.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Wednesday, May 30, 2007

Leaving Iraq

What happens if we cut and run from Iraq, like the Democrats and Liberals advocate? Have the Dems and Libs thought this through? Have they considered the various outcomes of Iraq without the U.S. Military presence?

Democrats like Pennsylvania Democrat John Murtha promote a redeployment strategy, one in which the U.S. Military exits Iraq but - and get this - is ready to return to Iraq if required. Any Dem or Lib out there care to add a comment as to why leaving Iraq with the all too realistic possibility of having to return is such an ingenious approach?

What is the point of pulling out of Iraq only having to go back in? On what successful historic military precedent is this based?

If we leave and everything in Iraq turns hunky-dory, well, then we can say the Dems were right all along and Bush was wrong.

If we leave and everything in Iraq turns into a bloodbath of a civil war - the likes of which the world has never seen - we...go...back...in...? This is the only plan that's been offered by Dems and Liberals for the past four-plus years.

We've also heard from the Dems that it is not the business of the United State Military to referee the civil wars in other countries. New York Democrat Cluck Schumer said this not long ago. Okay - any Dems or Libs want to explain to me why, then, so many Democrats were critical of the Bush Administration for not involving our Military in Darfur's civil war?

Any Dem or Lib care to comment why, in retrospect, Bill Clinton said one of his biggest regrets is not involving the U.S. Military in the Rwandan civil war genocide?

Any Dem or Lib care to comment why it was okay for Clinton to involve the U.S. in the Serbia - Bosnia civil war? Was this okay because a Democrat occupied the White House?

Which civil wars, if any, should the U.S. involve itself in? What blueprint - political partisanship aside - does the Left want to use in deciding which civil wars we stay out of or which we get involved in?

And what about that number of dead Iraqi civilians? The John Hopkins study said over 650,000 Iraqis have been killed. The John Hopkins figure has been proven an absurdly high estimate and inflated, but let's say it isn't; let's pretend for the moment that the John Hopkins number is accurate.

How is that figure much different than Madeleine Albright telling "60 Minutes" correspondent Leslie Stahl on May 12, 1996, "that killing over 500,000 Iraqis is a price [that] is worth it"?:

    Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: "We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?"

    Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it."

    Then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright's quote, calmly asserting that U.S. policy objectives were worth the sacrifice of half a million Arab children, has been much quoted in the Arabic press.

The exploitation of the number of Iraqis killed is nothing more than a political tool for the Left.

Recall the pulpit pounding by the Lefties over the photo of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein from 1983. How is that any different than Albright toasting with North Korea's Kim Jong Il? How is it different than Nanny Pelosi meeting with Syria's Bashar-al Assad? Jimmy Carter embracing Yasser Arafat?

The answer is, there is very little difference. The U.S. needed an ally in Iraq and Hussein because of Jimmy Carter's foreign policy failures in not supporting the Shah of Iran, thereby allowing the Iranian government to become a rogue theocracy.

The Left always - always - plays selective outrage when they think it can help them politically. This is all it's about, they don't care about how many Iraqis or Americans die because to them it's nothing but ammunition to use for their own political benefit.

Is there a number of dead that is acceptable when a Democrat is in the White House that isn't acceptable when a Republican occupies it?

Donald Rumsfeld and Saddam Hussein shaking hands is bad. Nanny Pelosi and Bashar-al Assad, this is good.

Jimmy Carter and Yasser Arafat; Kim John Il and Madeleine Albright - both good.

See how it works - at least from the "Left" point of view. You don't see? Oh well, you're going to have to learn how to play Selective Outrage then.


Comments: Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

eXTReMe Tracker

Web Site Traffic Counters
Alabama Internet

Listed on BlogShares

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

This site uses photographs and material from other sources in strict
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.