Saturday, December 02, 2006
Liberals: What Do You Want To Do?
A ruthless tyrant, who thought nothing of ordering the execution of anyone he believed to be his opposition, was rightly dethroned when Saddam Hussein was ousted. He had then, and still has today, his followers and supporters who do their best to instill violence and acts of terrorism within Iraq. Further complicating matters are other formal and loosely organized terrorist groups - all over the globe - whose mission is only to cause death and destruction to those they consider their enemies.
Major news organizations, including those worshipped by Liberals, are reporting that both the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the BIPARTISAN Iraq Study Group say that a strict timetable for withdraw isn't a good idea. So what plan, if any, do the Democrats have?
Liberals, help me understand what you want to do in Iraq. Tell me your strategy and what detailed action you have in mind to make this mission successful. Or do you not want Iraq to be successful, deliberately sabotaging efforts there for nothing more than your own political advantages and gains?
From the very start of this war Liberals tied the hands of our Military, insisting that our Troops fight a kinder, gentler war - "don't kill anyone even if they're trying to kill you, don't blow anything up and don't offend the enemy." How does any country fight a war based upon those standards?
The Left falsely claims that "not enough was done in and for New Orleans prior to and after hurricane Katrina". The Left implies one year after Katrina that New Orleans is still in a state of abysmal disrepair. And I'm sure there are plenty of areas in New Orleans where the Left is CORRECT in stating this. Yet they advocate abandoning Iraq when that country needs us the most in helping them structure a lasting democracy. So the federal government needs to be intimately involved, providing federal funding and resources for as long as it takes to rebuild New Orleans, but because things aren't going the way the Left would like in Iraq we cut and run? "Isn't it time that New Orleans and its people stand up on their own?"
And if Iraq is indeed a Civil War, as some say, isn't this a foreign policy issue where, in the past, the Left demands the U.S. become militarily involved in, witness their stance on Darfur compared to what finally is a Johnny-Come-Lately (semi)acknowledgment from some on the Left that Bill Clinton sat idly by while hundreds of thousand of Rwandans were killed? The difference is the Left wants to use the Military only for humanitarian relief, not for the actual protection of our country or the thwarting of a terrorist attack.
If - and yes, it's a pretty big IF - the situation in Iraq ends up with it becoming a successful democracy and a stabilizing force in the area, then the political landscape of the Mid East will forever be changed for the better. If - and it's equally as big an IF as the previous IF - Iraq's democracy is a failure, and part of the reason for its failure is directly due to the political machinations from the Democrats, history will remember it as another botched military exercise that was bungled by interfering and combat-inept Democrats, just like Jimmy Carter's botched rescue mission and helicopter fiasco in Tehran, Operation Eagle Claw, in 1980.
History shows us again and again that Democrats don't know how to fight wars. You're not going to try and tell me that President Harry Truman - a Democrat - did the right thing by dropping bombs on Japan, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, are you? Why, if the Left deems Christopher Columbus a mass murderer, Truman must be Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot all rolled up into one.
It's funny, because in so many situations the Left always leaves all of its political issues open-ended. Prior to being subject to some degree of reform, the Left fought tooth and nail to keep Welfare and Public Assistance open-ended. Abortion? The Left keeps abortion fully open-ended, right up until the point of actual labor where an abortion is still an option. So why the unyielding "closed-end" mentality from the Left with respect to Iraq?
We are where we are in Iraq today. I don't want anyone in the U.S. Military in Iraq, Afghanistan or anywhere else to be where they are any longer than necessary. I don't personally know any Republican, Conservative, Independent or Big or Small "L" Libertarian who wants us there any longer than necessary. So what do you propose we do, Lefties? Should we listen to the Generals on the ground? Do you think the Generals know more about what's going on in Iraq and what's required to complete this mission successfully better than you? Look, you don't know better than the Generals and either do I. Nor does any politician of any political party.
I know that few, if any, of you Dems out there who read this post (and I do thank you for visiting my blog - believe it or not, a few of my best friends are raging Liberals - seriously!), will leave a proactive or reasoned comment. Oh, you're only too happy to leave your tepid little comments on the less serious posts, letting your idolatry of some Liberal Talk Radio Half-Wit Host take precedence over any logical or articulate reply or comment.
Do you want to see Iraq a successful democracy or do you want the efforts that have been expended there, and the progress that has been made go for naught? What do you want to do?
It is a joke to think New Orleanians have been doing anything other than this. At last count 39 Louisiana citizens have received aid from the "billions" allocated by the government. It is now going on 16 months since Katrina struck. Look, America has deserted her own citizens. On top of that the insurance companies have screwed them. They have suffered and yet moved on to rebuild the best they can without help. At least have the decency of keeping us out of your political arguments.
America has not deserted her own citizens even though many on the Left would like everyone to beleive it for nothing more than advancing "Liberalism=Good / Conservatism=Bad".
The facts are this: the enormity and degree of damage from Katrina was far more extensive than anyone could possibly imagine. Meanwhile, pre hurricane offers of federal help were turned down by Nagin and Blanco.
New Orleans, a city with a long history rooted in Pure Liberalism, failed itself in many, many ways. It was just too damn easy for Liberals to point the finger of blame at Bush and the Federal Govt.
Besides, what I wrote isn't about Katrina, it's about Iraq and the War on Terroism. And my comparison to how the Liberals treat each of the those two separate incidents is legitimate.
"They have suffered and yet moved on to rebuild the best they can without help." No help? Really? REALLY? Sorry, that's simply untrue. Money and manpower has poured into New Orleans from volunteers to paid workers and companies donating everything humanly possible to rebuild the city. Just because it's not yet complete doesn't mean it's not happening.
"At least have the decency of keeping us out of your political arguments." Are you insane? The Left has polticized Katrina more than anyone and if I want to use it to illustrate a political point I will.
Nice try, no cigar.
I don't have a blog, therefore no link. I live Katrina everyday. You don't have to lecture me on the extent. I am a native New Orleanian (30 years) that now lives just north of Lake Ponchatrian. My mother lives in Pass Christian, Ms. The government FAILED on all levels. I am a conservative Republican and I voted for President Bush twice. They FAILED. Companies received a lot of money but the PEOPLE were left to fend for themselves. The citizens have been deserted. The rebuilding has come because they are gutsy brave people refusing to let their communities die. The only true help has come from volunteers like you mentioned. They are angels and are the only reason I have any faith left for the future of this country.
"From the very start of this war Liberals tied the hands of our Military, insisting that our Troops fight a kinder, gentler war - 'don't kill anyone even if they're trying to kill you, don't blow anything up and don't offend the enemy.' How does any country fight a war based upon those standards?"
Wow, with the Republicans holding the White House since 2000 and BOTH houses of Congress since 2002 -- before the Iraq war started -- somehow, some-how, those liberals managed to hamstring the Defense Department. Ooooh, powerful!
As Josh Marshall puts it:
"But what excuse does President Bush have exactly? His party has controlled the Congress with lockstep majorities for his entire presidency. The one exception came in the Senate from 2001 to 2002. And that was before the war even started. If I'm not mistaken we've been treated to half a dozen years of commentary and news about how the Democrats were defeated, impotent, divided and generally just lame. Since he was so early and outspoken in his criticism, I assume this means Howard Dean prevented President Bush from winning the Iraq war.
"But really, how can the president blame anything on a powerless minority in Congress and not indict himself as the weakest and most pitiful chief executive the republic has ever had?
President Bush has had the great benefit of what was up to quite recently a gelded opposition, a pliant press corps and a public inclined to give the commander-in-chief most benefits of the doubt because of the scarring wound of 9/11. Yet, taken together, these folks tied his hands and kept him from winning the war.
"If this is really the argument I think we can forget about whatever happened in Iraq and say that President Bush is simply too lame a leader, too big a buffoon on history's stage, to be president at all. How can you hope to defeat Saddam Hussein or al Qaida or even Kim Jong-Il if you can't even go toe-to-toe with Charlie Rangel?"
Or perhaps you should listen to Andrew Sullivan:
"I agree we need an effort to expand the military by several divisions. That was Al Gore's position in 2000, by the way, the candidate the Weekly Standard hounded as insane and weak. It was Kerry's position in 2004, another candidate the WS smeared as Jane Fonda in drag....
"It's over, guys. Your beloved Bush administration botched this so badly it's irrecoverable. You enabled them. You never fully took them on when it would have counted - and you trashed those of us who did. You knew this before the 2004 election and still cynically played the anti-Kerry card for all it was worth, telling yourselves you could sway Rummy after the election. Well, you couldn't and you didn't. Your policy was sabotaged by a defense secretary who never believed in it and by a president too weak and out-of-it to rein him in. Get over yourselves and recognize that this dream has died. And we have to fight the nightmare we now face rather than pretend your dream is still even on life-support. That's the patriotic responsibility at this point. And no, I'm not impugning your patriotism. I'm asking you to place it before your shattered dreams."
But I don't think you will.
Agreed that govt failed on all levels. The First Responders to the hurricane, the State and Local Govt, would have screamed bloody murder if Bush & FEMA had gone down there without the "A-OK" from Blanco. She's on record turning Federal help down either the Friday or Saturday prior to Katrina. It's a no-win situation for Bush, FEMA and the Fed Govt. They are told "no, we don't want you here yet," then afterward they are accused of not acting quickly enough. Had Bush & Fema disregarded Blanco's wishes, they would have been painted by their critics as not repsecting local jurisdiction.
There are media reports that went out that New Orleans HAD ENOUGH volunteers and asked people to stay away. This may be part of an early outpour of wanting to help that later dries up, as you mention with others that have deserted the area. It is sad and unfortunate if that's true - and please don't take that to mean that I don't believe what you wrote.
I'm an Independent. I've probably voted for what is a knowingly will lose third party candidate more often than I've voted for any winning candidate. I've ripped Republicans on this blog when they deserve it. I make no bones that I lean Right of Center, and in some areas very Right of Center. But I hold the Right to the same standard that I hold the Left. The Left doesn't do that, they apply an entirely different standard to others that they hold to themselves.
Your hypertext name leads to a blog profile but non-existent blog. I've found that is common to some who comment here, and on other blogs, in what seems to be a manner used by some anonymous liberal commenters who, for whatever reason, choose that over just clicking on the anonymous commenter option. You present your side of the issue in a well-stated manner - even though we may disagree on some areas - so maybe you might want to consider writing a blog.
I wish you the best in what has to be something of which I cannot even imagine going through. I want to see New Orleans restored. I want those who lived there, and made their homes and live their lives there, to be able to return. I think we all want that. We might disagree on some areas as to how we get there. That doesn't mean progress can't be made while difference are worked out.
Thank you for visiting, commenting and informing me of some things of which I was not aware about the progress, or lack thereof, in New Orleans.
In year 2000 we were coming off 8 years of Clinton/Gore gutting the budget for the Military and Al Gore comes along, with presidential aspirations in mind, saying the Military needs to be increased. Hmmmmmmmm, what's wrong with that statement? Oh yeah, it's that he just spent the past 8 years supporting cuts in the Military.
The Democrats who supported and voted for the war took hardly any time at all before making it a political issue and using it to prop up their anti-war rhetoric and did everything they could to undermine the war efforts.
Thanks for stopping by, visiting and commenting. I do appreciate it, even though we have differing views.
Links to this post:
accordance and compliance with Fair Use Section 107 U.S. Copyright Code.
All other images and content © 2005-2009 David Drake.
Not responsible for content contained at linked sites.
Policy on commenting:
- Anonymous comments have little chance of being published.
- Comments made on posts 60 days old or older have little chance of being published.
- Published comments do not necessarily reflect the views of this blog author.
- Discretion of publishing or rejecting submitted comments rests solely with the owner and creator of this blog.
- Comments that egregiously "plug" (i.e. advertise or promote) another site or blog will be rejected. This doesn't mean you cannot include a link to your story, blog or to another site, but don't go overboard.
- Profanity is not a disqualifying factor, but profane rants solely for purposes of profanity are unlikely to be published.
- The owner and creator of this blog is not liable or responsible for the opinions of those who comment.