Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Eat Crow, Iraq War Skeptics
New York Post ^ | June 9, 2008 | Arthur Herman

Posted on 06/09/2008 8:22:36 AM PDT by Eurale

June 9, 2008 -- AMERICA has won, or is about to win, the Iraq war. The latest proof came last month, as the Iraqi army - just a few months ago the target of scorn and abuse from Democratic politicians and journalists - forcefully reoccupied three cities that had served as key insurgency bases (Basra, Sadr City and Mosul).

(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: iraq
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-51 next last

1 posted on 06/09/2008 8:22:36 AM PDT by Eurale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Eurale

Good. Tony needs the work.


2 posted on 06/09/2008 8:25:01 AM PDT by gridlock ( If Obama becomes "suddenly" radioactive, the Supers are going find new respect the Popular Vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eurale

Rummy must be smiling somewhere.


3 posted on 06/09/2008 8:25:33 AM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pissant
Rummy must be smiling somewhere.

Rummy was a big part of the early problems with the occupation. He simply did not want to use enough force.

4 posted on 06/09/2008 8:27:06 AM PDT by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Eurale

very good


5 posted on 06/09/2008 8:28:18 AM PDT by luman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

The State Dept ran the early occupation


6 posted on 06/09/2008 8:28:43 AM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Eurale

“Instead of worrying about an exit strategy, realize that there’s no substitute for winning.”

Are you listening DNC? On the other hand, we had won the war against the NVA as well in 1972 after LineBacker II destroyed their ability to continue the war. But the democratic controlled congress cut off the funding to the south and we all remember how that ended.


7 posted on 06/09/2008 8:29:19 AM PDT by GT Vander (I may be retired, but I'm a Soldier 'till I die!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eurale

This does not play well for Obama, who has a plan to save us from the war.


8 posted on 06/09/2008 8:29:32 AM PDT by Rennes Templar ( Never underestimate the difficulty of changing false beliefs by facts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
Rummy was a big part of the early problems with the occupation. He simply did not want to use enough force.

We should have used less force and stretched the initial war out much longer to kill more enemy in uniforms rather than race into Baghdad and allow the enemy to go home and fight another day.

9 posted on 06/09/2008 8:30:20 AM PDT by Berlin_Freeper (McCain will be the first ex-POW President.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

‘zackly right.


10 posted on 06/09/2008 8:31:07 AM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Eurale
Read the article. And read the last line:

"Instead of worrying about an exit strategy, realize that there's no substitute for winning."

This should be McCain's slogan, the centerpiece of his campaign.

He can beat Obama and his plan to prosecute "war criminals" to a pulp with a well orchestrated advertising campaign which proves to the American people that we have won the war in Iraq. Force the Obama-crazies to concede the point with ground-proof data and leave them with the argument that the price wasn't worth it. They will lose that argument. Americans still love a winner.

11 posted on 06/09/2008 8:34:29 AM PDT by InterceptPoint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rennes Templar

Obama need not worry about Iraq. The dems are way ahead of the slow-witted wussies in the GOP. The only people who really care about Iraq have already made up their minds. The left will never accept victory and vote D. Conservatives will not accept defeat and will vote R. The swing votes won’t care either way, they have something more important on their minds now.

The swing votes only care about the price of gasoline and the economy. These are issues where the dems can play “Santa Claus” where their propaganda organs in the media convey their promises of free “ham trees” for everyone’s backyard.

Iraq will mean little in November. The GOP & McCain need to hammer a coherent national energy policy that does not cater to the greens, who won’t vote R anyway. And the policy needs to offer little short or little loss of standard of living.

That’s the real issue now.


12 posted on 06/09/2008 8:36:07 AM PDT by henkster (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Eurale

It is never too late for the democRats and the MSM, working tirelessly together, to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.


13 posted on 06/09/2008 8:36:33 AM PDT by Bubba_Leroy ("What's up with Whitey?" - Michelle Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Berlin_Freeper
We should have used less force and stretched the initial war out much longer to kill more enemy in uniforms

2 Republican Guard divisions slipped away unscathed to north of Baghdad thanks to the Turks denying the U.S. a second front.
14 posted on 06/09/2008 8:36:33 AM PDT by Thrownatbirth (.....Iraq Invasion fan since '91.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Eurale

From the article:

“The US public and policymakers need to recognize how this happened - and draw lessons from this success.

1) We need to acknowledge that the Iraq war wasn’t a “distraction” from the War on Terror, as critics still complain, but its centerpiece.

It’s not mere coincidence that our success against al Qaeda globally comes along with success in Iraq. For all its setbacks and frustrations, the Iraq war drew jihadists into a battle they thought they could win, because it would be fought on their home turf - but which they’re now losing disastrously.

2) The US decision to “stay the course” in the Iraq war, which was also widely mocked and criticized, served to thoroughly demoralize the jihadist movement.

From its start in spring 2003, the Iraqi insurgency has been entirely built on the premise that it could use suicide and roadside bombings, sectarian slaughter and the torture and murder of hostages to force America out of the Middle East.

If Democrats had won the White House in 2004, the jihadists might have succeeded.

Instead, America doggedly refused to give in to terror, despite 4,000 combat deaths and massive antiwar sentiment, and unwaveringly supported an Iraqi government that was at times feeble and confused - and proceeded to break the jihadist movement’s back.

In that interview, the CIA’s Hayden also that al Qaeda is no longer able to use the Iraq war as a way to draw in new recruits. The reason is clear: If you go to Iraq to fight the American infidel you will die, and die for nothing.

3) Finally, the Bush administration’s success in Iraq, and growing success in the War on Terror, offers a powerful object lesson in how to deal with the continuing threat from Iran.”

The real quagmire would have ocurred if the Dims had control of this war...we would be in decades-long battles with the terrorists, instead of them being eliminated. W is solely reposnsible for this victory. He has stood fast in the face of tremendous opposition.


15 posted on 06/09/2008 8:38:33 AM PDT by Rennes Templar ( Never underestimate the difficulty of changing false beliefs by facts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eurale

Party of Defeat: How Democrats and Radicals Undermined America's War on Terror Before and After 9-11
By David Horowitz and Ben Johnson
FrontPageMagazine.com | Friday, April 11, 2008

The following [link] is the introduction from the new book Party of Defeat by David Horowitz and Ben Johnson. The introduction lays out the book's thesis: that the opposition to the war in Iraq has crossed a troubling boundary. For the first time, a large number of national leaders have not merely opposed a war; that would be their inalienable right under the U.S. Constitution. Instead, they have actively sabotaged an ongoing war they voted to authorize and which our troops are currently winning. Party of Defeat is available from the FrontPage Magazine Bookstore for $15, less than Amazon.com. -- The Editors.

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=28679004-6C63-4119-97F6-96A2C5F64E84

___________________________________________________________

"David Horowitz talked about his book Party of Defeat: How Democrats and Radicals Undermined America's War on Terror Before and After 9-11, published by Spence. In his book he criticizes members of the Democratic Party that, he says, are undermining the U.S.'s efforts in Iraq. This event was held at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C."

Watch now on c-span video! (FREE)

Party of Defeat: How Democrats and Radicals Undermined America's War on Terror Before and After 9-11 (on streaming video - length: apprx 90min)[Windows Media Video or C-Span Video Player(Flash) -additional details at site]
http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&products_id=205154-1&highlight

16 posted on 06/09/2008 8:40:44 AM PDT by ETL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eurale

The US has won every war that we haven’t retreated from. This hopefully will put a nail into the coffin of disgrace of Vietnam. We left those poor people to die and be interred into reeducation camps. They held the country for almost 3 years after we trained them with minimal support and then when the North Attacked we did nothing. No air support, nothing. The Democrats in congress (Ted Kennedy leading the charge) cut funding to Vietnam leaving them exposed bartering over mortars. There is blood on their hands and those peace marching abu graibe inciting,9-11 conspiracy promoters should be held responsible for how THEY soiled the flag which. They are doves only in respect that the they leave a trail of waste where ever they roost cooing oeace and crapping on the flag.

What is ironic is how the specter of Vietnam helped produce this result. This time history served us in a time when information moves so fast and the media so entirely attempts to distort it.


17 posted on 06/09/2008 8:41:44 AM PDT by Maelstorm (Retreat when you are not faced with a superior enemy is an invitation for attack.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

CNN, “war? what war? there is a war? can’t be if there was a war with US troops dying CNN would be fron and center reporting it.”

cue cnn theme song, “try to remember that day in septemeber....”


18 posted on 06/09/2008 8:44:20 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: henkster

Drill Here. Drill Now. Pay Less.


19 posted on 06/09/2008 8:47:26 AM PDT by mattdono (150 Million bloodthirsty Arabs vs. 4.8 Million Jewish Israelis. That's not fair. [Off Sarcasm])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Eurale
Pre-war quotes from "lying" House and Senate democrats...

"In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad.

In the 4 years since the inspectors, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaida members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001."

"It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein wiill continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East which, as we know all too well, affects American security."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
Congressional Record – Sen. Hillary Clinton

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2002_record&page=S10288&position=all

John Kerry: “I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq – Saddam Hussein is a renegade and outlaw who turned his back on the tough conditions of his surrender put in place by the United Nations in 1991.” (July 2002)

John Kerry: “I believe the record of Saddam Hussein’s ruthless, reckless breach of international values and standards of behavior is cause enough for the world community to hold him accountable by use of force if necessary.”

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
U.S. Senate - Ted Kennedy

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
Transcript of Gore’s speech, printed in USA Today

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-09-23-gore-text_x.htm

"When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable." -
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9,2002
Congressional Record – Sen. John F. Kerry

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2002_record&page=S10174&position=all

John Kerry on the floor of the Senate
October 2002:

"With respect to Saddam Hussein and the threat he presents, we must ask ourselves a simple question:

Why?

Why is Saddam Hussein pursuing weapons that most nations have agreed to limit or give up?

Why is Saddam Hussein guilty of breaking his own cease-fire agreement with the international community?

Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to develop nuclear weapons when most nations don't even try, and responsible nations that have them attempt to limit their potential for disaster?

Why did Saddam Hussein threaten and provoke?

Why does he develop missiles that exceed allowable limits?

Why did Saddam Hussein lie and deceive the inspection teams previously?

Why did Saddam Hussein not account for all of the weapons of mass destruction which UNSCOM identified?

Why is he seeking to develop unmanned airborne vehicles for delivery of biological agents?

Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), October 9, 2002
Congressional Record – Sen. John F. Kerry

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2002_record&page=S10171&position=all

“The Joint Chiefs should provide Congress with casualty estimates for a war in Iraq as they have done in advance of every past conflict. These estimates should consider Saddam's possible use of chemical or biological weapons against our troops.

Unlike the gulf war, many experts believe Saddam would resort to chemical and biological weapons against our troops in a desperate -attempt to save his regime if he believes he and his regime are ultimately threatened.”
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) Oct. 8, 2002
Congressional Record - Sen. Ted Kennedy

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=S10090&dbname=2002_record

John Kerry: “I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq – Saddam Hussein is a renegade and outlaw who turned his back on the tough conditions of his surrender put in place by the United Nations in 1991.” (July 2002)

John Kerry: “I believe the record of Saddam Hussein’s ruthless, reckless breach of international values and standards of behavior is cause enough for the world community to hold him accountable by use of force if necessary.”

John Kerry: “I would disagree with John McCain that it's the actual weapons of mass destruction he may use against us, it's what he may do in another invasion of Kuwait or in a miscalculation about the Kurds or a miscalculation about Iran or particularly Israel. Those are the things that--that I think present the greatest danger. He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It's the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat." (October 2002)

John Kerry: “If You Don’t Believe . . . Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn’t vote for me.” (January 2003)

John Kerry: Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator who must be disarmed. (March 2003)

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal."..."Iraq has continued to seek nuclear weapons and develop its arsenal in defiance of the collective will of the international community, as expressed through the United Nations Security Council. It is violating the terms of the 1991 cease-fire that ended the Gulf war and as many as 16 Security Council resolutions, including 11 resolutions concerning Iraq’s efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction." –
Sen. John Edwards, October 10, 2002
Congressional Record – Sen. John Edwards

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2002_record&page=S10325&position=all

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." –
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001
http://usinfo.org/wf-archive/2001/011207/epf510.htm

"We should be hell bent on getting those weapons of mass destruction, hell bent on having a credible approach to them, but we should try to do it in a way which keeps the world together and that achieves our goal which is removing the... defanging Saddam.." -
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Dec. 9, 2002
Online with Jim Lehrer – Public Broadcasting Service

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec02/iraq_12-10.html

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
Transcript of Gore’s speech, printed in USA Today

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-09-23-gore-text_x.htm

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
Transcript of Gore’s speech, printed in USA Today

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-09-23-gore-text_x.htm

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
U.S. Senate - Ted Kennedy

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
Congressional Record – Robert Byrd

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2002_record&page=S9874&position=all

"When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable." -
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9,2002
Congressional Record – Sen. John F. Kerry

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2002_record&page=S10174&position=all

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."-
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
Congressional Record –Sen. Jay Rockefeller

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" –
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
Congressional Record – Rep. Henry Waxman

MY SOURCE FOR ALL OF THESE QUOTES:
http://www.americandaily.com/article/4694

20 posted on 06/09/2008 8:48:05 AM PDT by ETL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-51 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson