It should be perfectly clear by now that Democrats hate it when President Bush, or any Republican for that matter, mentions 9/11. For Democrats the the words September 11th or 9/11 are about as worthy of mentioning in public discourse than the hundred or so 'four-letter' words all of our parents tought us not to say.
The fallout among Democrats following President Bush's speech last night has been very interesting to watch as Democrats try to salvage their reputation as being weak on national security. Of course their actions and words do not strengthen their cause, but I cannot think of one more plausible scenario why Democrats are spewing venom just over the mention of that tragic day . . . errr 9/11.
The Democrats have compiled a page of sorts with different spokesmen being outraged, outraged I tell you, over the mention of 'the day we shall not mention' and it's quite interesting as it s the normal Democratic nonsense.
Ok, this quote is slightly inaccurate as the terrorists which we are fighting in Iraq actually declared war against us long ago, but we did very little about it. Bush is still correct that we are fighting radical Islamic terrorists in Iraq of the same ideology as Al Qaida. One of the groups is even a branch of Al Qaida. As a quick refresher course for Democrats, Al Qaida attacked us on 'that day we shall not mention.'
Thus far that commitment has held true and, God willing, it will continue to hold true. In the months following 'the day we shall not mention,' the nation was relatively united behind taking the fight to the terrorists, yet, strangley, now that the terrorists are in Iraq many in this nation want to retreat. I will not go as far as say detractors wish attacks occured in this country, but right now the only military strategy in the GWOT is to confront terrorists abroad so we do not have to at home.
How many military strategies have come from the Left side of the aisle? (crickets)
'The day we shall not mention' awoke the nation that we are not invencible and that the virtual pacifism ways of the Clinton Adminstration were not the way to prevail against radical Islam. Yet here we are, less than four years after, and a good portion of this country wants to retreat from fighting people with the same ideology that killed nearly 3,000 Americans on 'the day we shall not mention.'
If the United States were to leave Iraq when the Iraqi military cannot secure its own country, there would certainly be a radical Islamic threat especially now that Iran has a new hard-line president wanting to rejuvenate the Islamic Revolution. As always, this is an easy concept to comprehend, yet much of the Democratic caucus can't figure this out for the life of them.
For the reading impaired, they means radical Islamic terrorists. You know, the same kind we're fighting in Iraq!
Democrats though fail to understand the war in Iraq is part of the GWOT. Saddam did harbor, train and finance radical Islamic terrorists prior to the invasion. This is not a war in which you can kill Bin Laden, freeze his carcass on ice to display to the world, and proudly project "We've won!" It is an ideology we are fighting, not a singular mass of people sitting in some far-away country.
The long hall will be tough. It is tough. There is still a war being waged in Afghanistan on the fields and throughout the world with minds. A retreat will only signal one thing to the millions living under tyranny, our enemies, our allies and other nations; we cannot carry through to our promises.
1
The incompetence at the highest levels of government in Washington has undermined the U.S. troops who have fought honorably and bravely in Iraq, which is why the troops are now stuck in a murderous quagmire. If a Democratic administration had conducted a war this incompetently, the Republicans in Congress would be dusting off their impeachment manuals.
Posted by: max at June 30, 2005 12:23 PM (HFKAk)
2
Right on, Mad Max. Ditto here.
Posted by: osamabeenhiding at June 30, 2005 01:30 PM (huFN9)
3
The Day We Shall Not Name reminds me of reading
The Two Towers, when some of the men of Gondor would knowingly nod in the direction of Morder and talk about "he who we do not name", and even occasionally say The Nameless One.
Oh, Max--I have no idea what you're talking about. Perhaps it's related to Iraq being "vastly different" from a year ago,
as noted by someone at the American Enterprise?
Posted by: talon karrde at June 30, 2005 01:36 PM (ssFgp)
4
Ah, yes. Max, you make perfect sense. When mistakes were made in WW II, Republicans tried to impeach FDR. When Mistakes were made during the Korean War, Republicans tried to impeach Truman. When mistakes were made in the Bay of Pigs, JFK was impeached. When mistakes were made in Clinton's numerous conflicts, Republicans tried to impeach him not really for lying under oath, but because he made mistakes in war.
The similarities are striking, but grounded in no reality at all. Furthermore, the comment has absolutely nothing to do with the new-found attacks by Democrats saying President Bush said Iraq orchestrated the 9/11 attack, which is the message of this post.
Talon, while I have seen the LOTR trilogy numerous times, I do not remember that moment in any of the movies. I don't doubt it's there and maybe, even subconsciously, that was where I got it from. The mind works in mysterious ways.
Posted by: Chad Evans at June 30, 2005 01:46 PM (dZcXJ)
5
max, incompetent???....1700 dead American soldiers in 2 years of combat....1700 makes it incompetent???...glad you werent around in 1944 when in 3 months in fightning in the Ardennes, the US Army had aprrox 80,000 casualties, including over 23,000 captured and 19,000 dead....and thats in a measly period from December 16th to January 25th 1944...people like you and many others should study up on the past before you go and cry...thats why so many people are getting sick up the liberal, leftist Democratic party with their defeatist attitude....yes, any amount of American soldiers is a shame, but this is war and deaths happen and for only 1700 brave American soldiers to have given up their lives in 2+years is an amazing tribute to the way the American armed forces fight smartly...like General George Patton said,"I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country,he won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."..Thats what American soldiers are doing to the enemy terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan and thats how they will win it...these terrorists want to die for Allah, well the American soldiers are granting them their wish with one small exception...these terrorists aint going to see Allah....Satan has seats reserved just for them in hell and i hope they get what they have coming to them
Posted by: THANOS35 at June 30, 2005 01:51 PM (RhtGz)
6
If only 50 GIs had been killed since the invasion, instead of 1,700, the Dems would still be moaning about the "incompetence". These Lib wieners are impossible to take seriously. Even fellow Dems don't take these Lib wieners seriously as demonstrated by their own polls.
Posted by: Carlos at June 30, 2005 02:03 PM (8e/V4)
7
how true, but sad, Carlos...they just will never get it will they???...than again, maybe its better that they never do...ignorance is bliss, after all, for them
Posted by: THANOS35 at June 30, 2005 02:34 PM (RhtGz)
8
I'm not sure I would give credence to the amount of soldiers dead vs. other wars, one has to take into account that their have been vast improvements in body armor, vehicle armor and most importantly of all combat triage and medicine. There is a good chance that some of the soldiers injured in this war would have died of their injuries in WWII, or even Vietnam.
It is important to note the figure 1, 700 soldiers killed but also keep into account the amount of soldiers who will never walk again, have use of their hands or have been disfigured for life, their sacrifice is no less. Although I am not sure what the figure is for people gravely injured in the war, I am sure they would account for at least 60% more deaths in other wars.
Posted by: dave at June 30, 2005 02:35 PM (fsJ2z)
9
Thanos, why donÂ’t you go back and study your history, or at least tell the whole story. Back during the Ardennes offensive, and through most of WWII, the Germans had superior equipment and training. The US tanks were nothing compare to the tigers. The only reason we won most of the battles was because of PattonÂ’s genius, over whelming numbers, and a whole lot of air support, which could not fly during this offensive.
Now lets look at today, we are the ones having vastly superior weapons and training. We are taking on a 3rd rate country with no Airforce, no tanks, nothing but small arms. What should be a truly “police” action now, has turned into a guerilla war. No I do not
believe this is any fault of our troops in the field. They are truly the best around. But I do feel the leadership here might be lacking. No one in the field today can say they are a Patton reborn.
Posted by: Butch at June 30, 2005 02:41 PM (Gqhi9)
10
Well then let's let them fight this war in the same manner that the terrorists are and see who wins hands down in no time at all. Okay? Oh, can't do that? Shame.
Posted by: Oyster at June 30, 2005 02:50 PM (fl6E1)
11
well, Butch, youre right in some respects...American troops were outgunned and somewhat inferior in quality to German troops, but the Americans had incredible bravery and numbers on their side and the American generals were not so hamstringed by politicains back home as they are now...American troops and their commanding officers have to worry about every single move they make since they dont want to hurt those poor Mulsims sensitivities..COUGH.....oh and Butch, check out who had better aircraft during WWII...gee, where was the Luftwaffe???...who had the advantage there???....as far as im concerned, and i believe some others here will agree, that 1700 dead in 2+years is not enough for the liberals to be crying and screaming and wringing their soft hands about...yea , lots more wounded and some who lost hands, feet, arms legs, but still doesnt justify what the liberal, leftist Democrats are whining about...they have a defeatist attitude and it sucks, thats why they lose and will continue to lose
Posted by: THANOS35 at June 30, 2005 02:51 PM (RhtGz)
12
Lib wieners think that people aren't supposed to die in a war, like in the movies, and wars are over in 90 minutes like in the movies.
And Lib wieners complain about "incompetence", but the only solutions they offer are surrender and withdrawal. Wow, they're so "competent."
Posted by: Carlos at June 30, 2005 03:02 PM (8e/V4)
13
Ok, whining, soft-handed Lib wieners and BLSD's Osama Bin Hamburglers aside, just what is the plan we have right now? I have no clue! Do you? Do we have one? I've heard supportive words, but not much of a blueprint. I always thought air-dropping attack chimps was the best route...
Posted by: osamabeenhiding at June 30, 2005 05:07 PM (huFN9)
14
I should know better than to comment on posts I've written here, but yes, there is a plan. The plan, like it has been for well over a year, has been to train Iraqi soldiers so they can secure their own country, set up and help establish a Democratic Iraq and lay the groundwork for Democracy in the Middle East.
Bush said this much last night as he has for a very long time. We cannot leave Iraq to the wolves and allow it to become the central point of a Caliphate State. We are not doing that unless certain Democratic politicians wanting nothing more than political points get their way.
Posted by: Chad Evans at June 30, 2005 05:16 PM (dZcXJ)
15
Thanos, I do agree that today's generals have their hand ties more than those of World War II. I believe a lot of that is due to how much more information is imported and exported throughout the world.
But I honestly feel we could have had a lot less casualties had Bush not jumped the gun with a long shot tomahawk strike. I still believe we should of waited till we had all of our forces in place to make one fell swoop. I believe that we could of control the rioting more initially had we had more troops which would of put some of the Iraqis on our side earlier.
I also know that statistically, going to war is safer than actually driving on our highways. There are a lot more idiots on our highways then there are combatants (ours and theirs) in Iraq. I just hate that all of you righty tighty asses keep trying to lump
all of us liberals in to one batch. As I stated in several posts, I am not against the war in Iraq, and I believe in the superior quality of our troops. I am against the CnC, not for his military agenda (except the one I stated above), but for his economic thievery.
Posted by: Butch at June 30, 2005 05:31 PM (Gqhi9)
16
So Butch, since you're an expert on war, tell us please how you would fight against a guerilla insurgency without wholesale slaughter and brutal oppression of innocent civilians?
I'll explain it in simple terms for everyone. We follow a set of rules in combat that says we can't shoot at someone if they hide behind women and children. We can't blow up houses if we suspect there are civilians inside. We can't sterilize an area with artillery or aerial bombardment. And last but not least we cannot, under any circumstances, make reprisals against civilians. None of these rules are observed by our enemies. They strap explosives onto retarded kids. They hide behind women and children. They murder families for being friendly to Americans.
Don't look at this in such simplistic terms, there is nothing simple about defeating a terrorist insurgency. It takes time, money, and the lives of many good soldiers, and it doesn't help when people whine and cry because the war can't be won between commercial breaks.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at June 30, 2005 06:56 PM (0yYS2)
17
Frankly, I get real tired of those who are armchair-quarterbacking this war. They should be doing this, they shoulda done that, etc. ad nauseum Meh.
Posted by: Oyster at June 30, 2005 07:04 PM (YudAC)
18
Osama and Max, the plan should be to stay the course. Increase our effort to win decisively not bitch, complain and offer our enemies the vision of victory.
Their vision of victory: to persuade people like you that winning a conflict and setting up a 2nd democracy in the middle east takes longer than an episode of ER or NYPD Blues.
America is short of breath; because people like you have no perception of history.
Read Manchester’s “Goodbye Darkness” just the Okinawa campaign and you will have some sense of what it takes to achieve victory.
It would be nice to have the support of America, but all the terrorists have to do is boar you and you raise your ass in the air and become their bitch.
Posted by: Brad at June 30, 2005 11:57 PM (pO1tP)
19
Osama Bin, Bradley and Impy,
The plan is to destroy everything. That way, there's nothing left to fight over.
Posted by: Downing Street Memo at July 01, 2005 08:20 AM (ScqM8)
20
Well IM, I never said I was an expert on war, but if I was running the war, I would do a few things different. First I would not start a freaking war when you don’t have all of your troops in positions. “WE DID NOT” Some was still coming back from Turkey, because they refused to grant us access. Second, I would put a much through clamp down on the media. They can take pictures and write stories all they want, but nothing will be publish without the Military High Command’s okay. First one did, then every report and photographer would be pulled from all units, and stuck in back. Any found out in the combat zone, would be imprison until after the war, or flown home.
Next, I would have our troops treat the Iraqi people with some respect, up until that individual show they donÂ’t deserve it. There are only two way to really stop a guerrilla war, one is whole sell slaughter of everyone. But if you start doing this, it may be easier
to kill people but there will be a lot more to kill because every one in the country will now be after your ass, and rightfully so. The second way is to win over the populace of the area to a point where they wonÂ’t hide the bastards. But it is kind of hard to win over
the people when the occupying force shows disregard for them.
As for what the terrorist do and don’t do, does not mean crap. It is what we do that counts. But “ALL” you conservatives seem to forget that. All of you believe in the old “eye for eye, tooth for tooth.” All of you believe that since the asshole terrorist force a retard kid to strap on some C4 and run towards US troops, it is 1000% ok for us to go around killing every kid we see. If we want to just annihilate the Iraqis, pull out all of our troops, and just have flight after flight of B52’s go over. They can fly high enough that the risk of being shot down is minimum, the cost of the bombs are a lot cheaper then what we are using now. After about 3 or 4 months of steady bombing, I don’t think there will be anything left in Iraq.
But I am not in charge of the war. And the only thing I have commented on about the military doing wrong is jumping the gun and to much media. Now I like to see who of you conservative types disagree with me on those two points. Do you really believe that we should not have waited to all of our troops were in positions, and should we not
clamp down more on the media at least until after the war? As far as us pulling out, honestly I believe we need more troops in right now to protect the Iraqi police forces until they can protect themselves. From the free wheeling press, we can see the Iraqis can not proctect themselves yet.
Posted by: Butch at July 01, 2005 11:02 AM (Gqhi9)
21
Brad, I'm nobody's bitch: It's your ass in the air and Rove is doing the pumpin'. Furthermore, the majority of Americans think Bush isn't running this war right. A good 48% are also saying he should be impeached if he lied to the public about why we went to war. The shit is hitting the fan, hombre. I hardly agree we are making a lot of progress with our "stay the course thousand points of light" approach, which I think was stubborn daddy Bush's words. Anyway, of course this shit isn't solved within TV episode terms. Duh! Don't assume what I'm thinking with such stupid claims. I want a new leader because I love America, what about that do you not understand?
Posted by: osamabeenvotin' at July 05, 2005 12:27 PM (klOV8)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
