“The stakes in the global War on Terror are too high, and the national interest is too important, for politicians to throw out false charges.
These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America’s will.
As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who send them to war continue to stand behind them.
Our troops deserve to know that this support will remain firm when the going gets tough.
And our troops deserve to know that whatever our differences in Washington, our will is strong, our Nation is united, and we will settle for nothing less than victory.” — President George W. Bush, November 11, 2005
(Note… as Jordanians yell “to hell with Zarqawi”, elected US Democrats still think President Bush is the enemy and embrace the Michael Moore philosophy. That says a lot to me about the Liberals’ true desire to fight the War on Terror and protect me and my family and friends.)
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
How can the Democrat Party defend both Saddam Hussein and Islamic-fascist terrorism?
Good question. How also can they claim President Bush is both a moron and highly-intelligent political manipulator the likes we haven’t seen since 1939? Defies logic.
The best use of his speech will be holding the Left to some responsibility for what they say. The Dems who voted against authorization did not use “no WMDs” as their reason. They just didn’t want the US to fight in Iraq (or Afghanistan if they were honest). This is why they are out of power on the national level. No responsibility. I don’t want a spoiled teenager running my country.
I’m just spit-ballin’ here, but I think after the Iraqi elections next month, we’re going to see a shift in policy toward Iraq, probably beginning with a major withdrawal of 10-20,000 troops in January. I expect that withdrawals will continue throughout 2006, leading to 40-50,000 fewer troops in Iraq by this time next year. The focus will shift to supporting the Iraqi military, with the U.S. fading into the background.
This will help out Bush in several ways. The reductions in force levels will appease the squishy center, but because it will be done in the context of turning it over to a New Dmocratic Iraq, it will be enough success to keep conservatives happy. And, it will deprive the Donks of an issue, which Bush has a history of doing even when it means signing boneheaded legislation like NCLB, CFR, the Prescription Drug boondoggle… I have to stop before I puke.
It also has the potential to help fight the War on Terror. The Iraqi government will not fall under the left’s misguided efforts to outlaw any form of even temporary or mild discomfort suffered by terrorists (i.e. “torture.”) They know the terrain, and I wouldn’t be surprised if we nailed Zarqawi before the end of 2006.
Amid all the discussions about the Bush administration’s mistakes, many forget that the other side also comes up with some boners. This is a big one. I wouldn’t be surprised to see a lot of intelligence coming out of the community that would have never have emerged prior to the bombing.
2: I claim the first part, but definitely not the second. Even my conservative acquaintances who admit that Bush is as bright as flashlight with drained batteries continually use the term “well, I think he has smart people around”. Guess they’re the ones to watch out for.
4: You’re kidding, right? Right now, I don’t see any end ot our involvement in Iraq in the near future. Someone can correct me here if they know, but how many countries have been able to establish a viable democracy in the middle of guerilla warfare situation like this? Here in the US, the Revolutionary war was fully ended and the new country was in a relatively peaceful state when the framers of the constitution got to work on establishing the government.
It was clear to me this invasion was planned what its outcome would be – a neverending US military presence – fighting guerilla warfare in addition to keeping the Halliburton-run facilities chugging away.
Well, Kev, we know dealing with the real world isn’t exactly your forte, but the fact is, things in Iraq are getting better. During the Interm Government elections in January, there were over 300 terrorist attacks. During the elections to ratify the constitution last month there were only about a dozen. And, you probably have forgotten GP’s post about improved security on the Baghdad airport road. With a new, elected government (we know you lefties prefer dictators, that’s why you wanted to keep Saddam in power), and an increasingly capable Iraqi army force, the stage will be set for a reduction in US forces in Irag.
I don’t know about a neverending US military presence. We *are* still in Germany, Japan, and Korea, after all. Personally, I like the idea of a few thousand US troops in the heart of the Middle East, ready to respond to threats at a moment’s notice and keeping an eye on the increasingly dangerous situation in Iran. But whether we remain there and in what numbers will ultimately be up to the Iraqis.
Also Kevin, don’t forget when Bush proposed to pull troops out of Germany, 60 years after Germany was defeated, he was accused of undermining national security by the Kerry camp. Where is your call to end our military presence in Germany?
Hey guys, guys. Breath a little.
One Presidential speech before a highly sympathetic audience doesn’t mean the Left/Anti-War opportunists will be put in their place finally. And it doesn’t mark the beginning of a new offensive on the part of the WH to win the hearts of Americans back on the WOT… it’s going to take a decided effort, tough slogging on the part of the President and his supporters before the Left is marginalized and minimized in the arena of public debate… and some tapping of those keen political skills W is said to have in abundance. Condi can’t do it alone or even with KHughes at her side. Nor can Rummie in all his dryness. Not Cheney. Nor can lighting-rod Wolfie safe at the World Bank… it’s going to take a decided, deliberate, coordinated effort to offset the gains by the Left in telling the BIGgest lie. At least the WH speech writers understand the balance sheet needs to change -NOW.
We’ve got a long way to go… I’m glad the President took on his lying, political opportunistic opponents to task –now, let’s start naming em: TeddyK, HowieD, DDurbin, NPelosi, BabsBoxer, JoeBiden, MikeyMoore, et al. The opponents talk about “the President”, “this Administration”, “the War-happy NeoCons”… it’s time for the President and his supporters to start naming the political opportunitists more focused on their partisan operations than protecting our men & women abroad in the service or our citizens at home. Call a spade, a spade.
Excellent rebuttals to Kevin, #8 and #9. Isn’t it terrible when the FACTS get in the way of the tinfoil hat conspiracy theories.
PS – If the war was all about oil… why are gas prices so high?
Fabulous: Since you all support the continued US military presence, then how many of you will be leaving your computers and blog sites to join up and go over there? I’d really like to know, because with less and less support for our presence there, where are you going to find good, skilled and trained soldiers to do the job? I personally would like to see Jeff Gannon (or whatever his name is) on the front lines.
In addition, there’s a big difference between the 3 countries you mention and Iraq: When our military forces defeated the forces in those countries, how much instability reigned in those countries? I can’t recall ongoing insurgencies, bombings, suicide attacks, etc from my learning of the history of these countries in their post-war periods. These nations accepted defeat and were able to peacably re-construct themselves (and yes, with a military presence there) You say the attacks have reduced, but it seems that with less attacks, they have become more focused on killing the leaders of the new government or people associated with them.
PS – Gas is so high because the oil companies can pretty much make up any excuse they want to drive up prices and say that extra profits are necessary, as evidenced by their testimony to congress last week and the gouging in the wake of Katrina. This is especially true since we, as nation, are addicted to oil like a bunch of junkies – the nation will bitch and moan about the pricing, but will keep buying just the same. As it stands now, these oil companies do want access to the oil coming out of Iraq, because even so more than pricing, we’d be in a lot of deep doo-doo if people couldn’t get their hands on gasoline, heating oil, etc. Seems another good time to really look into alternative sources of energy besides oil.
Castro – 90 miles from our shores, a dictator for over 40 years, yet we just can’t seem to find a reason to get him out of power in our quest for democracy. Proving once again that people with plantain and cigars are less deserving of democracy than a country with vast oil reserves. Imagine how our different our foreign policy would be if the US wasn’t so dependent upon a thick black slimy liquid for most of our energy needs.
Uh, Kevin, why don’t you give us a call three months ago when the chickenhawk fallacy was blown out of the water the first time.
13: Can’t make a real response to the question in my first paragraph, can ya?
(Sigh) Here wo go again. So, I guess this means, you can’t support law enforcement unless you’re a cop… et cetera, et cetera…
When our military forces defeated the forces in those countries, how much instability reigned in those countries? I can’t recall ongoing insurgencies
Maybe because 5 million Germans and 2 million Japanese were killed before they surrendered.
Gas is so high because the oil companies can pretty much make up any excuse they want to drive up prices
A category 4 hurricane which shut down oil drilling in the Gulf and seriously damaged refining capacity was “made up” by the oil companies? Econ 101: Supply fell and the price went up. Demand fell, due to higher prices, and supply increased after the recovery. We now are seeing prices fall.
Fabulous: Since you all support the continued US military presence, then how many of you will be leaving your computers and blog sites to join up and go over there?
Actually, Kevin, if you look at vote returns from last years’ election, the armed forces are overwhelmingly Republican — and this is after two years of liberal “help”, in which Democrats like yourself, Cindy Sheehan, and Jimmy Massey have done your best to discredit, smear, and bash our armed forces, all while crying about how you only want to “bring them home”.
And, Kevin, since Democrats like yourself supposedly support the war in Afghanistan (although Cindy Sheehan has proved that you’re just lying through your teeth when you say that), when will you be volunteering to go over there and find Osama bin Laden? When can we expect you and your fellow liberals who keep telling us that you can find Osama bin Laden to go enlist for Afghanistan and put your money where your mouth happens to be?
Did you support the war in Afghanistan Kevin? Have you signed up yet? Can’t make a real response to the question in NDT’s second paragraph, can ya?
15: Speaking of cop, that’s a cop-out. People who support this conflict get on their high horse about saying how good it is, etc, etc, etc, but this is the kind of response when asked about putting their money where there mouth is. Aside from enlisting for military service, there’s not much else being done here at home to make sacrifices to support our troops. Heck, if it weren’t for the news, we wouldn’t really have an idea that a war was even going on at this point. What’s the terror alert level today? Red, yellow, green, brown, scarlet, black, oker, peach, ruby, olive, violet, fawn, purple, mauve? I can’t keep track.
Today I watched a smuggled video (on cnn) from North Korea that showed 3 “criminals” being executed, tied to a pole, because they supposedly smuggled women for prostitution into China. The real crime, by North Korea’s standard, was that they had dared to leave the country. The execution was staged in front of a crowd of frightened men, women and children who were forced to attend. When you add this brutalization of its citizens by that nutcase Kim Jong-il and his statements over and over that he’d be happy to use nuclear weapons against the US, it makes him a far greater threat to the US than Saddam ever was. All of this treaty discussion he keeps having is geared to him asking for a “civilian” reactor – what nonsense. Why don’t we go and do something there? History proves that negotiating with a mad man is not generally a good thing to do.
we just can’t seem to find a reason to get him out of power in our quest for democracy. (Cuba)
Why don’t we go and do something there? (N. Korea)
Your argument against the invasion of Iraq now relies upon the US invading both Cuba AND Korea.
And actually, Kevin, the irony of your last paragraph is palpable. If you were against madmen who publicly brutalized their citizens and who made repeated threats against the United States and its interests of attacking it with unconventional weapons, Saddam Hussein fell so neatly into that category, it’s amazing. But what did you and the UN do? Bend over.
Meanwhile, for all your newfound interest in the DPRK as a threat, that was going on during the time Jimmy Carter (the gullible) and Bill Clinton (the mendacious) were forging an unholy “agreed framework” that basically enforced the DPRK’s right to keep building nuclear weapons carte blanche, but kept the US and IAEA from interfering in the name of “goodwill”, all while we, Japan, and South Korea coughed up millions of dollars to build the madman in question a nuclear reactor.
In short, if you’re against appeasing madmen and North Korea, you’re in the wrong political party.
Demand fell, due to higher prices, and supply increased after the recovery. We now are seeing prices fall.
Also note, Oil company profits average about 10 cents per gallon of gas sold. State and Federal taxes average 46 cents per gallon of gas. Kind of puts the whole ‘gouging’ thing in perspective, doesn’t it?
(Kevin’s) argument against the invasion of Iraq now relies upon the US invading both Cuba AND Korea.
Basically, this is what’s known as ‘making the perfect the enemy of the good.’ Because the US can’t solve every problem everywhere, we shouldn’t solve any problem anywhere. It’s like saying “Sure, the US destroyed Hitler, but what about Franco?” The Kevinated also conveniently ignores that it’s his fellow leftists who sustain Kim Jong-il and Castro in power. Jimmy Carter thinks both of them are the bee’s knees, for example.
21: You mean the same way how conservatives ignore that we coughed up millions to build up Saddam in Iraq in the 80s? Don’t lay the blame of the US propping up dictators solely at the feet of Democrats; we considered Saddam a “friend” for years. Let’s not forget Donald Rumsfeld himself was our envoy to Iraq, at a time when our government knew full well about how he treated his own people. Quite a chummy video of Rumsfeld meeting with him in 1983 and less than 10 years later he used that support to invade Kuwait.
Also, one of the highlights of the Reagan years (at least in the eyes of conservatives) was how we used the Afghani rebels to defeat the Russians to help bring them down. You conveniently forget that it was Carter who started this ball rolling. Problem is, after we provided material support to Afghanistan for years during the war, we essentially abandoned Afghanistan with the millions dead and the country in shambles. This sowed the seeds for hatred against the US and why they were happy to hide terrorists for so long. By the way, wasn’t the Bush administration quite chummy with Taliban leaders right up to 9/11/01 because of the pipeline through Afghanistan?
Just goes to show that no matter which party or leader you support, they all do things that even their staunchest supporters oppose.
Bruce, having been on vacation, I didn’t know what this post referred to at first! But GatewayPundit has a useful roundup of links: http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2005/11/bush-returns-from-slumber-attacks.html
In other news: Democrats fail to explain how/why constantly harping on the pre-war intelligence issue, which the Robb-Silverman commission had already found was NOT an issue as there had been NO manipulation whatsoever, constitutes an alternate plan that will help us in Iraq or bring troops home.
And Dr. Sanity correctly analyzes BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) and Iraq war hatred as classic examples of “displacement” – a psychological defense whereby people mis-direct their fear and anger against a “safe” target. Via Powerline and Glenn Reynolds: http://powerlineblog.com/archives/012248.php
What is cool about Powerline’s link is, they go on to show a Hollywood celebrity actually being sane for once. (Bruce Willis)
This “summary of the big picture” post is unanswerable:
http://rightontheleftcoast.blogspot.com/2005/11/presidents-veterans-day-speech.html
Or at any rate, I have yet to see any Democrat, war opponent or Bush hater answer its key contents with any kind of rationality.
21: You mean the same way how conservatives ignore that we coughed up millions to build up Saddam in Iraq in the 80s? Don’t lay the blame of the US propping up dictators solely at the feet of Democrats; we considered Saddam a “friend” for years. Let’s not forget Donald Rumsfeld himself was our envoy to Iraq, at a time when our government knew full well about how he treated his own people. Quite a chummy video of Rumsfeld meeting with him in 1983 and less than 10 years later he used that support to invade Kuwait.
And yet, amazingly enough, when Saddam showed his true colors, it was Republicans who pushed him out of Kuwait and Republicans who removed him from power.
The irony and sheer hypocrisy of you screaming about how awful it was to support Saddam when you and the Democratic Party kicked, screamed, and did everything in your power to keep him in control of Iraq is lost only on you, Kevin. It was a mistake to support Saddam; Republicans realized that and got rid of him. Democrats said it was a mistake, but kept him in power. Why is that?
Moreover, for Carter and Afghanistan, despite Carter’s screaming about how awful Bush is for “violating a sovereign nation” and undermining a regime, Carter was funding activities in Afghanistan prior to the Soviet invasion.
As for your ravings about the Taliban, Kevin, they came to power in 1996. Bush wasn’t President then. Appeasement was the rule, since Democrats were in power.
“It was a mistake to support Saddam; Republicans realized that and got rid of him.”
Hear, hear.
For decades, bipartisan U.S. policy was cynical and cruel support of certain dictators. Some (not all) on the Left criticized it. After 9-11, the Right said “Wow. You were right. The policy must change. We get it.”
Result? – Now the Left supports dictators, or rather, cruel and cynical policies to leave them in place. (Exception – Christopher Hitchens)
Can you say oppositionalism?
Better description of oppositionalism – it notes “You say red, they say blue”.
LOL….I prefer the Monty Python saying…”Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.”
The biggest threat to Democrats in this country, in my opinion, is the Republican Party being canny enough to realize that, if they came out against drinking drain cleaner as being sinful, immoral, and unpatriotic, Dems would drink it just to prove them wrong.