January 10, 2007
President Bush made his speech tonight outlining a new strategy for the War on terror in Iraq. Even before he made the speech, Democrats and RINOs were lining up in opposition to any increase in troop strength, labeled as a “surge” in their semantic laced calls.
Newly ordained Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi (D.Ca.) says, "If the president is proposing an escalation, we want to see a justification for the mission." She added that any funding for a surge would be "subjected to some pretty harsh scrutiny."
What more “justification” does she need than VICTORY?
When asked, back in May of 2004, "Would you send more American troops in order to stabilize the situation?" Pelosi answered "Yes."
On Meet the Press, May 30, 2004, Pelosi stated, "What I would do is, and what I think our country must do in Iraq is take an assessment of where we are, and there has to be a leveling with the American people and with Congress as to what's really happening there. It's very hard to say what you would do. We need more troops on the ground."
From Ted Kennedy’s website, we see, “On the eve of the war in 2003, the Bush Administration sidelined the Army Chief of Staff, General Eric Shinseki, because he said we would need more than 200,000 troops. After the fall of Baghdad, the Administration ignored the Coalition Provisional Authority Director, Paul Bremer, when he said America would need more troops.”
Now, Kennedy says, “In Vietnam, the White House grew increasingly obsessed with victory, and increasingly divorced from the will of the people and any rational policy. The Department of Defense kept assuring us that each new escalation in Vietnam would be the last. Instead, each one led only to the next. There was no military solution to that war. Echoes of that disaster are all around us today. Iraq is George Bush's Vietnam."
Under the Democrat led Congress of the time, South Viet Nam fell to Communism and millions of innocent people in Viet Nam, Cambodia and Laos simply disappeared, being slaughtered by Communists “purging” opposition. So much for a “political solution.”
Nearly all of the Democrats and many RINO's were complaining of “not enough troops” all the way through the 2004 campaigns and before. They would complain that Bush wasn’t listening to field commanders calling for more troops.
Now, that Bush has decided to send in more troops, these same Democrats, as well as the RINO’s, are adamantly opposed. It appears the opposition is just to oppose anything that might bring this war to VICTORY, a word Democrats threw away right at the close of WW2.
In December of 1944, the German Army mounted an offensive that became known as the Battle of the Bulge. In the end, 19,000 American lost their lives. When it appeared the Germans were succeeding in over running Allied Forces along the front lines, strong reinforcements were sent in and the German Offensive failed.
Earlier that year, on the 6th of June, Allied Forces invaded the coast of France to start driving the German invaders back. At the end of the day, American casualties amounted to about 4,900. It was going so poorly, General Omar Bradley was actually considering a withdrawal of the troops for a while. By sheer determination and reinforcements, the Allies prevailed and pushed inland and won World War Two with an unconditional Surrender.
The same was repeated all across the pacific by U.S. and Allied Forces. Whenever things looked bleak, reinforcements were called for and sent in and our side, the side of freedom, prevailed, each time. In that war, we suffered over 300,000 deaths to combat, with a significant number to other causes. Senator Kennedy has made the connection that we have been involved in Iraq longer than we were in World War Two. Deaths so far are just over 3,000. Or, one one hundredth of what we suffered 60 years ago.
While each and every death is significant and painful, I see the death rate as much lower than we have ever seen.
In Washington D.C. there is a black granite wall dug into the earth containing over 58,000 names of the dead from the Viet Nam War. In my opinion, they died in vain as the Democrat led Congress prevented any support or help in any manner to prevent that struggling free Democracy from fending off the Communist North Vietnamese. They gave their all and in return, we abandoned an ally in their time of need, in what has become the style of America.
In World War Two, neither party whined about sending reinforcements. Neither whined about too costly. Neither worked diligently to undermine the President as he Commanded the Forces needed to defeat Nazism, Fascism and the Japanese. If any did, they were promptly shouted down. America pulled together, made sacrifices at home and supported our troops to total and complete Victory. How unlike today’s Democrats and RINO’s.
Tonight, President Bush announced a bold new strategy for the War. In addition to our troops the Iraqi Army is stepping up to fight more in the forefront and secure Baghdad. I can already see the terrorists and unlawful militia’s there won’t like it and will resist fiercely. They desire world domination under their perverted view of Islam so they will fight like the animals they are to succeed.
Our troops, along with the Iraqis and the few others supporting the defeat of terror can and will succeed if we let them. Send in reinforcements as needed. Take the gloves off and untie the hands of our troops and let them do the job they were trained to do. Learn patience, as we displayed in World War two. Don’t let our troops keep asking ”Why am I more patient than someone sitting at home in Fort ‘Livingroom’?”
Above all, Democrats and RINO’s need to stop waving their flag. It isn’t the American Flag they wave, but the white flag of surrender.
UPDATE: Newly installed Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Sylvestre Reyes, himself a fellow Viet Nam Veteran and who had trouble distinguishing between Hezballoh, Sunni and Shiite, is quoted as saying in a December 5, 2006 Newsweek article, "We have to consider the need for additional troops to be in Iraq, to take out the militias and stabilize Iraq … I would say 20,000 to 30,000-for the specific purpose of making sure those militias are dismantled, working in concert with the Iraqi military."
Now, in the January 11, 2007 edition of the El Paso Times, he says, "We don't have the capability to escalate even to this minimal level... The president has not changed direction, but is simply changing tactics." He goes on to say, "sending more troops removes any incentive the Iraqi government had to take responsibility for the safety of its own citizens. Bush [is] continuing his "go-it-alone" approach, rather than trying to find diplomatic solutions."
In the January 12, 2007 El Paso Times, he also says, "We are sending brigades on a very thin promise from al-Maliki, who's got a very bad track record."
Of all people, Representative Reyes, you should know how this type of talk demoralizes our troops in harm's way.
UPDATE: Rush Limbaugh has compiled a short list of more Democrats who have been for increasing the number of troops and now, who oppose it as soona s Bush calls for it. If Bush Wants More Troops, Democrats Are Against
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Posted by Lew Waters at 8:16 PM