August 23, 2007
Just as news of the Troop Reinforcement put into effect earlier this year by President Bush is showing progress and General Petraeus is soon due to deliver the report mandated by the Democrat Congress, we find Democrats strategizing behind the scenes as to how to portray the reinforcement as a “failure.”
Curiously, other Democrats have come forward stating they see progress in Iraq due to the reinforcement.
Brain Baird, “I have come to believe that calls for premature withdrawal may make it more difficult for Iraqis to solve their problems. If you have some guarantee of support, you have working space to reach out and involve the other side.” In areas where previously patrols were going out every night and being hit with IEDs (improvised explosive devices), all of those measures are better. Local Iraqis are standing up against the extremists on all sides. They are turning in the insurgents. They are fed up with al-Qaida.”
Sen. Carl Levin with Republican Sen. John Warner, “We have seen indications that the surge of additional brigades to Baghdad and its immediate vicinity and the revitalized counter-insurgency strategy being employed have produced tangible results in making several areas of the capital more secure. We are also encouraged by continuing positive results — in al-Anbar Province, from the recent decisions of some of the Sunni tribes to turn against Al Qaeda and cooperate with coalition force efforts to kill or capture its adherents,” although they aren’t as pleased with the Maliki Government and also desire a withdrawal.
Dick Durbin and Bob Casey, “We found that today as we went to a forward base in an area that, in the fifth year of the war, it’s the first time we’re putting troops on the ground to intercept Al Qaeda.” “The surge has resulted in a reduction of violence in many parts of Iraq. More American troops have brought more peace to more parts of Iraq. I think that’s a fact.”
Hillary Clinton, “That begins with ensuring that America does have the world’s strongest and smartest military force. We’ve begun to change tactics in Iraq, and in some areas, particularly in Al Anbar province, it’s working,” although she still calls for withdrawal.
In an effort to inform the public through the VFW Convention in Kansas City, Missouri, President Bush finally mentioned the cost of abandoning a struggling ally, as we did in to the country of South Viet Nam three decades ago. As can be expected, Democrats blasted Bush’s Vietnam comparison almost immediately.
Sen. John ‘F’in Kerry (who served in Viet Nam) said, “Invoking the tragedy of Vietnam to defend the failed policy in Iraq is as irresponsible as it is ignorant of the realities of both of those wars.”
Yet, just about one month ago, being interviewed about Iraq and when the bloodbath that history has recorded happening in Viet Nam, Cambodia and Laos after we abandoned them, Kerry said, "We heard that argument over and over again about the bloodbath that would engulf the entire Southeast Asia, and it didn't happen." If it didn’t happen, then just what is the “tragedy of Viet Nam” that Kerry mentions?
Seeming to support the “it didn’t happen” claim, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer chimed in with, “If anything, an examination of history and the situation on the ground shows us the importance of creating a new direction in Iraq.” Isn’t a reinforcement that even some Democrats admit is working a “new direction?” Of course, we all know that when a Democrat speaks of a “new direction” in Iraq, they really mean a retreat, surrender, and another abandonment of a struggling ally.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid chided the President for “providing the country with a history lesson” instead of “reevaluating his flawed strategies that have led to one of the worst foreign policy blunders in our nation’s history.” But Senator Reid, it is your fellow Democrats who have admitted the reinforcement is indeed working, even if reluctantly, causing them to shift their focus to opposing Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, even calling for his ouster. I thought Democrats were opposed to “nation building?”
Not to be left out of the foray, first term Senator and Presidential hopeful, Barack Obama belched out, “the disastrous consequences described by President Bush are already in motion and are a direct result of a war that should never have been authorized.” I would encourage the junior Senator to do a little more research on the Killing Fields of Cambodia, the re-education camps and the fleeing Boat People of the late 1970’s and early 1980’s, if he thinks the same thing is already in motion. And of course, he too calls for a retreat and surrender in the masked call for to “change course through a surge in our diplomatic and humanitarian efforts in Iraq and a phased withdrawal of our forces that puts real pressure on the Iraqi government to act.”
Seeking to appear relevant to the discussion, Speakerette of the House of Representatives, Nancy (San Fran Nan) Pelosi brayed, "In an attempt to justify his stay-the-course strategy in Iraq, President Bush is offering false lessons from history."
Apparently, she pays more attention to a quisling Judas like John Kerry as he desperately attempts to rewrite history and pretend his prediction of a peaceful takeover of South Viet Nam by the Communist Forces of the North Vietnamese was good for the people we left behind and abandoned.
She adds, "The American people have already judged the president's war in Iraq as the wrong war at the wrong time, and are ready for our troops to come home now."
Perhaps she has failed to notice that while the President’s approval rating has risen to 32%, theirs has plummeted to 18% under her guidance, matching the historical lowest ever for Congress.
And now, the words spoken by House Whip James Clyburn just a couple weeks ago apparently have Democrats worried. Clyburn acknowledged, "if the surge is successful, it will be a real problem for us."
Instead of getting behind our Troops and supporting the reinforcement and securing Iraq enough so the Iraqi government can stand on their own and set up their version of Democracy in the troubled Middle East, Democrats desiring power so much, they once again belittle the brave efforts of our All Volunteer Troops and seek to disqualify the report due to be given soon by General Petraeus, weeks before it is even given.
Since General Petraeus, who was unanimously approved by the Democrat led Senate, has previously shown himself to be a straight shooter, what possible reason could Democrats have for the preemptive disparagement of the report they demanded he make this September? It can only be the knowledge that the Troop Reinforcement is working and a real worry that if the American Public hears it from credible sources like General Petraeus, they will open their eyes and see that the Democrat Party is more interested in grabbing hold of Political Power than protecting America from another horrific terrorist attack like we saw on September 11, 2001.
Such is the corner they have painted themselves into as they So Heavily Invested Themselves In Defeat.
No more images of The Last Helicopter fleeing a battle zone where we were winning, until Democrats waved their white flag!
Thursday, August 23, 2007
August 23, 2007
Posted by Lew Waters at 11:06 PM