Sunday, February 18, 2007

Democrats, Syria and Iran Ally Against Victory In War On Terror

February 18, 2007

In a not too surprising announcement today, leaders of Syria and Iran have joined in agreement with the Democrat Party and the few White Flag Republicans in stating U.S. ‘will lose in Middle East'

Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has said, “The United States will not achieve its goals in the Middle East.” Khamenei added, “US President George W. Bush had even lost support within his own party over his Iraq policies.”

Syrian president Bashar Assad says, "Realities in the region show that the arrogant front, headed by US and its allies, will be the principal loser in the region."

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of Iran says, “[Syria and Iran] have pledged to work together to confront US and Israeli ‘plots’ in the Middle East.”

Mirroring these same thoughts, the U.S. House of Representatives on Friday, February 16, approved a “non-binding” resolution opposed to President Bush’s call for sending 21,500 reinforcements to the region to help stabilize Baghdad.

Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi said of their vote, “The passage of this legislation will signal change in direction in Iraq that will end the fighting and bring our troops home safely and soon.”

Also unfinished and unvictorious, I might add.

Rep. Henry Waxman adds, “What we now have in Iraq is a defeat of the illusions of the Bush Administration that we will be able to create a stable, unified, liberal democracy in Iraq that is pro-American.”

Rep. John Murtha said he “plans to introduce legislation that would end Bush's plan by setting limits on which troops can be sent and would prevent them from being sent back too soon or too poorly equipped.” He added, "That stops the surge (in troops) for all intents and purposes, because ... they cannot sustain the deployment."

Rep. David Wu said that Iraq had been eliminated as a threat to the United States.

I thought that the Democrat party has been harping that Iraq never posed a threat to the United States?

On Saturday, February 17, in a rare weekend session of the Senate, a similar measure was defeated, as sufficient votes for cloture were not realized. Still, this has not stopped the predominately Democrat party opposition to reinforcing out Troops in Iraq fighting the War on Terror. Seven White Flag waving Republicans joined with the Democrats in opposition.

Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid said, “The Bush Administration's failures have put our troops and America in a deep hole, and it is time for this country and this Congress to climb out.”

Senator Hillary Clinton chimed in with, "Now it's time to say the redeployment should start in 90 days or the Congress will revoke authorization for this war." Mirroring Rep. John Murtha, she proposed what she calls the "Iraq Troop Protection and Reduction Act," adding, "If George Bush doesn't end the war before he leaves office, when I'm president, I will."

On Saturday, February 17, in an email received from Brian Wolff, DCCC Executive Director, the statements are made of, “United in support for our troops who are bravely serving in Iraq, Democrats voted today to oppose the President's escalation plan,” and “Our troops and our country deserve better than the Republicans' stay the course strategy.”

Only a liberal could think they are “united in their support of the Troops” by denying them the necessary tools, men and equipment they need when in harm’s way.

Only a liberal could think that forcing another defeat on our troops is “deserving better” for them.

I might add that recently, this same Senate voted unanimously in approving Lt. Gen. David Petraeus as commander in Iraq. Gen. Petraeus said, “The way ahead will be neither quick nor easy.” He voiced confidence in the administration’s plan to send thousands of additional troops into Baghdad adding, “he would not be able to carry out his assignment as top U.S. commander successfully without the additional troops.”

This elicited the comment from Republican John Warner of, “I hope that this colloquy has not entrapped you into some responses that you might later regret.”

Recently approved Defense Secretary Robert Gates says, "It's pretty clear that a resolution that in effect says that the general going out to take command of the arena shouldn't have the resources he thinks he needs to be successful certainly emboldens the enemy and our adversaries.”

Add to this that recently, we have Retired Army General William Odom saying the U.S. Should ”cut and run” from Iraq and writing an op-ed piece in the February 11, 2007 Washington Times, Victory Is Not An Option.

How would you like to be one of the Troops fighting the War on Terror today, or storming the beaches of Normandy or Guadalcanal in World War Two with leaders like that behind you?

It is little wonder that former North Vietnamese Colonel Bui Tin, who accepted the surrender of Saigon in April 1975, in a Wall Street Journal article published August 3, 1995, when asked about the effectiveness of the American anti-war movement on their victory, “It was essential to our strategy. Support of the war from our rear was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable.”

When Col. Tin was asked about President Johnson’s refusal to honor General Westmoreland’s request for an additional 200,000 reinforcements in 1968, he replied, “We realized that America had made its maximum military commitment to the war. Vietnam was not sufficiently important for the United States to call up its reserves. We had stretched American power to a breaking point. When more frustration set in, all the Americans could do would be to withdraw.” Tin added, “We had the impression that American commanders had their hands tied by political factors. Your generals could never deploy a maximum force for greatest military effect.”

It would appear to me that the leaders of both Iran and Syria, as well Al Qaeda and any other insurgency group rising up to help dominate the world under Radical Islamofascism studied the “new directions” of a Democrat party led Congress before and just as they figured on, history repeats itself.

It is little wonder that Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei can join with America’s Democrat party in saying, “The United States will not achieve its goals in the Middle East.”



u∃∃l!∃ said...

I really like the way your page looks.
Nice layout, nice colors.
Very cool.
(I was trying to resist the new blogger, but resistance was futile. It also merged my 2 accounts into one.)

Don't forget about the Republicans who are siding with the bulk of the Democrats.

LewWaters said...

Thanks, Coboble. Like many men, I am partially color blind (I even admit it), so I had a little help from my wife.

While I didn't list the Republicans that jumped ship by name individually, I did try to acknowledge that there were 17 in the House and 7 in the Senate, all being referred to as White Flag waving Republicans.

In the previous post, I tried to acknowledge 2 Democrats from the House that see the danger in these resolutions and the message they have obviously sent to Syria and Iran.

Personally, I think they should stop this political posturing and just vote up or down on whether to continue funding the war effort. Go on record as to exactly where they stand and take responsibility for that stand and the consequences afterwards, if any.