Sunday, November 05, 2006

Wes Clark: ‘Because of Iraq’

November 5, 2006

In yet another gross misrepresentation and exploitation of America’s Veterans, fired General and failed presidential candidate Wesley Clark has released what he labels as “a blunt ad,” showing 3 veterans speaking against Iraq. One says Osama Bin Ladin is still a threat because of Iraq. Another says the Military is spread too thin, because of Iraq. And the third says there are more terrorists in the world, because of Iraq. At the end, Clark, in a very somber voice, tells us that when we hear commercials warning us about terrorists, “it’s all because of Iraq.”

While I normally hold ex-generals in a certain degree of respect, this moonbat leftist has lost any and all respect from me that I may have ever had and I didn’t have that much to begin with.

First off, he is misleading listeners with his “votevets.org” website. While he may have 5 Veterans of Iraq running for office in an anti-war mood, several thousand more are still serving, voluntarily fighting the terrorists, not trying to make a name for themselves in opening our country back up for another 9/11 style attack.

Secondly, we weren’t in Iraq when Muslim extremists stormed our embassy in Tehran Iran in 1979.

We weren’t in Iraq when the U.S. Embassy was attacked in Beirut, Lebanon in 1983, killing 63.

We weren’t in Iraq when the Marine Barracks were attacked in Lebanon in 1983, killing 242 Americans and 58 French troops.

We weren't in Iraq when a TWA flight was highjacked in 1985 and flown to Beirut where the passengers and crew were held for seventeen days with one hostage, a U.S. Navy Sailor, was murdered and his limp body tossed out onto the tarmac.

We weren’t in Iraq when the Achille Lauro was high jacked in 1985, resulting in the murder of an American Jewish wheelchair ridden passenger, Leon Klinghoffer.

We weren’t in Iraq when Pan Am flight 103 was blown up over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing all 259 on board, in 1988.

We weren’t in Iraq when the World Trade Center was bombed in 1993, resulting in 6 deaths and 1,000 injuries.

We weren’t in Iraq when President Bush (1) was targeted for assassination by Iraqi agents while visiting Kuwait in 1993.

We weren’t in Iraq when our forces in Mogadishu were ambushed and savagely murdered, resulting in 18 deaths and their bodies being drug through the streets in 1993.

We weren’t in Iraq when 2 U.S. Diplomats were murdered by unidentified gunmen in Karachi, Pakistan in 1995.

We weren’t in Iraq when a Saudi Military Installation in Riyadh was attacked, killing 1 U.S. Citizen, several foreign national employees of the U.S. and over 40 others in 1995.

We weren’t in Iraq when the Khobar Towers were attacked in Dahahran, killing 19 U.S. Military personnel and wounding 515 including 240 other U.S. Service personnel in 1996.

We weren’t in Iraq in 1997 when a Palestinian gunman opened fire on tourists on the observation deck atop the Empire State Building in New York City, killing a Danish national and wounding visitors from the United States, Argentina, Switzerland, and France.

We weren’t in Iraq in 1998 when the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were attacked almost simultaneously resulting 40 and injuring thousands.

We weren’t in Iraq in 2000 when suicide bombers maneuvered a rubber raft laden with explosives next to the USS Cole and detonated their bombs, killing 17 Sailors and injuring 39.

We weren’t in Iraq when we suffered the worst terrorist attack in history on our own homeland on September 11, 2001, when 19 suicide high jackers high jacked 4 jetliners and flew three of them into the World Trade Centers and Pentagon, with untold more stopped from completing their mission by the firm action of passengers and crew on United Flight 93, causing it to crash in Pennsylvania and decisive actions by President Bush (2) grounding all aircraft immediately.

We weren’t in Iraq when any of those terrorist attacks happened, Mr. Clark. Since going into Iraq, how many terrorist attacks have their been against U.S Interests?

This new ad, slated to run through November 7, is nothing more than another below the belt hit piece designed to convince voters there is no real terrorist threat as long as we get rid of President Bush and Republicans.

Since 9/11 and President Bush’s decision to take the fight back to the enemy, Democrats have been firmly opposed it, portraying it as a tool to return to power, trying to paint is as another Viet Nam, the other war they undermined at the cost of millions of innocent Vietnamese and Cambodian lives. They claim only Afghanistan is worthy of the fight, but they also were calling it a “quagmire” within days of the invasion there. This after complaining President Bush wasn’t acting fast enough to “get somebody” for the 9/11 attacks, resulting in Bush’s famous quote, "When I take action, I'm not gonna fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt. It's going to be decisive."

Decisive he has been since then, too.

This ad also is misleading in that you are to think Veterans oppose President Bush’s policies and only Democrats have their best interest at heart. Think back to the fiasco of the 2000 Florida election recounts. It was Democrat Al Gore’s campaign that tried desperately to block and deny counting absentee ballots from overseas of our Military personnel overseas by any technicality they could find.

I won’t say that there are no Veterans opposed to the war because that just isn’t so. But by and large, many more support it than oppose it. Three opposed, even including the single amputee he uses in this ad, doesn’t speak for the majority.

Like the misleading editorial recently printed in the Army Times, this is a Democrat inspired “November Surprise” at the last minute to sway those who have yet to vote. It is designed to mislead you into a sympathetic glance at the three veterans opposed and forget the thousands that voluntarily return to finish the good job they are doing every day in Iraq.

Al Qaeda has stated that Iraq is the “Central Front” of this war. Democrats state it is a diversion. If Al Qaeda has flooded into Iraq, should we not face them there, and not here?

Wesley Clark, in my estimation, has openly revealed himself to be another useful idiot of the left. His tactics in Bosnia nearly resulted in World War Three being started, only stopped because of the refusal of a British General to engage Russian troops as they entered the airport there. It is little wonder that President Clinton was compelled to fire Clark, making him the only general ever to be fired by a Draft Dodger.

Clark may come across in this ad as sincere and somber, but don’t be fooled. Return Democrats to power and you can expect them to

“adopt the Clinton administration’s spineless approach to fighting terrorism.”

”They would gut the USA Patriot Act.”

”They would stop interception of calls from al Qaeda to and from the U.S.”

”They would end tracking of terrorists’ financial transfers.”

”They would bestow legal rights on al Qaeda terrorists who are being interrogated about planned plots rights similar to those enjoyed by American citizens.”

”Finally, they would cut off funds to support the war effort in Iraq, handing al Qaeda a win in what the terrorists themselves have described as a crucial battleground in their effort to defeat America and impose their vision of radical Islam on the world.”


As Ron Kessler, chief Washington correspondent of NewsMax.com and whose words I have quoted above wrote today in an article titled “Analysis: Election About Stopping The Next 9/11 stated,
“Contrary to what many pundits would have you believe, this election is not about side shows like the meaning of Macaca or Senator John Kerry’s assessment of American soldiers’ I.Q. Instead, voters face choices about the most fundamental issue: our national security and whether we can foil a devastating attack that could kill millions of Americans and wipe out our economy.”


Wesley Clark is dead wrong. Should he convince enough Americans, many of us may just end up dead!

Lew

UPDATE: A Satirical sequel to this ad by ScrappleFace is up at youtube.com
Because of Iraq II

UPDATE: It appears this is an edited version of the original ad which contained another 'Vet,' John Lansdale, making claims of horrors that did not happen, according to many who served with him. Since votevets.org saw fit to edit the ad, it lends credence to that claim as his comments have been removed. Gateway Pundit

4 comments:

coboble said...

I don't trust any of the information we are being fed, by either side.
This doesn’t seem like the sort of thing which should be determined by political party. When a bunch of intellegent people, have the exact same information, on a subject which does not seem like something which should be a partisan subject at all, why do the conclusions formed fall right down political party lines.
Does one political party, more than another, state they believe in fighting for the rights of oppressed people?
Does one political party, more than another, state that they are for keeping the United States safe from Terrorists?

I think that one political party might say or do something just to make the other look bad, even if it is something which is bad for the country.

There is so much information and mis-information floating around that I can piece together the right stuff to support either side of most issues.

I did sort of like the Satire video. Maybe if that is the last thing I watch before marking my ballot, it will have a subconscious effect on me.

Someone remind me to join a political party, or a union, or a church or some other group, which will tell me how to vote; before the next election cycle starts.

Lew Waters said...

Coboble, thank you for leaving this comment. I appreciate your view and distrust of politicians. Believe me, I don’t trust many either, from either party.

I am going to assume you are a college student, from what I read at your blog. Forgive me if I’m wrong. I applaud you for furthering your education; I waited until I was out of the Army to do so.

While this war shouldn’t be along political party lines, sadly, it is. Nearly always they are, even WW2 initially. Viet Nam was maybe the first where partisanship became so strong. While it is often referred to as “Nixon’s War,” it was actually President Johnson, a Democrat, that got us so heavily involved in it and set on a course of defeat by micro-managing it from the White House. When Nixon came along, he was determined to pull us out, but not immediately. He wanted to ensure the South Vietnamese would be able to defend themselves before we up and left. That is also why part of the Paris Peace Accords ending our involvement there was a promise of our support, should they be unable to properly defend themselves.

After we left, the heavily Democrat controlled Congress passed what is known as the “Church amendment” barring any and all support for them. Between our leaving and the fall of Saigon, the Soviet Union and Chinese Communists re-supplied and strengthened the North Vietnamese while we allowed the South the languish. After seeing we would not re-enter the war through some smaller excursions into the South, the North began a full scale assault conquering the South Vietnamese swiftly.

Talk to some Vietnamese within our communities or their parents. Ask them to tell you what they went through as they escaped Viet Nam as “Boat People” in rickety boats seeking freedom. They can explain it much better than I ever could.

Now, compare that to the situation in Iraq today. It is unpopular, as most every war is. Even WW2 wasn’t so popular until it was over and we won. He people there are facing a group that is willing to behead women simply for wearing lipstick or not having their faces covered. Under that radical Islamic rule (not mainstream Islam) one woman recently received 90 lashes for being raped. The Iraqis are facing a much worse subjection that the Vietnamese did, should we leave before they are ready to defend themselves against Al Qaeda and other extremist groups.

Many Democrats and a few Republicans have called it a “lost cause.” I disagree. Nothing is ever a lost cause when it comes to securing our freedom. We Americans have always had freedom, even if we think we are restricted by laws. We can freely move about, act foolish, seek public office, marry as we wish, date as we wish, pretty much do as we please. Iraqis have never been able to do that and are just now starting to taste the freedoms we take for granted.

Worse yet, we have already been attacked on our own soil, something unprecedented in our history, twice now. In 1993 and 2001, they managed to attack us as our guard was down. Unlike other times, we can’t just declare war on the country that attacked us as terrorists come from several different countries and do not represent their people or governments, for the most part.

If we return to the mindset we had on September 10, 2001, what stops them from attacking us again and even harder? Look at the attacks I listed and see how they progressively grew in intensity. As we keep them bottled up over there and seek their sleeper cells out here, we prevent them from doing it again. If we leave and start following the normal suit that the Democrat party has historically taken, we leave ourselves wide open again. If the Republicans that have lost heart side with the Democrats, we are wide open again.

As I said above, we haven’t been attacked since 9/11. No guarantees we won’t be attacked again, but President Bush has our guard up and actively seeking them, both here and over there. Should either party remove the tools that were put in place to discover terrorist plots and neutralize them, where are we then? Right back to pre-9/11 mindsets and ripe for another attack, with the possibility of even greater deaths than 9/11.

Listen to what the leaders of the terrorist groups have been saying. Our support for Israel is the smokescreen. Yes, they hate Jews and have for many centuries. They hate us for supporting Israel. They neglect that until Hamas won political seats in the Palestinian government; we also support the Palestinians with foreign aid and worked hard, both parties, to get the Israelis and Palestinians to come to some agreement to find peace. But, what they hate most is Western Culture. They are seeking world domination of their radical view of Islam. Peaceable Muslims are in as much danger as we are as they also don’t fall into lock-step with the radical Islamofascists.

That is why we must fight them there. We must stay the course, which means adapting as needed to win this fight and give the Iraqis and Afghanis the support and strength needed to fight on against those that would first enslave them then kill them for minor infractions of their ‘sharia’ law.

That this fight has come down along party lines boggles my mind as much as it angers me. With 4 small grandsons, and 4 daughters (between my wife and I, 2 each from former marriages) I really fear what they will have to see and do as young adults should we not defeat these radicals as much as possible before leaving. But, whether I like it or not, it has come down along party lines, so I must choose the party that has the will to see this through.

Having been in combat myself, it isn’t easy for me to watch as once again, our Military is fighting and dying. Thinking what our lives may be like should they not and having witnessed first hand some of the horrors our enemies are willing to commit to institute their radical domination over others, I am left with no choice but to support this fight.

Those that believe if we leave them alone they will leave us alone are seriously misled. We have been leaving them alone for decades. We have been sending foreign aid to many of them and paying top dollar for their goods and oil, we don’t steal their oil. Their hatred for us is due to our freedoms, our democracy, and what they see, in their misled views of Islam, our lack of Godliness.

We cannot negotiate with them; history has repeatedly shown despots use negotiations to bide for time to build strength. We cannot appease them either. We really have nothing they want. They have plenty of money. No, all we can do is block them, tie them up where they are, keep them over there and with the help of the Iraqis and Afghanis, who are also fed up with their radicalism, destroy them as we show others life is much better without their radical views.

I am first and foremost, a conservative. Until the time of Jimmy Carter elections, I was a conservative Democrat. He was a liberal and what he did to injure the country is still being felt. Reagan was a conservative Republican with a liberal Democrat Congress, but still repaired much of what was done wrong in the decade before, by both parties. Bush 1 was a moderate and Clinton was mostly a liberal who seemed more concerned about is sex life and legacy than the country. Bush 2, as hated as he is, finally took the stand against these terrorists that should have been taken back in 1979, before they grew in strength to where they are today. For his efforts, he has been vilified, ridiculed and undermined, all for the sake of political power.

Finally, although I take your final comment as tongue in cheek, don’t allow anyone to tell you how to vote. Vote your own conscience, your own values. If they disagree with mine, that’s fine. It’s always been discussion between our differing factions that have been our cornerstone. Maybe that is why so many think we can negotiate and talk it out with terrorists, I don’t know. But, the terrorists aren’t us. Their culture won’t allow discussions in sincerity. They only know strength, death and suffering they can inflict.

Vote your heart, but look back at history and look ahead to the future to see if it is about to repeat itself. It often does and each time it does, it gets much worse. Don’t trust a politician just because he belongs to particular party or goes to a certain church. As has been too often shown lately even church leaders can’t always be trusted. But, always be true to yourself first.

Lew

Sorry about being so long winded, but this is also intended for another from another thread, kill two birds with one stone, so to speak ;)

Mark said...

Thanks for taking the time to respond. Though I don’t agree with everything you say, you make some good points, including that fallacy of ‘if we leave them alone, they’ll leave us alone.’

I also have to agree with what cobble said above. It really distresses me that congress seems to vote down party lines far too often, putting politics before principle. I guess it’s true that thought democracy is a terrible form of government, but everything else is worse.

I live in San Francisco (talk about ‘in the left world’), and am fairly liberal on a lot of social issues, but much more conservative on economic, law-and-order, illegal immigration, and others. I love this city, and the people in it, but I definitely have become aware of the ‘liberal orthodoxy’ that pervades, and as I approach 40 years old I find I just can’t let it stand unchallenged.

A somewhat influential free newspaper here had a piece attacking Nancy Pelosi because she had pledged not to move for impeachment of Bush if she becomes Speaker, and withheld it’s endorsement because of that. What disgusted me about it is that they argued both that impeaching him would be taking the moral high ground, and that it could help the Democrats take the WH in 2008. I wrote them to give them a piece of my mind.

I believe that impeachment should be reserved for things like treason, bribery or other blatant use of the office for personal gain, or gross incompetence, otherwise it’s just a political stunt. I though Clinton was sleazy like most people (but not outraged – like I said I’m socially liberal) and disgusted by the public lies, but I also thought that the whole Lewinsky affair was pursued exclusively and vigourously for Republican political gain. A Bush impeachment would be exactly the same.

I didn’t agree with going into Iraq in the first place, and still think the administration distorted intelligence to sell the war. I remember reading a conservative commentator saying before the war that it was very possible Iraq didn’t have significant WMD programs, but that the war was still essential to stem a growing threat, and needed to be sold to a skeptical public because the agenda of installing non-despotic, democratic, western-friendly governments in the Islamic world would not sell. It rang true to me. I didn’t think that agenda was a wise move, but I don’t think Bush acted in bad faith, and probably has nothing but the highest of intentions. I just don’t get why Bush should be impeached over that except for political humiliation and partisan gain. Especially when dems also voted in favor of the war, there is no chance of convicting him and ousting him in the Senate, and it would just distract the country from real problems.

So many people in San Francisco see in Bush something sinister that just isn’t there. Many still haven’t let go of the 2000 election outcome. Truthfully though, I’m kind of glad I’m here so I can try to talk a bit of sense into them.

Anyway, I appreciate that you take the time to make your perspective known. You’re clearly passionate about supporting the troops and defeating the threat from Islamic fanatics.

Anonymous said...

Thanks Lew for this excellent historical piece on terrorism.
Your command of facts and lucid commentary on same is very compelling.
Take care in the NorthWest tonight it appears your in for some nasty weather.
NortonPete swiftvets