Posted on 08/07/2007 2:31:53 PM PDT by Keyes2000mt
Some folks seem to delight in reminding that the Presidential Candidate I support, John Cox of Illinois, faces an uphill battle in his race for the Presidency. This is a fact I'm well aware of, believe or not.
The unspoken question behind this is, "Why are you involved in a campaign where the odds are so stacked against you?" There are some things we must do, to quote President Kennedy, "not because they are easy, but because they are hard." Sometimes, the options presented are so stark, that you must take your best shot and leave the rest in the hands of God.
We do face a genuine choice in this primary. Decades of professional politicians in Washington illustrated their inability to address the issues that matter to our country. I reached a conclusion last October to give an outsider a chance and after an interview with Mr. Cox I gave him my support in this race, and I hope other Americans join me.
The stakes are too high to continue with the choices we have now, particularly in regards to Iraq. In the Republican Debates, we've seen two stark choices presented on Iraq.
Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) is of the belief we should bring our troops home now. The stance is as irresponsible as it is well-intentioned. While many professional anti-war protestors may revel in the idea of US forces returning in defeat, many responsible critics of our initial decision to go into Iraq warn of the dangers of pulling out.
Former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft opposed the war going in, but now warns, "If we get out before Iraq is stable, the entire Middle East region might start to resemble Iraq today. Getting out is not a solution."
An early pull-out now will lead to a regional conflict that will necessitate U.S. involvement and a higher death toll among U.S. Troops and more money spent on rebuilding.
On the other hand, other candidates support our current policy. While our brave soldiers our doing yeoman's work, the policy they're following is flawed from two standpoints. The first is the simple fact that underlying economic realities in Iraq are not being sufficiently addressed. As of this writing, less oil is being pumped in Iraq than at the time of the invasion. Iraq is sitting on 200 billion barrels oil with unemployment over 50% in Baghdad.
The political reality in America is also missed. What we've learned since the invasion of Iraq is that the American people are not tolerant of long, military engagements. If the American people don't see progress, the troops will most likely be withdrawn, resulting in disaster.
While not all terrorism can be tied to poverty, the current economic situation is like a gasoline on a fire, and it's not being adequately addressed. In this campaign, Mr. Cox understands the importance of bringing economic hope to the Iraqi people. He's called for us to implement a Marshall plan for Iraq, focusing on getting the oil pumping and bringing prosperity to Iraq.
As Mr. Cox has pointed out, a prosperous Iraq will offer hope not only to Iraqis, but the Iranians and other nations who are being oppressed by rogue regimes. The opportunity for prosperity could help the young population of Iran throw off the chains of the mullahs, and lessen the power of jihadists worldwide.
Barring that, the picture in Iraq looks grim. Other candidates are presenting two paths for our nation to follow: both end at the same destination: a regional conflict that will threaten to become a world war.
Given that possibility, I'll take the best shot we have at victory in Iraq. The potential rewards for our country are well worth the effort.
Factually fraudulent.
Absolutely wrong on all counts.
Yeah...there used to be daily news stories of pipe line damage etc....but now ......crickets....
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.