A curious question you might ask?
I have to agree, but that is one asked by a reader of our local paper, The Columbian in the December 14, 2009 Letters To The Editor and titled Deploying more troops is regrettable.
How have people been lulled back to sleep after September 11, 2001? How has the left forgotten and ignored how they demeaned President Bush’s efforts in Iraq by crying often, “Afghanistan is where the fight is” or “Afghanistan is the central front in the War on Terror?” Is that not a question frequently put before us by those who said Iraq was a folly and was drawing needed resources away from the real war in Afghanistan?
Failed 2004 Democrat candidate for president, John ‘F’in Kerry is one of the more vocal ones who expressed strong opposition to Iraq while calling for more resources to Afghanistan and now, talks of abandoning Afghanistan too, just as he advocated when he stabbed Viet Nam Veterans in the back in 1971.
He is far from the only one, though. On September 14, 2001 a rare display of bi-partisanship authorized President Bush to take Military action. It passed in the Senate by a vote of 98 to 0 and the House, 420 to 1. Then chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Joe Biden said, “The nation is resolute, and I have every confidence we will prevail.”
The Republican whip in the House, Tom DeLay said, “The president can act with patience and deliberation because the American people are united behind our duty to vindicate freedom.”
Apparently that “resolute feelings” and “united” notion held little meaning for all too many as we are told in an October 13, 2009 New York Times article, “Mr. Biden has been Mr. Obama’s in-house pessimist on Afghanistan, the strongest voice against further escalation of American forces there and the leading doubter of the president’s strategy” now that he is vice president.
September 2006, we saw Democrat Sen. Mary Landrieu from Louisiana complaining, “America is not tired of fighting terrorism. America is tired of the wrongheaded and boneheaded leadership of the Republican Party that has sent $6.5 billion a month to Iraq when the front line was Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia, that led this country to attack Saddam Hussein when we were attacked by Osama bin Laden.”
In April 2008, several Democrats sent a letter to President Bush calling for a different strategy in Iraq and saying they “would pursue an alternative policy through legislation. They said their focus would be on restoring the strength of the Army and Marines and refocusing the nation's resources on fighting terrorists in Afghanistan.”
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, and Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois signed the letter.
In a July 2008 interview on Pittsburgh TV Station KDKA, Rep. Jack Murtha, a long time opponent to Iraq was cornered on his opposition to President Bush’s surge in Iraq and reluctantly agreed that while in the short term it certainly reduced incidents, also said that “the tactical change is important but 144,000 troops in Iraq is keeping the U.S. from dealing with Afghanistan,” adding “what this has done is constrained us from putting troops into Afghanistan which is starting to go bad.”
April 2007 saw Democrat Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, after crying the Iraq war is lost and labeling our Military generals incompetent, giving a speech where he claimed, “we should be addressing the resurgence of al Qaeda in Afghanistan.”
Calling endlessly for withdrawal from Iraq, Reid also said of the Dems ‘cut & run’ policy, “It allows some of our forces to be moved to other areas of the world where they are needed, such as Afghanistan.”
Nancy Pelosi, leading the Dems quest to seize control of the country in the 2006 election, released a booklet she titled “A New Direction For America” in which she says the Democrats would “Eliminate Osama Bin Laden, destroy terrorist networks like al Qaeda, finish the job in Afghanistan, and end the threat posed by the Taliban.”
A consortium of “Progressives” that include Richard Clarke and disgraced former general, Wesley Clark speaking through a group known as the National Security Network released a “report” in May 2008 where, after the usual bashing of President Bush, said, “There is a serious need for more Special Operations forces, translators, trainers, and civil affairs experts. As the situation in Afghanistan deteriorates at an alarming rate, the U.S. is faced with a crucial choice: lose Afghanistan or stay in Iraq. It is past time for the U.S. to redeploy its troops from Iraq.”
I think by now you might see a pattern here. For nearly 6 years, Afghanistan was used as a bat to beat President Bush over the head with and to mislead the public that only Democrats could actually protect America.
Think back. How many editorials did you read, how many times did you see major anchors on the so called mainstream media outlets broadcast cries of Bush dropping the ball and abandoning Afghanistan? How many times was the call issued to just up and leave Iraq and reengage in Afghanistan?
How many Democrat campaigns ran on denigrating President Bush and the Iraq Theater of the War on Terror and called on doubling efforts in Afghanistan?
And now that the Democrats, liberals, progressives or whatever you call them today have seized total dictatorial control over the country, what are we hearing?
I don’t know about you, but I am getting very tired of seeing the defense of our nation, especially after the most horrific terrorist attack in history on our soil, politicized as little more than another campaign talking point by Democrats and those Republicans that have gone spineless.
Nearly every one of those Democrats listed above now oppose Barack Obama’s announcement of sending 30,000 additional reinforcements to Afghanistan. Oddly enough, his main support in standing up to terrorism is coming from the opposite side of the aisle, even though we disagree with the inclusion of a date he will stop fighting and begin withdrawing.
Opposers like Ernie Campbell like to refer to the failure of the Soviet invasion and occupation of Afghanistan now to claim we cannot win there. The fallacy of that claim is that we are not there to occupy or make Afghanistan different, but to deny the resurgence of the brutal Taliban that seized control of the country after the Soviets left in defeat and who openly allowed terrorist groups like bin Laden’s Al Qaeda to train and plot terrorist attacks designed to impose their distorted view of Islam on others worldwide.
Our goal is not to conquer Afghanistan, but to stand them up to defend their country and choose their own path.
We are also told that 8 years is too long to be fighting this war. Those making that cry ignore that radical Jihadists have been fighting us for three decades and have no “exit strategy,” “withdrawal date” nor do they follow “rules of engagement.”
Nor is their fight because “we are there,” they have shown their goal is world domination under their narrow distorted view of Islam. After all, they are the number one killer of fellow Muslims worldwide.
From September 12, 2001 we have known and been told that this will be a very long war, longer than any other we have been in. It is going to entail Military action against terrorists, diplomacy, education and showing respect for a religion and culture many of us may disagree with.
As important in defeating terrorists is winning the hearts and minds of those others who may feel coerced into joining the terrorists.
The real question isn’t “does anybody know why we are in Afghanistan,” but should be “why aren’t you supporting our Troops standing up for your liberties.”
The answer must be partisan politics takes precedence over the well being of the country and its citizens.
What else would we expect from the party that has members that openly advocate America losing in this war against terrorists?
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
A curious question you might ask?
Posted by Lew Waters at 12:31 AM