We have searched American history and it seems the liberals have been wildly wrong on every major, or even minor, foreign policy issue. Iraq provides the most recent.
While the running dogs of the liberal mainstream media like NBC, CBS, ABC and the New York Times were silent on the latest evidence of victory in Iraq, it was none the less real. The Washington Post reported the “15/18” rapid progress report on page A8, but at least the WaPo mentioned it. Most amazingly, the AP coverage presents the facts in tones of defeat, doing its reliably anti-American best to focus on the remaining problems.
However, only the most inflexible of defeatists now proclaim American failure in Iraq. Yes, the Iraqi government has made major progress on 15 of the 18 “benchmarks” that the Democrat Congress created last year. The other social and economic improvements in Iraq are so prevalent and obvious that even Der Spiegel acknowledges the road toward victory.
So when the reader contemplates the debate on Iraq, remember that the liberals fall into two categories of thought about Iraq:
The first, and now more populous group is the Barack Obama crew. This group proclaims its opposition to the invasion in the first place. The alternative this group advocates is maintaining Saddam in power, funding his regime through oil for food fraud so that Saddam could arm, house, train and fund global terrorism. Saddam had never complied with as much as the Armistice agreement that ended hostilities and had evaded every UN resolution thereafter, which is a pretty good reason why Iran, North Korea, Zimbabwe and Sudan don’t take the resolutions very seriously. Since the libs have never explained where Saddams known stockpiles went between 98 and 03, I guess that question would remain unanswered either way. Those are the facts of the world that existed before the invasion of Iraq and is the real world alternative that the paleo-protest crowd preferred to the real world of, well, now.
The second group is the 2004-2006 defeat at any price crew. Devastated by the President’s 2004 this group, especially its front men Abscam Jack Murtha, Dingy Harry Reid and Damascus Nancy Pelosi, and of course the media we described above declared inevitable American defeat and retreat from Iraq as the only possible outcome of the invasion. I believe Evita Clinton even said that a belief that General Petraeus’ now successful plan would lead to victory would itself require a “willing suspension of disbelief”. Most of this posse actually voted for the invasion and Evita and Bill’s statements about their own independent knowledge of Saddam’s WMD program are now well known and established. The Cut and Run crew reflect more expediency than integrity. This crew wanted to cut and run in 2005 and leave Iraq to the now crushed Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia and splintered and smashed Mahdi Army and the other Iranian backed militias. Those are the facts of the real world abandonment of Iraq two or three years ago.
Which real world alternative is better for the United States?
While the running dogs of the liberal mainstream media like NBC, CBS, ABC and the New York Times were silent on the latest evidence of victory in Iraq, it was none the less real. The Washington Post reported the “15/18” rapid progress report on page A8, but at least the WaPo mentioned it. Most amazingly, the AP coverage presents the facts in tones of defeat, doing its reliably anti-American best to focus on the remaining problems.
However, only the most inflexible of defeatists now proclaim American failure in Iraq. Yes, the Iraqi government has made major progress on 15 of the 18 “benchmarks” that the Democrat Congress created last year. The other social and economic improvements in Iraq are so prevalent and obvious that even Der Spiegel acknowledges the road toward victory.
So when the reader contemplates the debate on Iraq, remember that the liberals fall into two categories of thought about Iraq:
The first, and now more populous group is the Barack Obama crew. This group proclaims its opposition to the invasion in the first place. The alternative this group advocates is maintaining Saddam in power, funding his regime through oil for food fraud so that Saddam could arm, house, train and fund global terrorism. Saddam had never complied with as much as the Armistice agreement that ended hostilities and had evaded every UN resolution thereafter, which is a pretty good reason why Iran, North Korea, Zimbabwe and Sudan don’t take the resolutions very seriously. Since the libs have never explained where Saddams known stockpiles went between 98 and 03, I guess that question would remain unanswered either way. Those are the facts of the world that existed before the invasion of Iraq and is the real world alternative that the paleo-protest crowd preferred to the real world of, well, now.
The second group is the 2004-2006 defeat at any price crew. Devastated by the President’s 2004 this group, especially its front men Abscam Jack Murtha, Dingy Harry Reid and Damascus Nancy Pelosi, and of course the media we described above declared inevitable American defeat and retreat from Iraq as the only possible outcome of the invasion. I believe Evita Clinton even said that a belief that General Petraeus’ now successful plan would lead to victory would itself require a “willing suspension of disbelief”. Most of this posse actually voted for the invasion and Evita and Bill’s statements about their own independent knowledge of Saddam’s WMD program are now well known and established. The Cut and Run crew reflect more expediency than integrity. This crew wanted to cut and run in 2005 and leave Iraq to the now crushed Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia and splintered and smashed Mahdi Army and the other Iranian backed militias. Those are the facts of the real world abandonment of Iraq two or three years ago.
Which real world alternative is better for the United States?
13 comments:
I'm sure most Americans, even us D's, realize that it would be important for us and the world to stabilize Iraq and achieve some sort of victory. It is great if we are getting there now. However, this does not erase the fact that Iraq has been a trillion dollar detour for us going after the real culprits of 9/11 and the WOT we should have waged. And please, don't give me the bs about Obama or D's not wanting to do anything significant after 9/11. We should have gone after the real culprits of 9/11 with gusto and no mercy. Kind of like we started in Afghanistan.
Unlike you Sporer,
I am voting Democrat
and Unlike you, I have actually served in this war in Iraq.
First of all, Al Qaeda is and was a very insignificant splinter in the overall picture in Iraq.
As anyone with half a brain knows that Saddam and Al Qaeda had little to no ties before the war.
Most of the people whom the war-hawk right wish to label "Religious Fanatics" equate more to a strong and immensely well funded Mafia of sorts.
There goal is not the killing of Americans as much as it is the accumulation of wealth and power in that vaccuum that was left after Saddam was taken from power.
Call it what you want, Sporer, but I was there, not once did we hear one word about "WMDs" nor did we catch one suspect that had ANYTHING to do with Al Qaeda or the attacks of 9-11.
Bush was wrong...
In sending HALF the recommended troops.
In not making sure Americans were protected from IED's with up armored Humvees, because of which many of my friends died.
And Yes, in invading in the first place.
Bush should have gone to the root of the problem and went to Saudi Arabia! That is where the highjackers where from, that is the biggest sponser of terror and those are the real facts.
Oh yeah, and I am one of the many many veterans on the "Obama Crew" and if you think people are going to listen to some partisan hack like you over a veteran, you are sadly mistaken, and a coward
Wait a minute there Second, what's this bullshit you're offering up that Sporer hasn't served in the war? He serves bravely, even more so bravely than you I'll bet, every day. He's at the broken end of a bottle every day to procure your "freedom". He's even posted pictures of himself in here where he's had to don a hard hat to keep from getting hurt from falling debris. So you watch your mouth talking about your superior like that!
sporie:
Not surprisingly you take a minimalist view of cause and effect. No doubt the "surge" has helped. Iraqis taking charge has had more effect and much of that started before the "surge". Al Sadr and the Mahdi Army remain the big question marks. Chances are they are biding time awaiting a US pullback and then returning in force. Al Sadr has his sights set on ruling Iraq. He's not really interested in oil revenue sharing or elections or any of the other "milestones" set down by the US.
Keep in mind that even your vaunted General Petraeus suggests that all the gains are tentative and reversible.
Do you suppose any of the recent activities might have been predicated on the likelihood of a serious troop draw down after Dumbya is out of office?
I realize that analysis might be a tad complex for you to venture into you.
You just keep thinkin Butch!
What branch of the service were you in Sporer?
Sporer, tell the truth, you find Michelle Obama attractive in an exotic kind of way don't you?
Anon 2:16
I am a democrat, and as for phony soldier, well I guess that is Republican code for someone who doesnt follow like step with your coward ideals.
I have the freedom speech, like you. Just because I scare you shitless, enough to write in anonymously, doesnt mean I dont think you should speak to : )
Sporer is a coward, always has been, always will be
speaking of victories: Obama now leads in the latest poll from Montana!
Time to update your map, Mr. Sporer?
------Spotlight
If you want to know the truth about Iraq, you'd better read Juancole.com:
"judges in Baghdad on Monday, setting off five bombs, each targeting a judge in a different part of the city; they missed four of the judges but injured the fifth."
and
"Baghdad is facing gasoline shortages after a pipeline coming up from the south was sabotaged. One of the things that puzzled me about PM Nuri al-Maliki's assault on the Sadrists during the past three months is why he thought they would not take revenge on him by perforating some pipelines."
Sounds like a glorious victory alright!
--------Spotlight
Second-seriously, do you have a severe learning disability, a low IQ or is hatred induced myopia your problem.
Once again, you attack people for posting anonymously as cowards and then you accuse me of the same thing yet everything although I put my name on everything I write.
A mind is a terrible thing to waste boy, a terrible thing to waste.
Spotlight, was that Bagdad or east LA, DC or Detroit you were describing?
What is your standard of victory, Iraq becomes a sleepy little socialist state like Iowa or Massachusetts?
sporie:
You are a trip!
You are either a thespian or a wannabe. You play the role of "Riddler" with great aplomb.
Your responses are always in the form of "riddle me this" or "riddle me that". One can only presume that you act this role because you don't really have any answers.
Much like your original posts your words are "full of sound and fury signifying nothing".
Sporer, tell us again which branch of the Military you served in, please.
Post a Comment