Sunday, December 04, 2005

"Our Troops Must Stay" by Joe Lieberman

With the non-stop media coverage of Murtha-fest 2005, you may have missed this editorial by the lone voice of reason in the party of treason, Joe Lieberman (D-CT).

This principled Democrat would get my vote in a Presidential contest against "Republican" John McCain (RINO-AZ).



Our Troops Must Stay
America can't abandon 27 million Iraqis to 10,000 terrorists.

I have just returned from my fourth trip to Iraq in the past 17 months and can report real progress there. More work needs to be done, of course, but the Iraqi people are in reach of a watershed transformation from the primitive, killing tyranny of Saddam to modern, self-governing, self-securing nationhood--unless the great American military that has given them and us this unexpected opportunity is prematurely withdrawn.

Progress is visible and practical. In the Kurdish North, there is continuing security and growing prosperity. The primarily Shiite South remains largely free of terrorism, receives much more electric power and other public services than it did under Saddam, and is experiencing greater economic activity. The Sunni triangle, geographically defined by Baghdad to the east, Tikrit to the north and Ramadi to the west, is where most of the terrorist enemy attacks occur. And yet here, too, there is progress.

There are many more cars on the streets, satellite television dishes on the roofs, and literally millions more cell phones in Iraqi hands than before. All of that says the Iraqi economy is growing. And Sunni candidates are actively campaigning for seats in the National Assembly. People are working their way toward a functioning society and economy in the midst of a very brutal, inhumane, sustained terrorist war against the civilian population and the Iraqi and American military there to protect it.

Read the whole thing here in the Wall Street Journal.

14 Comments:

Anonymous ray b said...

OK, let's pretend we're the President and we're thinking we have to one day Leave Iraq. Let's assume the best -- things work out -- Where will Iraq be (as far as a Democracy goes) and how many American Troops in:

Dec. 2006 - I predict it's still a mess but at least 30,000 less troop just so Republicans can say they are "bringing some boys home and Iraq is getting better."

Dec. 2007 - I hope it's better, but predict its on it way to an Iran-lite type nation. Does that provoke the Sunnis into Civil War? Will the Kurds want to break away? What will Turkey do if they (the Kurds) approach the U.N. about becoming a nation? I hope by now 100,000 troops are gone by then.

Dec. 2008 - I hope its still Iran-lite. I hope there is not a civil war and I hope all American troops are out of the country (with just maybe 30,000 in Kuwait, if that).

That's my hopeful prediction as a liberal who thinks the war was a big mistake.

But I do hope things work out -- if not just for them, at least for U.S., so we can finish building and securing Afganistan (we'll be there another 10-15 years) and be on the look out for the nuts Created by the mess in Iraq.

What say you? Where will we be in Dec. 2006, Dec. 2007, Dec. 2008. We can check our predictions in a year if your site is still up...

12/05/2005 02:32:00 PM  
Blogger Bohemian Like You said...

Whatever it takes is the only answer.

If you begin to determine policy by body count, then we encourage the enemy simply to kill more of us because we've implied our resolve is weakened with each additional death.

It never ceases to amaze me how little Libs know about pre-war Iraq and the overall human rights conditions of the Middle East at large.

Notably silent are gay activists and Liberal womens groups who can't seem to muster an ounce of indignation about the executions and utter subjugation of their brothers and sisters simply for existing.

12/05/2005 05:07:00 PM  
Blogger The Authoritarian Boenau said...

Under a Democratic President, a human rights disaster is worth involving troops.

Under a Republican President, a human rights disaster is an excuse to flex muscle and conquer the world.

Any comment from the impeached former President?

12/06/2005 09:28:00 AM  
Anonymous ray b said...

You wrote:

"If you begin to determine policy by body count, then we encourage the enemy simply to kill more of us because we've implied our resolve is weakened with each additional death."

I'm not determing (sp?) policy by body count -- I live in the real world and one day the administration will be pulling out troops...

You wrote:
"It never ceases to amaze me how little Libs know about pre-war Iraq and the overall human rights conditions of the Middle East at large."

What's that got to do with when the war is "over" -- or as Bush said once, Mission Accomplished.

All I'm asking you is what will the situation be like in a year from now -- in your opinion? Do you HOPE it's going to get better? Do you expect it to get better? Do you want to continue fighting for the next few decades?

12/06/2005 10:42:00 AM  
Blogger Bohemian Like You said...

-- continued --
Yet, somehow, George Bush is the object of their hatred.

Absolutely amazing.

Take a look at a human rights report from pre-war Iraq or *ANY* Mid-Eastern nation, then compare what efforts are underway now.

Our American Revolution was far more brutal, yet the King of England was n't half the tyrant Saddamm was.

Most Americans seem to think war was worth the effort. Do Liberals....?

12/06/2005 11:15:00 AM  
Blogger Bohemian Like You said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

12/06/2005 11:18:00 AM  
Blogger Bohemian Like You said...

-- correcting grammar of my previous post --

Again, the "Mission Accomplished" banner was put up by and specifically for the group of sailors and soldiers whose tour of duty was finished -- not the war.

I realize that this fact does not fit well into the "George Bush is a liar" mantra, but if you're comfortable with it, roll on brother.

12/06/2005 11:19:00 AM  
Anonymous ray said...

From News Accounts:

The White House later conceded it produced and paid for the banner as part of the president's visit.
Asked if Bush had misled people by appearing in front of the banner, McClellan said "the Navy put it up and it was the Navy at the -- asked us to take care of the production of the banner. And we said that yesterday."

Top 11 administration explanations for the "Mission Accomplished" banner on the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln.

1. The crew thought it would be a great idea to have a message banner with the same background that they saw when they took a break from the war to watch Dubya address job creation in Canton, Ohio the week before.

2. Typo. It was supposed to read, "The first step on a long road that will still cost hundreds of U.S. lives and hundreds of billions of dollars.

3. "Spontaneous Generation."

4. It was the only thing available to cover the vandalism left behind by departing Clinton staffers.

5. Dubya is infallible. The person transmitting to his "hearing-aid" misrepresented the story of the banner.


6. Dubya soiled the alternate "Bush 2004" banner during the carrier landing.

7. What banner?

8. "Mission Accomplished" referred not to Iraq, but to getting an image into the national consciousness to undermine the evidence that Dubya was A.W.O.L. from the Texas Air National Guard for more than a year.

9. Banner still hanging since the Lincoln's previous deployment.

10. Okay, we had our advance guy on the ship to choreograph every detail. We approved the slogan and we made the banner to bring to the ship, but we didn't "sign-off" on it.

11. It depends on what your definition of the word "accomplished" is.

12/06/2005 01:06:00 PM  
Anonymous Mona Charen said...

WHEN do you think Bush will start bringing troops home?

p.s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_Accomplished

12/06/2005 01:08:00 PM  
Anonymous ray b said...

"I realize that this fact does not fit well into the "George Bush is a liar" mantra, but if you're comfortable with it, roll on brother."

I'm quite comfortable with it -
Remember these whoppers?

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."—Cheney, August 26, 2002

"[He] has indeed stepped up his capacity to produce and deliver biological weapons. . . . He has reconstituted his nuclear program to develop a nuclear weapon."—Cheney, September 8, 2002

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons—the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have." G.Bush, February 6, 2003

"We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."—Cheney, March 16, 2003 (three days before the start of the U.S. invasion)

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."—Bush, March 17, 2003 (two days before the invasion)

"We know where they [the weapons] are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad."—Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, March 30, 2003 (11 days after the war began).

Here's some more:

The 9-11 Commission found “no credible evidence of a collaborative relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda.” The Commission stressed that “it had access to the same information [that Vice President Cheney] has seen regarding contacts between Al Qaeda and Iraq prior to the 9/11 attacks.” This finding led Jon Stewart to quip, “Mr. Vice President, it’s my duty to inform you that your pants are on fire.” (63)



In January 2004, Secretary Powell conceded that there is no “smoking-gun concrete evidence about” a connection with Iraq and Al Qaeda. (63)



A January 2004 report by the Army War College agreed and found “[t]he war against Iraq was a detour from, not an integral component of, the war on terrorism.” The war diverted valuable resources from the fight against Al Qaeda and homeland security. (72)



The Carnegie Foundation study on Iraqi WMDs also found no evidence of a link. (70)



The Joint Congressional Committee on September 11th Report concluded that there is no link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Committee member Max Cleeland explained “[w]hat you’ve seen here is the manipulation of intelligence for political ends.”

A UN terrorism committee also found no evidence of an Iraq-Al Qaeda link other than Secretary Powell’s speech.



At the same time as the release of the 9-11 Report, a former Bush intelligence official revealed that the White House knew there was no basis for the link. Former State Dept. intelligence official Greg Thielman stated that the intelligence agencies agreed on the “lack of a meaningful connection to Al Qaeda” and reported this to the White House.”



In addition, the Zarqawi claim is a red herring since the administration had several chances to wipe out his organization or even kill him but never pulled the trigger because “the administration had set its course with Iraq.” (87)



The CIA, FBI and British intelligence have found no link between Al Qaeda and Iraq. One FBI official stated that “[w]e’ve been looking at this hard for more than a year and . . . we just don’t think its there.” British intelligence reports that Hussein and fundamentalist Bin Laden are ideological enemies. (6)



The director of the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence & Research dismissed the alleged link, claiming that the Bush administration “has had a faith based intelligence attitude.” (20)



In September 2003, Bush finally admitted that there was “no evidence” linking Iraq to 9-11. (36)

12/06/2005 01:22:00 PM  
Blogger Bohemian Like You said...

Rule #1: Don't accept a Democrat's premise - ever.

Never before in the history of man has one nation defeated another on the battlefield, returned sovereignty within 1 year, and then helped them to hold their first free democratic elections.

Perhaps your definition of success means complicit tolerance of 23 dictatorships (one of which has already invaded his neighbors, shot missiles into Israel, killed hundreds of thousands of his citizens, and happens to sit just hundreds of miles away from more economic blackmail (oil) than we care to even consider.)

Or, is it only white peoples that deserve Western style democracies, human rights, civil rights, and protection from genocide?

According to Liberals, if you’re white (Bosnia) we’ll help you, if you’re brown, you can hope the U.N. comes to your rescue after another 12 resolutions…

Do you think for a second that Liberals would tolerate what has happened to the Iraqis in Europe?

Do you think they would call 2000 deaths in an effort to Liberate Paris “a quagmire?”

I don't mean to single out just Liberals here. This sad assessment is accurate of Americans for the last 15 years.

We don't understand sacrifice, commitment, or loyalty.

Just look at divorce rates and abortion rates for another sad commentary on how little we understand these concepts.

12/06/2005 03:32:00 PM  
Anonymous ray b said...

What about Haiti -- liberals for intervetion, Conservatives against?

Most conservatives were against intervening in Bosnia.

As for abortion, why are conservative gov't bueurocrats (sp?) against letting women get access to RU486 or the other day after pills that Prevent fertilization? As for divorce, Are you advocating making divorce harder to do? Why do conservatives, who say they want gov't out our lives, keep pushing gov't into our lives?

I prefer Freedom. You talk as if you hate America -- we'll I'm not gonna sit here and let you bad mouth the the United States of America.

Or as Otter put it much better than I in Animal House:

Ladies and gentlemen, I'll be brief. The issue here is not whether we broke a few rules, or took a few liberties with our female party guests - we did.
[winks at Dean Wormer]

But you can't hold a whole fraternity responsible for the behavior of a few, sick twisted individuals. For if you do, then shouldn't we blame the whole fraternity system? And if the whole fraternity system is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our educational institutions in general? I put it to you, [bohemian]- isn't this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America. Gentlemen!

[Leads the Deltas out of the hearing, all humming the Star-Spangled Banner]

12/07/2005 10:01:00 AM  
Blogger Bohemian Like You said...

Now, two men who agree on the comic genius of Animal House can't be that far apart ideaologically...Right??!

12/07/2005 03:20:00 PM  
Anonymous ray b said...

Exactly.

12/09/2005 09:29:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home