Finally we have some discussion going.
First, I believe the only link I ever asked you for was a link that was able to verify through records, charges or official proceedings that Bush lied about his belief that WMD’s were in Iraq before we went in. I don’t think I ever asked for nor indicated that I needed links to the Democratic plans or any opinions at all. I did say that their plans were not viable, in my opinion, but never indicated that I hadn’t seen them.
You say that my flawed premise is that we are not fighting terrorists in Iraq. You say that 99% of the population wants us out. 99%? Why not just round it to 100%? I understand that you exaggerated the number for effect., which is just what the opponents of Bush are doing. I don’t know what the real number is, but, thinking it through, I believe if it were very high, the “insurgents” would be attacking and killing more of us instead of their own people. They keep killing themselves, yet the democrats and news pendants want us to believe that they are fighting in a concertred and united effort to get us out. How does what we are seeing and what they are saying make any sense?
So, let’s reason something else out for a minute. On one hand democratic spin tells us that there are no terrorist strongholds in Iraq, only insurgents fighting a civil war, and on the other they tell us that American presence in Iraq is only making things worse by increasing the number of terrorists operating out of Iraq due to Bush’s failed policies. Which is it? The fact is that we continue to root out terrorist leaders in Iraq, not the least being Al Zarquai himself. Opinions continue to dribble in that terrorists are flocking to Iraq to fight the Americans and that the Bush policy is making things worse, but that seems to be losing its punch. So now we are being told that they are fighting a civil war and that the vast majority of Iraqi’s don’t want us there. Well, my conclusion is that as long as we continue to find, capture and kill the high level members of terrorist organizations such as al Qaeda in Iraq, then they must still be there.
Do I believe that “stay the course” is working? Think it out. Evidence so far says that it is. The presence in Iraq is only one part of it, and as stated above, I believe we still need to be there in force. We haven't been successfully attacked since 9/11 despite attempts by our enemies, and there have been several cells rounded up in this and other countries due to intelligence from the CIA, FBI and Homeland Security. Are they talking to each other? Yes. Is it working? It sure seems to be. I don’t know, and I don't know if anybody knows, how many attacks were thwarted in this country because these cells were broken up, but common sense and logic dictates that it must have been a few.
I do not confuse the “war” in Iraq with the war on terrorism. Iraq has a fledgling government elected by the majority of the people of Iraq through legal elections which we helped along after Saddam’s downfall. We most certainly have an interest in having that new government succeed. We are not at war with Iraq. We are defending their government until they get to the point where they can defend themselves. Concurrently, we are rooting out the terrorist strongholds that still exist in Iraq intent on defeating the newly elected government for the purpose of keeping democracy out of the Middle East. I keep hearing that there is a “civil war” going on in Iraq, but I don’t see it. I don’t see factions breaking off and seceding from the government, nor do I see separate governments or borders forming. I see terrorists (or insurgents if you prefer) trying to overturn the will and the resolve of the people of Iraq with suicide bombings, car bombs, kidnappings and brutal murders. And as I said before, until their government is strong enough to continue weeding out terrorists (insurgents) we need to keep our presence there or risk the newly elected (by the Iraqi people, not the Bush administration) government being defeated by our enemies. How long can we maintain our presence? Given that the government would more than likely crumble if we left too soon, I would say as long as we have to.
Do I think we are winning friends in Iraq and around the world because of our presence in Iraq? Well, it seems to me that no matter what we do, there will be those in the world who are going to hate us anyway. It’s kind of like hating the rich because they are rich. The WTC was attacked long before we went into Iraq, and not by those who loved us. And frankly, I really don’t give a shit about the French. They are still pissed off over the fact that their special contracts with Iraq to obtain cheap oil has been destroyed. We are at war. I won’t minimize the fact that there are those who have attacked and killed us in the past and will persist in their efforts far into the future just so we can be popular in a world that depends on US soldiers and US lives for their protection.
Am I willing to “sacrifice” the next generation? That’s one of those very difficult questions asked on polls and in political speeches that turn you into a heartless ogre if you don’t answer it in a particular way. So let me rephrase it. Are you willing to sit back and let our country be attacked so that our military remains safe and sound? The military fight wars, and people die in wars. That's what war is about. Past generations have paid the ultimate sacrifice to preserve and protect our freedoms and way of life. As long as our country needs to be protected, our soldiers will risk paying the ultimate sacrifice. Is there another way? If so, enlighten me.
Will the draft be reimplemented? It may be, I don't know, but there are no indications coming from anywhere that will happen. Charlie Rangel and Ernest Hollings tried to use that scare tactic in 2004, remember? Bills to implement the draft were introduced and overwhelmingly defeated.
Would resources be better utilized for intelligence operations? You Betcha! And they are. But the democrats want to tie the hands of the current administration by limiting surveillance abilities and demanding public details of methodology being used by the intelligence communities. That is something that just doesn’t make sense to me, and every fiber of me says that it is a democratic effort to make the current administration look like the secret police. Do you think the Brits would have been able to uncover the plot to blow up 10 aircraft had they had their hands tied by the ACLU, or had the NY Times reporting their methodology? Even worse, had the terrorists succeeded in downing the planes, any evidence of how they accomplished it would be lost at the bottom of the ocean. Without surveillance ability, who knows if the Brits would have uncovered the plot and whether it would have been used again due to lack of sufficient clues to determine how it was accomplished in the first place.
Why did I think you felt we could negotiate with terrorists? It was an assumption I made since you were citing Paul Pillar in a previous post who is well known for his feelings on the subject. I assumed that since you used his opinion as supporting documentation, you probably agreed with the ideas that influenced his opinions. I am glad I was wrong on that one.
Bookmarks