat, NOT, troops covered by the Geneva Convention. They are terrorists. Pure and simple. We are attempting to be decent by providing them with Korans and meals compliant with their religious views. Good for us. But somehow I think that if we do a little more than ask for information nicely, that’s ok. This isn’t a game. It’s a case of us trying to stop what they want to accomplish. They wouldn’t make sure people they kidnapped had Bibles or other religious literature, good food, doctors. They wouldn’t worry about the Geneva Convention – obviously. They want to kill us. Any of us. All of us. Any way they can. Look at it that way, and you wonder exactly whose side the people are on who want to vilify those who stop them.
Jimmy Carter and company are clamoring for us to shut down Gitmo. Slight problem there - Some judge decided that we can’t send these people back to their own countries unless we guarantee – guarantee, mind you – that they won’t be tortured. So where, exactly, are we going to put them? Maybe they can stay with Mr. Carter….The War on Terror:
It isn’t the luncheon on terror, the panel discussion on terror. It’s a war. And it should be fought like one. Like one we intend to win. That means killing the bad guys. It means taking down the enemy. We damn well better act like we have the stomach for it, because they do.Our World Reputation:
Good grief. Exactly who, pray tell, has a better record? Russia? Not according to Human Rights Watch
– the Russians are even more popular there than we are. And they've got quite a track record, too. France? No – take a look at what they did in the Ivory Coast, and you’ll find that they’re not quite as squeaky clean as they like to pretend – not to mention banning Muslim schoolchildren from wearing head coverings in observance of their religion
. Germany? No. Although they’re pretty popular lately with the anti-American crowd, look more closely at them, and you’ll find a fairly significant anti-immigrant and anti-non-German problem there. Not to mention a few dark spots in the past, as well.... And we don’t even need to look at Africa, Asia…. No one has an equal record of consistently standing up for freedom, liberty, and people who can’t defend themselves. Exactly who should we be so humbled by? How many times has the U.S. gotten into military action by trying to solve a problem the UN or Europe created, ignored, or failed miserably trying to deal with? (WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Mogadishu, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq). And who is it, exactly, who manages to secure victory, and whom all “civilized” Europeans then get to denounce as violent warmongers? Convenient, isn’t it? I’d be a little more embarrassed to be a country that kowtows to anyone to avoid a conflict, who sacrifices self-determination to be able to smile and pat themselves on the back for being civilized.We’re botching the job:
If anyone else has the spine and the resources and the know-how to do it better, they aren’t volunteering. Instead of griping, why don’t THEY solve the problem?? I bet we’d be happy to pull out if there were anyone else who could manage this. Spain’s method of dealing with the terrorists was to let them sway an election. Oddly enough, it hasn’t worked; bombings are still going on. Why? Because the terrorists exploit the weak. Spain has shown itself to be weak on terrorism. They caved once. Taken out to the extreme, today it’s an election, tomorrow it’s what color – or what clothing – everyone is wearing. Terrorists speak a very violent language. And political correctness isn’t up to the task. Europe is weak, too. And we’re not botching the job in Iraq; we’re W-I-N-N-I-N-G. We’ve won, actually – it’s just that the clean-up has been a lot more involved than would have been appreciated.
What happened to the country that rationed, that grew victory gardens? What happened to the country that supported the war effort, that rejoiced in victory? What happened to the America that was universally proud when one of her sons or daughters went into the military? Why is it that so many want to be ashamed of our military prowess, our strength, our character? One of the things I’m most proud of is that our military can never be counted out – never. Because our fighting forces are Americans, and that stubborn pride, that spark in the eye, that uncommon bravery so common in our troops is everywhere one of our uniforms is found. Sea, land, air – there is not a finer fighting force anywhere in the world. Why is it that some want to be constantly apologizing for that? From the days when a bunch of slap-dash farmers defeated the forces of the world’s most powerful empire, we have proven what we are: junkyard-dog-mean when provoked, and stubborn as mules when committed to a cause. And I’m just ducky with that. I’m damn proud to be an American, and I’m damn proud of the job our military does. Yes, my country occasionally does things that make me shake my head. But I will never hang my head in shame of my country. Not, that is, unless she becomes what these people want her to become. Weak. Defeated. Timid. On that day, I will hang my head indeed, to mourn the loss of the America I believe in, and that so many of our bravest sons and daughters have fought, bled, and died for.
The War on Terror, it's apparent, is as much against those inside this country who want to see her defeated as it is against those enemies who come from beyond her shores. Am I saying that those who disagree with the President are terrorists? No, but a divided America is something the terrorists hope for, so like it or not, they’re helping them. Am I saying that people who don’t agree with the Administration, or the war, should be imprisoned? No, of course not. But the media that makes up facts and distorts reality should certainly be accountable
. But I am saying that we need to recognize this stuff for what it is, and not be taken in by it. We need to keep the negative voices, ashamed of our country and what she stands for, from allowing us to be derailed from what we’re up against. Some of the anti-Bush crowd obviously believes that anything that hurts Bush, even if it means losing the War on Terror, is ok. How misguided can you get? For a sane Democratic position, Joe Lieberman said in 2003 that if elected President, he would “prosecute the war against terrorism and win it even if it's unpopular because that's where our future security rests
.” Even one of the Dem’s golden children knows how important this is. We can’t
lose in Iraq, we can’t
lose in Afghanistan, and we CAN’T
lose the overall War on Terror. It simply isn’t an option. The stakes are simply too high.
Labels: Iraq, media coverage, Moonbats, My Two Cents, opinion