Posted by Curt on 28 July, 2007 at 7:25 pm. 1 comment.


A simply outstanding post by Russ Vaughn over at Old War Dogs on the various liberals talking points we hear thrown about lately such as "Iraq had no ties to al-Qaeda" (check out my category here for my many posts dispelling that notion), and "we are wasting our military in Iraq when we should be hunting bin-Laden":

Yes, I know there are legions of liberals, so blinded by their certainty that the Supreme Court cheated Al Gore out of the presidency that they actually profess to believe that there were no ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq. To them I would say consider this: Syria had ties to Al Qaeda; Jordan had ties to Al Qaeda; Egypt had ties to Al Qaeda; Yemen had ties to Al Qaeda; Somalia had ties to Al Qaeda; Saudi Arabia had ties to Al Qaeda; the various Gulf monarchies had ties to Al Qaeda; Iran had ties to Al Qaeda; Pakistan had ties to Al Qaeda; Indonesia, the Philippines, North Korea and several of the former Soviet satellites under Muslim rule had ties to Al Qaeda.

But not Iraq.

That’s right, according to Democrat politicians and the liberal Left in America and Europe, only one country in the Middle East, Iraq, a country under the iron-fisted control of an absolute dictator who had reason to hate the American government far more bitterly than any of the leaders of the above nations, and yep, sitting smack dab in the middle of all these other terrorist harboring countries, only America-hating Iraq, was lily white clean according to liberal Democrats when it came to affiliation with Al Qaeda.

It’s quite funny when you think about it.  People honestly believe that Saddam would never join with bin-Laden in his fight against the western world.  Those people who believe this fact are either delusional or are so filled with hate towards Bush that they refuse to believe it.  Security of our nation be damned.

And for all you armchair, liberal strategists who continue to throw up that canard that our military efforts should be entirely focused on capturing or killing the Al Qaeda leadership, Osama bin Laden and Zayman Al Zawahiri, in Afghanistan and Pakistan; may I inquire as to where you obtained your advanced degrees in military science? Madam Chair, would perhaps that have been at Berkeley’s famed War College? We know Congressman Murtha obtained his multiple military degrees from a rural Pennsylvania diploma mill, established and funded entirely by earmarks in federal legislation, but that’s a topic for another essay.

So, a simple question: did George Washington seek to capture King George? Did Abraham Lincoln focus all his military strategies on the capture or elimination of Jefferson Davis? In WWI, if we were hell-bent on capturing the Kaiser, why did we spend so many months in the hellish, intransigence of those trenches? Why on earth did MacArthur spend all that time and those American boys’ lives to move systematically up the Pacific archipelago in WWII if all we had to do was focus on capturing Emperor Hirohito? Would modern-day Democrat strategists label Eisenhower a fool and a loser for moving indirectly through Africa, Italy and the soft underbelly of Europe, Southern France, when all he had to do was attack Berlin directly and put Hitler in chains?

The truth is, all you Democrat military geniuses, is that none of those enemy leaders was captured until the fighting was over and the respective war was won; truth is, most of them never suffered any ill effects other than the ignominy of losing. Hell, if we did capture Osama, you liberal turkeys would be clamoring for the Bush administration to give him a fair and speedy trial, afforded all the rights of a U.S. citizen, and the ACLU would be appealing his conviction long beyond his natural death.

Russ has that one right.  The ACLU and CAIR would be falling all over themselves to be the first one to represent the man.  But the main point Russ is making is an important one.  Osama is NOT the be-all, end-all of this war on terror.  He is one man who will be replaced once killed or captured.  The liberal calls for a cowardly cut and run from Iraq to go capture this one man is an excuse to get us out of the Middle East all together, to declare that Bush was wrong and then….and only then will they feel they have won.

At the price of our nations security, at the price of the wholesale slaughter that would occur in Iraq after left, and at the price of strengthening our enemy.

But hey, what’s that compared to being able to say "Bush was wrong, we were right".

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x