Excellent article by Robert Cox in the San Francisco Examiner…..bam!….Sorry, floored once again….about the fact that no matter the reason, al-Qaeda is in Iraq, so how in the world could liberals want us to leave the field of battle to our enemy?
The case is often made these days (especially by my friends on the left) that because the majority of Americans surveyed in opinion polls do not support a continued U.S. military presence in Iraq, the Bush administration should “listen to the people” and bring U.S. troops home. The same people advancing this argument point to each American and Iraqi casualty as “proving” that the U.S. should withdraw.
When challenged on their position, many of these same people will claim that they are not “anti-war” but “anti-this war,” invariably adding that they supported the invasion of Afghanistan after the Sept. 11 attacks because that’s where the people who attacked us were.
According to recent Department of Defense and CIA estimates, al Qaeda now has between 5,000 and 20,000 fighters operating in Iraq. Al Qaeda itself claims to have as many as 12,000 fighters in Iraq, but do we really want to take Osama bin Laden’s word for anything? While no one in this country knows for sure just how many jihadists are in Iraq, it seems reasonable to believe that there are thousands of them — making Iraq home to the single largest concentration of al Qaeda members in the world.
In a tape released last fall shortly after the U.S. mid-term elections, a man who identified himself as Abu Hamza al-Muhajir said, “The al Qaeda army has 12,000 fighters in Iraq, and they have vowed to die for God’s sake.” He also said there were another 10,000 unequipped fighters ready to join them.
So it would seem that however it may have happened, the people who were responsible for Sept. 11 have now massed their forces in Iraq. All of which raises a question: If the U.S. were to withdraw all of its forces from the Middle East tomorrow and were to suddenly learn that al Qaeda had assembled 10,000 to 20,000 armed jihadists in Madagascar, Paraguay or Antarctica, what would most Americans expect President Bush to do about it?
I would like to propose that polling organizations consider adding a few new questions to their next survey, such as:
» Would you support the United States going to war in a country that was found to be a base of operations for many thousands of al Qaeda members?
Now we know how the typical leftists would answer that question since we, meaning America, are the enemy to humanity in their eyes, so ignore them. I doubt that a majority of Americans would answer that they would rather us not go to war in that situation.
Either way you slice it if we leave Iraq before the Iraqi’s are able to go it alone we will have left millions to wholesale slaughter and genocide. I know the Democrats didn’t care about this fact in Vietnam and they don’t care about it in Iraq now but I’m willing to bet Bush cares about it. In fact I know he does, as do I. We cannot allow al-Qaeda to gain control of a country again. We stopped supporting Afghanistan after helping them defeat the Soviet Union and look what happened….the Taliban and AQ moved in. The exact same thing will happen again in Iraq if we run like cowards.
See author page
We are not, at least the democrats are not, better than that. Remember Vietnam, won and given away for political purposes. Millions of citizens slaughtered at the hand of the democrat supported communist. The Iraqi and Afghan people had better get right with their god, the democrats are going to send their a** through the wood chipper. The democrats were as guilty of the slaughter in Southeast Asia as the people that actually did the dirty work for them. The same will apply in Iraq. There is not a democrat today that doesn’t have the blood of millions on their hands. BDS is only part of their future mental problems.
By the way, every young person I know (and I know a lot, ‘firefighter’) that disrespects and actually hate their parents (that seem the normal today) are the product of a democrat family enviroment. Hate is spreading fast into area other than GWB.
For those who oppose the war, there are really two camps:
1) those who oppose because they’re tired of watching, hearing, debating, and can’t stomach trying to understand it
2) those who oppose because they oppose the President and (stand up to read this one) because they want to see HIM defeated.
To that end, the vote last night aimed at compelling a withdrawal from Iraq was easily the dumbest thing the Democratic Party has ever Ever EVER done. More than success in Iraq, more than American success or Iraqi success, the party wants to make sure it does now look responsible for defeat while at the same time advocating it. Yet, if the President gets the bill slowed down in the Senate for a month, then sits on it for a few weeks until Gen Petraeus gives his report (which will either be a legitimate claim of success or a spin claiming success), then the President can actually hand over the decision to withdraw to the Democratic controlled Congress. That way, if the crap does hit the fan, then he can say Democrats forced the withdrawal, and that he had to sign it because they had enough votes to over ride a veto. If he signs it and things go well, then Democrats are stuck with a conundrum:
1) claim victory with the President (which would drive their base nuts)
2) claim defeat and own the defeat because they pushed for it, promoted it, and compelled it via legislation
W can sit on that bill, then wash his hands of the war while passing potential failure on to Democrats OR compelling them to claim victory with him (alienating the second and larger group of those who oppose the war mentioned earlier).
But wait…here’s the kicker…
Sept/Oct Gen Petraeus gives his report.
Sept/Oct W signs the bill and drawdown begins (Democrat ownership of the war is grabbed)
So what?
Well, that gives only 120-150 days for Dems to spin it and cuddle to their base before the Feb5 primaries when the next President is effectively decided. They’ll have that long to decide whether to claim victory with W and alienate their base, or to claim American defeat and alienate RINOs, DINOs, centrists, and independents.
Seriously, dumbest political move EV-AH. Yeah, I know they needed to have something under their belts to go home with in August for the break, but if people stop and think for a minute what this does to the party when they come back…I think it could be devastating; PROVIDED the President use the Senate to stall the bill, then sits on it until the report on The Surge. The only hope for the Dems is that W misses that opportunity.
Trackbacked by The Thunder Run – Web Reconnaissance for 07/13/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.
Excellent summary as usual Scott, and I think you’ve hit the nail on the head. Although I can’t agree with you on this being the Democrats dumbest move yet, top 10 for sure…but they have made some dumb dumb moves in the past, and I’m sure the hits will keep on acoming
LOL! Yeah, I guess you’re right about dumbest ever. Man, it’s really HARD to put that top ten list together if you think about it. I guess it’ll just have to go down as one darkest bulbs in a room lit by dim ones.