Posted on 05/02/2007 3:52:21 PM PDT by SJackson
The president courageously issued his second veto in office yesterday afternoon, striking down a plan to begin withdrawing from Iraq in two-to-five months. “Setting a deadline for withdrawal is setting a date for failure, and that would be irresponsible,” he said in a nationally televised statement from the White House. “This is a prescription for chaos and confusion, and we must not impose it on our troops.”
President Bush peppered his speech with good and valid reasons for rejecting the hyper-Murtha plan. He rightly observed “America's commanders in the middle of a combat zone” should not “have to take fighting directions from politicians 6,000 miles away.” (Although, his detractors will retort, they must respond to “The Decider.”) He mentioned Congress unanimously confirmed General David Petraeus; that his surge has not yet been fully implemented, and “Congress ought to give General Petraeus’s plan a chance to work.” And he added the hopeful fact that “since January, the number of sectarian murders has dropped substantially” (actually, to “about one-third” their pre-surge levels, according to Petraeus).
While Bush successfully communicated that that Democrats’ plan would mean an American battlefield defeat, he failed to articulate a loss against whom. The closest he came was in this passage:
In Washington last week, General Petraeus explained it this way, “Iraq is, in fact, the central front of all al-Qaeda's global campaign.” Al-Qaeda’s role makes the conflict in Iraq far more complex than a simple fight between Iraqis…Even as sectarian attacks have declined, we continue to see spectacular suicide attacks that have caused great suffering. These attacks are largely the work of al-Qaeda – the enemy that everyone agrees we should be fighting… Many also belong to the same terrorist network that attacked us on September 11th, 2001 — and wants to attack us here at home again. We saw the death and destruction al Qaeda inflicted on our people when they were permitted a safe haven in Afghanistan. For the security of the American people, we must not allow al Qaeda to establish a new safe haven in Iraq.
As usual, the president buried the lead. John McCain spoke more succinctly: “Today, with his veto, President Bush sent a clear message to our enemies: America will not surrender to al-Qaeda in Iraq.”
However, as General Petraeus stated last Thursday, ““Iraq is, in fact, the central front” of the War on Terror not merely for al-Qaeda-in-Iraq:
we do definitely see links [from al-Qaeda in Iraq] to the greater al-Qaeda network. I think you know that we have at various times intercepted messages to and from [Afghanistan]. There is no question but that there is a network that supports the movement of foreign fighters through Syria into Iraq.
He later deemed the threat of the international al-Qaeda organization in Iraq “probably public enemy number one.” Even the New York Times has conceded that al-Qaeda’s “leadership sees ‘the sectarian war for Baghdad as the necessary main focus of its operations.’”
Thus, the war on the ground in Iraq is the war against bin Laden and al-Zawahiri. (And, no doubt coincidentally, against Iranian terrorists). Congressional Democrats are well aware of this, having been briefed by General Petraeus in the days leading up to the vote – except Speaker Pelosi, who skipped the meeting.
The Left’s persistent decoupling of the two fronts has allowed its representatives to irresponsibly advocate our unilateral surrender. However, a victory for al-Qaeda in Iraq rewards the strategies hatched in Kandahar.
More troubling and less discussed is the fact that the jihadists view victory as an eschatological sign of divine intervention. In 1997, Osama bin Laden discussed “the collapse of the Soviet Union, in which the U.S. has no mentionable role – but rather the credit goes to Allah, praise and glory be to him, and the mujahadeen in Afghanistan.” He added:
I have benefited so greatly from the jihad in Afghanistan that it would have been impossible for me to gain such a benefit from any other chance…the myth of the superpower was destroyed not only in my mind but also in the minds of all Muslims.
He expounded in 1998:
We have seen in the last decade the decline of the American government and the weakness of the American soldier, who is ready to wage Cold Wars and unprepared to fight long wars. This was proven in Beirut, when the Marines fled after two explosions. It also proves they can run in less than 24 hours, and this was also repeated in Somalia. We are ready for all occasions [to attack]. We rely on Allah.
Elsewhere, he mentioned the pivotal role of Vietnam in his motivation. If American reversals around the world, sometimes against secular enemies, inspired jihad, how much more will a Congressionally mandated surrender in an open war against al-Qaeda itself?
Bush speaks clearly, however, when he discusses what needs to be done – and acts boldly in its pursuit. Just before the veto, he told a military gathering “there is only one effective response” against al-Qaeda: “we must go on the offense, stay on the offense and take the fight to them.”
In contrast, the Senate Majority Leader sulks that the war is “lost and can accomplish nothing.” Yesterday, Harry Reid resumed his saw that American troops are hopelessly “mired in the middle of an open-ended civil war,” although all evidence shows the American presence so successfully quelled the low-level “civil war” that al-Qaeda is now desperately trying to reignite it.
Meanwhile, Reid and the Congressional left-wing leadership continue their scorched earth political civil war. After wasting 12 weeks putting together a bill they knew was destined for a veto, Reid and Speaker Pelosi held up delivery of the bill for nearly a week so the veto would coincide with the fourth anniversary of President Bush’s much-misinterpreted speech on the before a naval banner that read, “Mission Accomplished.” Tony Snow observed in frustration, the bill has “now been passed for five days. We’re not quite sure why it's been so difficult to convey it one mile up Pennsylvania Avenue.” The mystery deepened yesterday after Pelosi and Reid hosted a “signing” ceremony for their bill, then had it chauffered to the White House by private vehicle.
This allowed the Left to maximize damage to the president. John Kerry condescended, “The irony of President Bush declaring ‘mission accomplished’ in Iraq four years ago today was not lost on anyone in Congress.” Rep. Tim Mahoney, D-FL, chimed in, “On the fourth anniversary of ‘Mission Accomplished,’ the president is faced with a choice: Either listen to the will of the American people or continue to send our brave men and women into harm's way to police a religious civil war.” White House spokeswoman Dana Pirino spoke frankly: “It is a trumped-up political stunt that is the height of cynicism, and it's very disturbing to think that they possibly held up this money for the troops and the troops' families to try some PR stunt on this day.” The Associated Press and other outlets dutifully reported the date.
Reid, Pelosi, Dick Durbin, and the full chorus of the Left has pledged further defiance. “We’re gonna shove it down his throat!” barked Joseph Biden (in “a slight Indian accent” – watch the video of his threat). However, their likely strategy is leaking out. Fox News’ Major Garrett reported senior Democratic Congressional leaders told him “they will drop troop withdrawal guidelines [and] focus their debate on benchmarks,” specifying, “We’re gonna shift the debate from when do we leave to the conditions under which we stay.”[1] It seems the far-Left is now co-opting the responsible antiwar proposal of liberal California Democrat Howard Berman, “The Iraq Benchmarks Act” (H.R. 1263), as he predicted they ultimately would in an interview with this author.
If they knew the president would veto any bill containing a timetable – and the president has hardly been guarded about his intentions – why the 86-day charade? Because MoveOn.org owns the Democratic Party, and Congressional leaders are eager to placate the Soros-funded extremists. To do so, they are willing to turn their back on a campaign against the very terrorists who killed 3,000 of their countrymen.
Though they grasp for comparisons between the president ordering a surge on the anniversary of his “Mission Accomplished speech,” it is more symbolic that the bill to withdraw from Iraq landed on the president’s desk the day native Iraqis reportedly killed Abu Ayyub al-Masri, the new leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq (the position having been recently vacated by the late Abu Musab al-Zarqawi). In the face of continuing progress – in which Iraqis are fighting for their own future – the Left again seeks to undermine an American war against a totalitarian enemy.
Never again let them claim they support the war against al-Qaeda or Osama bin Laden. Their actions have proven otherwise.
bttt
You can see that the Democrats are lacking courage in facing the difficult situations we face in the world.
Heck, the Dem. presidential candidates are afraid to have a debate on Fox News because they perceive it to be an unfair biased network. They don’t even have enough courage to do verbal battle against those who they may disagree with.
I know that my West Point classmates have commanded battalions in Iraq, so the question is personally poignant.
Would my men be not allowed to stop an obvious sectarian massacre unfolding before our eyes? Given that the enemy in Iraq is not in the habit of wearing uniforms (of their own), how does the sergeant leading a squad know if the thugs his squad encounters are Al Qaeda or a sectarian militia that the Dhimmi-crats want left alone?
Furthermore, why doesn't the legislation demand that the President negotiate a cease fire with Al Qaeda? After all, if Field Marshal Reid and General Pelosi say that we have lost, why are we not negotiating for truce terms so that our troops can withdraw without being shot in the back? Oh, I forgot, Pelosio Rose denies that Al Qaeda is even in Iraq-- except for when she sponsors legislation that gives our troops authority to engage them there...
The Democrats are so clueless on military policy-- they don't even know how to conduct a proper surrender.
TREASONOUS FOOLS!
Also, I meant to add that the Democrats won’t go on Fox News, and think they are being courageous by that act.
Do they really think the American people are impressed by their “tough” action against Fox News?
Hillary went to Rutgers to weigh in on the Don Imus controversy to show her courage.
Can't believe the Pork...Spinach farmers who gave us dirty spinach, dairy farmers who have gotten used to subsidies, and peanut butter producers who let their nuts get moldy.
How are these things be anything but the fault of the proposed pork recipients. Taxpayers don't owe them anything!
Benedict Arnold Patriot Brigade
Benedict Arnold started as an ardent Patriot, He is quoted as saying, “Good God,” “are the Americans all asleep and tamely giving up their Liberties. We remember him mostly for betraying the cause of Liberty, The American Cause”. Benedict Arnold’s betrayal lay not in belief that British held the morale high ground. Nor that he became disenchanted with the Cause of Liberty. He was not a coward during the military engagements he took part in. In 1777 his horse was shot out from under him. As a token of Congress’s admiration of his brave conduct Congress promoted him to Major General and gave him a new horse.
Some so-called “Patriots” choose to betray America, sometimes out of principle but most for personal gain. Arnold’s true issue lay in the abuse of his position of authority and trust: he would betray West Point and its garrison “and if necessary the entire American war effort” to secure his own success. His treason was not that of a principled man but that of a self-serving one.
What we have now are Benedict Arnold Patriots who pretend to care for America, who have even served with distinguished service in the military, as did Benedict Arnold.
Of course the Benedict Arnold Patriots will claim that they are presenting dissenting views that it is our tradition and right. Who can disagree! But please explain Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, declaring the war in Iraq is lost with American and allied troops in the field at risk 100% of the time. Is this not aid and comfort to the enemy? How will the enemy not take comfort in this statement, not an off-handed remark? They just need to wait us out and they prevail. If this attitude continues and America is attacked again, then they must be held accountable. Let them have their opinions but let them also have their responsibilities.
Our duty is to present to America and rest of the world the Benedict Arnold Patriots Brigade.
These are people who claim to be American patriots but in reality are Benedict Arnold Patriots.
The selection process should be carefully thought out so it does not become Neo-McCarthyism. This group should not contain Hollywood fools or inverted academics who cannot park a bicycle straight. The people selected must have position, or power, or influences to affect the course of America. Their self-serving mentality has to have a reoccurring record. It should never be about party or likeability but about their ambitions, or self-hatred, or greed for power.
My nominations:
Harry Reid, John Murtha, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry.
Let the world see who are in the Benedict Arnold Patriots Brigade- pass it on
Trying to think which Republican President, it was after Clinton, was going to end agricultural subsidies, then changed his mind. The pork is in. I hope he’s able to hold out for a decent bill otherwise. Maybe another 10 billion for someone, not our troops, will do it.
Now lets finish this Police Action and let the trap door fall!
Pray for W and Our Freedom Fighters
Reworded: Democrat leftists prove they are supporting, protecting, abetting, and enabling al-Qaeda.
This is NOT Viet Nam. These idiots will follow us home.
Hard to say. Initially, perhaps not, recent history tells them we have interests around the world they can attack, which won't tempt a "cowboy" President to escalate. They can wait till 09 to see who sits in the White House.
The ultimate objective, yes, our homeland
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.