The Dems Say 'Bring 'Em On'
So I was over at The Hill newspaper and I saw this: http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/090606/security.html
Apparently the Democrats want to have the debate over national security, and, furthermore, they believe they can win it. In this piece on The Hill, the Dems go through all of thier usual complaints against the Bush Administration and the prosecution of the War on Terror, such as, invading Iraq. But as you read through this entire piece, you will notice that there is not one mention of what they would do. There is no "Iraq was a mistake, and this is how we would go about fighting terror," or "Though we think Iraq was a blunder, we are there and here is how to fix it." No, none of that; just a bunch of "Republicans suck!" So what is it that the Democrats would do? They may not come right out and unfold a plan that is cogent, but they have been telling us what they would do.
Let us start with Senator Joseph Biden (D-Del). Today FoxNews.com had a little retort to what President Bush has been saying for the past couple of weeks. In this retort, Biden says "The administration's most profound strategic mistake was not finishing the job in Afghanistan — which everyone agreed was the central front in the War on Terror — and rushing to war in Iraq, which was not." Okay, fair enough, but what was the Administration's list of things that could get a country in trouble with us? Was it not funding and supporting terror and terrorist organizations? Did Saddam Husseing not do this when he sent money to families of suicide bombers who killed hundreds of Israelis? Were there not Iraqi intelligence agents in Sudan during the time that Osama bin Laden was taking refuge there? Our intelligence community has done great work in re-evaluating the intelligence of the 90's which details the growth of al Qaeda as an international force. They have also gone through and determined that there was in fact a connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda.
Next on our list is Howard Dean. Today on Rush's show, a sound bite of Dean was played which details exactly how the Democrats would handle Iraq. "The Bush line is we can't leave Iraq because it will make us look weak. So essentially the president is proposing that we stay forever. Well, that is -- I hate to say, but that's just patently ridiculous. But I'm with George Aiken, the wonderful Vermont senator who once said about Vietnam, declare victory and get out." This was muttered on MSNBC after David Gregory asked what the Dems would do. Dean, in this statement, demonstrated that the Dems do not want to finish the job in Iraq. In effect, the Dems want to replay the desaster in Somolia. Of course, what they don't realize is that al Qaeda viewed Somolia as a huge victory and used that to set the tone for more devestating terror attacks, as they viewed the US as weak and not willing to face adversity. What would be their reaction to us leaving Iraq? And when did Bush or anyone in his Administration say that we would be in Iraq forever?
When you boil it all down, the Democrats' plan for fighting the War on Terror is to leave Iraq, concentrate purely on Afghanistan and go back to fighting al Qaeda in the US Justice system. Well, Iraq is essential to the War on Terror, if only for the purpose of keeping the terrorists in that region and not being able to fly under the radar to rebuild and come at us here in the future. Afghanistan is not the only place where al Qaeda operated and it won't stop them from future operations by focusing solely on that country. And the 90's proved that the legal system is not the place to fight terror. What good are indictments if the defendant is in another country that is not willing to apprehend the suspect, let alone extridite him?
We need to keep the pressure on in the Middle East. Now is not the time to let up and come home, or half-heartedly fight them in Afghanistan. As I have stated numerous times on this website, we need to press forward and begin preparations to hit the next target: Iran.
Apparently the Democrats want to have the debate over national security, and, furthermore, they believe they can win it. In this piece on The Hill, the Dems go through all of thier usual complaints against the Bush Administration and the prosecution of the War on Terror, such as, invading Iraq. But as you read through this entire piece, you will notice that there is not one mention of what they would do. There is no "Iraq was a mistake, and this is how we would go about fighting terror," or "Though we think Iraq was a blunder, we are there and here is how to fix it." No, none of that; just a bunch of "Republicans suck!" So what is it that the Democrats would do? They may not come right out and unfold a plan that is cogent, but they have been telling us what they would do.
Let us start with Senator Joseph Biden (D-Del). Today FoxNews.com had a little retort to what President Bush has been saying for the past couple of weeks. In this retort, Biden says "The administration's most profound strategic mistake was not finishing the job in Afghanistan — which everyone agreed was the central front in the War on Terror — and rushing to war in Iraq, which was not." Okay, fair enough, but what was the Administration's list of things that could get a country in trouble with us? Was it not funding and supporting terror and terrorist organizations? Did Saddam Husseing not do this when he sent money to families of suicide bombers who killed hundreds of Israelis? Were there not Iraqi intelligence agents in Sudan during the time that Osama bin Laden was taking refuge there? Our intelligence community has done great work in re-evaluating the intelligence of the 90's which details the growth of al Qaeda as an international force. They have also gone through and determined that there was in fact a connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda.
Next on our list is Howard Dean. Today on Rush's show, a sound bite of Dean was played which details exactly how the Democrats would handle Iraq. "The Bush line is we can't leave Iraq because it will make us look weak. So essentially the president is proposing that we stay forever. Well, that is -- I hate to say, but that's just patently ridiculous. But I'm with George Aiken, the wonderful Vermont senator who once said about Vietnam, declare victory and get out." This was muttered on MSNBC after David Gregory asked what the Dems would do. Dean, in this statement, demonstrated that the Dems do not want to finish the job in Iraq. In effect, the Dems want to replay the desaster in Somolia. Of course, what they don't realize is that al Qaeda viewed Somolia as a huge victory and used that to set the tone for more devestating terror attacks, as they viewed the US as weak and not willing to face adversity. What would be their reaction to us leaving Iraq? And when did Bush or anyone in his Administration say that we would be in Iraq forever?
When you boil it all down, the Democrats' plan for fighting the War on Terror is to leave Iraq, concentrate purely on Afghanistan and go back to fighting al Qaeda in the US Justice system. Well, Iraq is essential to the War on Terror, if only for the purpose of keeping the terrorists in that region and not being able to fly under the radar to rebuild and come at us here in the future. Afghanistan is not the only place where al Qaeda operated and it won't stop them from future operations by focusing solely on that country. And the 90's proved that the legal system is not the place to fight terror. What good are indictments if the defendant is in another country that is not willing to apprehend the suspect, let alone extridite him?
We need to keep the pressure on in the Middle East. Now is not the time to let up and come home, or half-heartedly fight them in Afghanistan. As I have stated numerous times on this website, we need to press forward and begin preparations to hit the next target: Iran.
posted by Robert A. McReynolds | 8:36 PM
3 Comments:
The key to your arguments here is to realize that the democrats are taking a position not necessarily because they agree with it, but because it is the contrarian view. Granted, war is hell, and of course there are some in the population that oppose it in any mainfestation, and their voices serve a puprose too. Any national politcian knows that war is a tool used by nations to achieve a purpose.
The administration came into this war with a lofty goal: establish a democracy in the heart of the beast. What they didn't realize is that the Middle East is a culturally and intellectually stagnat region. Imagine the middle east without oil revenues. You know what you have? A region poorer than East Africa.
I disagree that a ground war with Iran is the next logical step. You want to hurt the fundamentalist islamic nations, you attack them economically. Attack their oil revenues. Militarily, fight them like they fight us: autonomous sniper teams, special ops infiltration teams which can hit and run, and give them a taste of life in the nuclear club: Immediately print pamphlets that descirbe the targeting of American ICBMs on their nation, detailing exact striike packages for every location in Iran. On the top of the pamphlet, these words in Capitals and bold: WELCOME TO THE CLUB.
It is my belief that the democrats would never make clear a position like this regarding the war in the middle east because to take a position like this might alienate one group or another before the election. They know that they need every vote they can get.
Though I agree with you totally about the Dems not wanting to take a definite position on this, I disagree that the Middle East is populated by people who do not understand western-style democracy. I give you the example of Japan.
Hitting them economically would be a good tool to use, but in order to do that we would have to convince the Dems to let us drill here in our own backyard while at the same time begin the development of alternative sources of fuel--primarily for our cars. The Dems will never go along with this as they are beholden to the environmental movement, not to mention some Senate Republicans are too. That is also a long process, and time may not be on our side when it comes to fighting the War on Terror.
Definitely nuclear deterence is not an option because we are dealing with an ideology that does not care about death. They revel in martyrdom; the threat of a nuclear strike may do more harm than good in that it will prompt Iran to develope them anyway and set up some way for a terrorist to use it here in the country. These people do not think they have anything to loose in doing this. I find that the only option is to deal with Iran before they get them, and by that I mean topple the regime one way or another.
I don't think Japan, or any other society in the world can be compared to an islamic society. In any comparison, there can be no society which can be considered to be as anti-intellectual. while on an individual basis, this may not be the case. I know more than a few practitioners of islam, and they are hard working and hospital beyond any other people I know. As a rule, though, islamic societies enact constraints that prevent forward thinking. Democracy is an advanced governmeny; Sid Meier taught us that fact.
In regards to your thought s on the nuclear MAD theory, if Iranians aren't fearful of death from a nuclear weapon, what sort of intimidation can we expect the 4th ID to have? Those folks have figured out ways to reduce the effectiveness of our combat troops. Islamic fundamentalists are the type of fighters that need a one-on-one martyr distribution process.
In any case, the next three years will be a test for this nation. A choose your own adventure book where you only get a one time chance through.
now let's think happy thoughts, like perhaps, maybe one day there will be a live-action Robotech movie. Ahh... to dream.
Post a Comment
<< Home