Tuesday, July 17, 2007

“Specifics” in Dems Withdrawal Considered “Distraction”

July 17, 2007

So, you want a “withdrawal of American Troops” from Iraq? Think you can count on the Democrat party to engineer it? They are working hard to accomplish that, just don’t expect to hear any “specifics” of this “retreat and surrender.” Armed Services Committee chairman Sen. Carl Levin, (D-Mich), has stated that talk of specific numbers was a distraction,” referring to how many Troops would be left behind.

You thought it would be a total withdrawal like Viet Nam? That’s what you get for trusting a Democrat. Republicans might be in disarray currently as they work to retain their seats, but even a minimal check on Democrats reveals they suffer from frequent lapses in their personal integrity.

Levin said, “I’m not going to get into numbers — because it changes the subject from what the issue is, the issue is whether we’re going to change course, whether we’re going to begin to reduce our troops….”

Did Senator Levin miss the unanimous vote approving General Petraeus as Iraqi Commander and the subsequent reinforcement of Troops there? Did he miss early signs of the reinforcement working? Or, later signs it is working?”

Of course he didn’t miss them he ignored them! As I pointed out in April, To Win, Democrats Must Cause Defeat.

Sen. Jon Tester, (D-Mont.) says, “there was a significant number of troops in the Middle East before we started this thing; there’s going to be some troops in the Middle East; there’s U.S. interests involved and that’s the nature of the beast.” He adds, “We’ve been there (in Iraq) for four years and I don’t think you can anticipate that everybody is going to be out. I don’t think that’s going to be the case. There’ll be some left, as needed. That’s his job as commander in chief.”

Senator Tester, how nice of you to point out that prosecuting a war is “job of the Commander in Chief,” but you and your cronies are tying his hands. You undermine his job and then lay it off on him too?

Senator Harry Reid (D. Nev.) said last week, “under the Democrats’ plans for Iraq tens of thousands of troops could remain,” revising it this week to, “the number of soldiers remaining would be in the low thousands if Democrats pass the Levin-Reed measure.”

Is that what anti-war moonbats desire? Just a few thousand Troops left back ostensibly for counter-terrorism and training of Iraqis? Hasn’t their complaint been for too long that not enough Troops were there to secure the country or fight terrorists? So, what would they expect to happen to just a few thousand Troops left? Personally, I doubt they are ready or willing to admit that those “few thousand would end up being sacrificial lambs to radical Islamic Jihadists that have declared Iraq is the Center of the War on Terror.

The anti-war left was very wrong on Viet Nam, as was once noted by newly elected Democrat Senator James Webb when he penned The Triumph of Intellectual Dishonesty back in 1995. That Webb has joined forces with those he castigated then is not only disappointing, it tells me that he has now embraced that Intellectual Dishonesty he so clearly condemned before.

Most troubling to me is that these Representatives of the American People, that lay claim to “We support the Troops, but not the War,” would not even consider the senseless slaughter they are setting our Troops for in Iraq, all to feed their BDS and attempt to grab permanent political power once again. Their lives apparently mean nothing to them, just the appearance of they try and when it goes wrong, it is Bush’s fault.

Sen. Mary Landrieu, (D- La.) proposes, “to re-focus U.S. forces on the hunt for Osama bin Laden and the al Qaida network, with troops being moved from Iraq to Afghanistan.” The quest for one man, if he is even still alive, IS the distraction from battling the much larger movement of radical Jihadists that are determined to rule the world by their misguided and wrongful interpretation of the religion.

Then again, since these same Democrats and other leftists consistently clamor that Al Qaeda was never in Iraq until we sent Troops there, won’t a significant number just follow our Troops there and await the inevitable Democrat leftist cry of withdrawal from there as well?

Maybe this is why the Founding Fathers, in their infinite wisdom, assigned prosecution of wars to the hands of one man, the President, whoever and whichever party that may be.

If Democrats would ever discuss methods of “winning” instead of methods of “surrender,” this war could be over much sooner and not drug out endlessly or having to return in another 12 years to face the same enemy, after they have grown even stronger.

The real “distraction” has been the Democrats endless call for surrender instead of supporting the successful prosecution of this new type of war.


UPDATE 1: Pro-Troop Supporters Announce Major September Push

UPDATE 2: Think the reinforcement isn't showing progress? Al Qaeda faces rebellion from the ranks


Rightwingwacko said...

We are losing in Iraq because we haven't defined the enemy and we aren't there to "win." What would winning look like, anyway? This undeclared "war" was never meant to be "won," but to secure a large American presence in Iraq. And why do you and all of the other so-called "conservatives" ignore the president of Iraq's statement that they are ready for us to leave?

You and others who claim to stand for conservativism have gone down that terrible road of endorsing deception, violence and fiscal irresponsibility to justify the actions of a president (whom I voted for once) who is not only out of touch with his country, but close to becoming our first dictator.

LewWaters said...

Sorry, leftwing, but your futile rhetoric doesn't fly it here. Maybe at DU or DailyKOS you can state that and actually believe it, but around here, we know the truth and you ain't got it, son.

I sincerely doubt you ever voted for Bush, but so what if you did? Even James Webb, as noted, swallowed some stupid.

Bush as dictator? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!! Better watch your glorious Dems as they continue to slowly remove our liberties, "all for the good of the people."

As for Maliki, perhaps you would like to say ALL that he said, not just the snippet that may support your surrender and retreat from victory agenda.

Last but not least, WE ARE NOT LOSING!!!!! Only the Democrats push for early surrender and abandonment of yet another struggling ally would bring that about. But, they have been steadily causing just that for decades now.

Rightwingwacko said...

You are losing and have lost the hearts and minds of the majority of Americans, not just Democrats, and deservedly so. Stop worrying about the Democrats and start worrying about Independents and Republicans like me who have seen the light. Your focus is way off.

Nick Stump said...

Count me a one Vietnam vet who believes we could have won in Vietnam. But this mess is unwinnable, unless we put 500,000 troops in there, and GWB can't pull that off. He's lost all credibility with me and a lot of other veterans.

Sure the President is supposed to prosecute the war, but this president? I don't think so. He's just plain incompetent and you can't fix that. I'd rather see Jim Webb in the White House, someone with some practical experience.

I can't believe I find myself agreeing with a guy who uses the handle, rightwingwhacko. But don't worry right wing. You haven't moved away from being a conservative. It's just that a bunch of those in your party have moved away from conservative principles.

Where's the folks who hated big government and nation building? Being a conservative Dem, I always supported those ideals and thought it was the best of the conservative movement. I don't see them anywhere. Instead this looks like the LBJ administration on training wheels.

LewWaters said...

Sorry, leftwingwacko, but I don't care much for polls. What you are seeing is cooked polls of an extremely cross-section of people without any verification of who was queried or what was asked. You keep believing what the Commicrats wish you to believe. I'll stick with facts.

You can brag of Republicanism all you desire, it means nothing! The main difference between the two currently is there are more surrendercrats in the Dems and the Repubs. Just shows how easily the masses can be deluded.

My focus is spot on, incidentally. I see the dangers lurking not all that far from our shores. If you pulled your head back out into the sunshine long enough to actually get a focus, you would too.

Nick, I find it oddly curious that you lay claim to being a Viet Nam Vet who agrees that our war was winnable, as do I, yet believe the current war isn't. I encourage you too click on the link above to James Webb’s words written in 1995 and see the similarities to today.

As leftwingwacko shows, just being a Republican isn't necessarily conservative. Liberals took over the once great Democrat party and slowly but surely, they are infiltrating the Republicans as well. Very much like the Bolshevik Revolution that gave us the Soviet Union.

That you say Bush has no credibility with you is your problem, not mine. Personally, I couldn't care less whether you like him or not. Hell, I don't agree with everything he does, never have, never will. But, he is the first one in decades to do what should have been done in 1979, take the fight back to the radical Islamic Jihadists. As one claiming to be a Vet, surely you can see that this fight has been ongoing nearly 30 years and won't stop if we surrender again.

They have been fighting us that long. Isn't it about time we fought back?

This war is very winnable, if they allow the Troops to fight it as it needs be fought. General Petraeus was given a Unanimous approval to take over. Shouldn't he also be given the chance to show he can do what they approved him to do? I think so.

Like it or not, the reinforcement is working. Look at the tribal sheiks that have turned on Al Qaeda and are fighting them now, alongside our people?

Dems wanted a change, they got it and aren't happy with it. Why? Because a win there will derail their agenda of total control of the country under their Communistic rule. Sad that a Veteran would align themselves with those desiring to make our freedom of liberties vanish as they did in the failed Soviet Union, but your choice.

Don't be surprised to one day discover that you fit in with a very small minority of Veterans, though.

Rightwingwacko said...

So wrong for so long. The minority dwindles daily. Yet the mouse roars louder.

LewWaters said...

Yes, leftwingwacko, we hear you and your minnions roaring every day and leading each other to their doom.

Don't bother cheerleading yourself with one of your aliases on this either.

Some have to find out the hard way and you fall into that category. Think Neville Chamberlain.

Rightwingwacko said...

MTR, when I think Neville Chamberlain, I think Bush.

Bush and like Churchill, Chamberlain came to office with almost no understanding of foreign affairs or experience in dealing with international leaders. Nonetheless, he was convinced that he alone could bring Hitler and Benito Mussolini to heel. He surrounded himself with like-minded advisers and refused to heed anyone who told him otherwise.

In the months leading up to World War II, Chamberlain and his men saw little need to build up a strong coalition of European allies with which to confront Nazi Germany -- ignoring appeals from Churchill and others to fashion a "Grand Alliance" of nations to thwart the threat that Hitler posed to the continent.

Unlike Bush and Chamberlain, Churchill was never in favor of his country going it alone.

Like Bush, Chamberlain also laid claim to unprecedented executive authority, evading the checks and balances that are supposed to constrain the office of prime minister. He scorned dissenting views, both inside and outside government. When Chamberlain arranged his face-to-face meetings with Hitler in 1938 that ended in the catastrophic Munich conference, he did so without consulting his cabinet, which, under the British system, is responsible for making policy. He also bypassed the House of Commons, leading Harold Macmillan, a future Tory prime minister who was then an anti-appeasement MP, to complain that Chamberlain was treating Parliament "like a Reichstag, to meet only to hear the orations and to register the decrees of the government of the day."

Churchill, on the other hand, revered Parliament and was appalled by Chamberlain's determination to dominate the Commons in the late 1930s. Churchill considered himself first and foremost "a child" and "servant" of the House of Commons and strongly believed in the legislature's constitutional role to oversee the executive (even when, after becoming prime minister, he often railed against MPs who criticized him).

Rightwingwacko said...


Bush like Chamberlain came to office with almost no understanding of foreign affairs or experience in dealing with international leaders.

LewWaters said...

Leftwingwacko, I'm glad you came back so I could provide you with a bit more education and insight

I hate to tell you, but no President, unless he served as Vice President previously, has a lot of Foreign affairs expertise. That is why they all have staff and advisors. Our last 2 Presidents were first governors of their respective states. What real Foreign affairs experience would someone from Arkansas have over someone from Texas?

Chamberlain felt he could “talk” to Hitler and trust him afterwards. Churchill knew better. Chamberlain advocated a policy of appeasement, which ended up costing him the Office of Prime Minister as well as plunged the world headlong into World War Two, after he conceded Czechoslovakia to Hitler. Appeasement has never calmed a tyrant. It only delays the inevitable.

Hate to tell you this, but Britain was pretty much on their own in the Battle of Britain, other than American volunteers, Europeans that escaped from Nazi occupation and hardware handed to Britain under the Lend/Lease program initiated by Roosevelt. There was no Europe left to build a coalition as they sat back and waited too long as Hitler conquered nation after nation.

The myth of Bush went it alone in Iraq is getting tired and old. While we are indeed the major contributor, he entered Iraq with a “Coalition of the Willing” some 54 nations contributing in some manner, some with Troops. Granted, some have since withdrawn for various reasons, but nowhere near all. Of course, with the world seeing and hearing the countries desire to abandon yet another struggling ally, under Democrat party leadership, who could blame them for wanting to withdraw as well? The Democrats antics don’t do a thing to help keep the support we had.

Bush is nowhere near the dictator moonbats on DU and DailyKOS think he is, quite the contrary. The Democrat party and their willing accomplices in the lamestream media keep making that claim, but they are merely projecting their own desires on Bush.

In actuality, our Constitution, which Bush adheres to a lot more than you think, precludes any president from ever being a Dictator. Maybe that is why the Democrats keep saying it is a “fluid document” with ever changing interpretations to suit the left’s whims. BY making it out to be “fluid,” it is they who undermine it and ignore it to suit their agenda of total Dictatorial powers in Washington D.C. That is also why they lie and misrepresent method’s Bush has imposed in protecting America from another terrorist attack, without acknowledging that those programs are a holdover from the previous administration.

You can see it in the proceedings in the House and the Senate as Democrat leaders whine and bellyache about GOP obstructionism, without acknowledging that it was they who were filibustering and obstructing several key appointments programs to benefit the country.

If you are interested in a real and honest assessment of Iraq, which acknowledges both the good and the bad, read General David Petraeus on the conditions on the ground in Iraq, 07/18/2007.

After that, read the editorial at ibdeditorials, Petraeus Is Talking; Is Anyone Listening?

The closing sentences say it best, “From what we've heard from Petraeus — and contrary to the parade of pundits and politicians urging us to withdraw — it seems we're winning this war.”
Maybe it's time the word got out.”

Unknown said...

"If you support the troops but not the war, then you undermine the troops who support the war"

"If our unborn babies were born and grow up and vote Democrat, we would surely see an end of abortions".

Rhubarb said...

Interesting debate about Chamberlain. Although Chamberlain was deluded, I don't think he lied as much as Bush. However, he did have his "Mission Accomplished" moment when he stepped off that plane in 1938 and waved the paper "peace treaty".

LewWaters said...

Rhubarb, don't you have anything besides tired and disproven DNC talking points?

Rhubarb said...

Sorry, did not know Neville Chamberlain was a talking point.

1. How do 160,000 U.S. troops in Iraq ("winning" or "victorious" or whatever), how do they protect the American People from being attacked by 'terrorists'?

2. Were we to be attacked here in the U.S., how do 160,000 U.S. Troops in Iraq defend us against that, or prevent that, or get us justice for such an attack...

3. How does an occupation of Iraq serve the American People's National Security?

4. Were the 160,000 U.S. troops to have been in Iraq before the attacks of September 11, 2001 (on that very morning actually), what would they have done, in Iraq, to prevent those attacks?

5. How would they have defended us, in Iraq, from those attacks?

6. How would they get justice, in Iraq, for those attacks?

LewWaters said...

Rhubarb, how many ways can you ask the same question?

Okay, let’s go through this again. I’ll type slowly so you might understand better.

Iraq wasn’t invaded for retribution of 9/11. NO ONE in the administration said Iraq was an “imminent threat,” that was John Edwards who did that. One of the reasons Iraq was invaded because 17 United Nations Resolution were ignored over the 12 year period between that Gulf War and 2003, failing to account for WMD’s that virtually every world leader and most intelligence agencies believed were in his possession, including Saddam Hussein himself.

A relationship was established between Saddam Hussein’s and Al Qaeda during the Clinton administration and was acknowledged by several, both Democrat and Republican.

During the six months long “rush to war,” Intelligence was vetted by members of both parties in both houses and it was agreed upon to remove Saddam forcibly, as he refused to leave on his own or account for his WMD’s. Reason was to preclude the possibility of those WMD’s that nearly everyone said was there from falling into the hands of Al Qaeda. By the time we actually got there, after broadcasting we were coming soon, they were gone, they couldn’t be found, and they had disappeared.

I find it difficult to believe they never existed because surely someone would have picked up on it and broadcast worldwide.

Iraq was a known safe haven for terrorists so the concern of possible weapons or funding funneled to terrorists was very real. Terrormaster Abu Nidal, Abdul Rahman Yasin, one of the conspirators in the 1993 WTC bombing, "Khala Khadr al-Salahat, the man who reputedly made the bomb for the Libyans that brought down Pan Am Flight 103 over...Scotland,"Abu Abbas, mastermind of the October 1985 Achille Lauro hijacking and murder of Leon Klinghoffer," & "Abu Musab al-Zarqawi are some of the known terrorists that were in Iraq under Saddam Hussein’s rule.

Furthermore, Saddam Hussein was an avowed enemy of America who started two wars of aggression, was steadfast in his support for Palestinian suicide bombers, and brutally oppressed his own people. Oppressing his people is significant as we justified sending American troops to Bosnia, Kosovo, Haiti, and Somalia almost solely because of "humanitarian reasons". If "humanitarian purposes" floated your boat in Kosovo or Haiti, I see no reason why it wouldn’t for Iraq.

You ask what is in America’s National Security Interests. While it wasn’t the reason we went there, oil is in our National Interest as is keeping a free flow of it and not allowing massive oil fields to fall into the hands of groups like Al Qaeda, to be used in financing their war of terrorism against us. Additionally, facing off against terrorists and destroying them protects us and keeps them from our shores. Afghanistan is a country with a very inhospitable terrain, Iraq isn’t. If, as claimed, our being in Iraq has drawn them there, good. It’s much easier to kill them were we can find them easier. The ridiculous ROE’s need to be either eliminated or heavily modified to allow our Troops more discretion in engaging them and destroying them.

It is also in our National Security Interests to see Iraq become a viable and free Democracy of their choosing who is already starting to stand up against terrorists themselves. Democracy can only spread throughout the region if we allow the Iraqis the chance at building their own.

Our Troops are all volunteers who keep reenlisting to fight the terrorists. More people probably would enlist as well, if not for the constant drone of defeatism and opposition as well as constantly making them out to be victims, instead of the Warrior Heroes they are, by the Democrat party, RINO’s and the lamestream media.

In answer to your other queries, allow me to throw it back to you and ask, how does having a Police Force present in cities prevent murders, rapes and drug distribution? Answer, it doesn’t. But, whom do we expect to deal with those who perpetrate such crimes?

Now ask yourself, whom do we expect to deal with those who have either attacked us or wish to make plans to internationally? If you don’t have the answer to that you are beyond help.

Rhubarb said...

Not acceptable. Questions not answered. Go to the back of the class. On second thought, go to the back of the class and stand in the corner.

LewWaters said...

Rhubarb, may I remind you that this is my blog and I determine what is acceptable or not.

You banal question asked in many ways was answered, whether you like the answer or not.

If you don't like the way I answer, son, don't ask me questions!

Maybe you should be asking some of your nonsense to your Dmeocrat cronies. As I said in this post, it is they now not wanting to release specifics on how many and how long they will leave Troops in Iraq.

You fell for tehir smokescreen and with your help, more and more Troops will be killed or maimed due to lack of support.

I think you know what you can do with your "back of the class."

Start your own blog and make your own rules. You don't set them here. ;)

Rightwingwacko said...

Osama bin Laden's plan was to get the U.S. to overreact and overreach itself. With the invasion of Iraq, Bush fell slap-bang into that trap. The U.S. government's own latest National Intelligence Estimate, released this week, suggests that Al Qaeda in Iraq is now among the most significant threats to the security of the American homeland.

The U.S. has probably not yet fully awakened to the appalling fact that, after a long period in which the first motto of its military was "no more Vietnams," it faces another Vietnam. There are many important differences, but the basic result is similar: The mightiest military in the world fails to achieve its strategic goals and is, in the end, politically defeated by an economically and technologically inferior adversary.

Even if there are no scenes of helicopters evacuating Americans from the roof of the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, there will surely be some photographic image of national humiliation as the U.S. struggles to extract its troops.

Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo have done terrible damage to the U.S. reputation for being humane; this defeat will convince more people around the world that it is not even that powerful.

LewWaters said...

Osama bin Laden's plan was to get the U.S. to overreact and overreach itself.

For a group always complaining about not locating Bin Laden, you lefties sure seem to know an awful lot about what his intentions were. So tell us, what Democrats secretly met with Bin Laden to discuss his real intent?

it faces another Vietnam.

The only similarities are the efforts of the pusified left once again undermining our Troops with the help and full support of the leftist lamestream media. Need I remind you that the New York Times ran an article mere days after we went into Afghanistan calling it a “Viet Nam Quagmire?”

It is only like Viet Nam because you lefties think you can make it such with your ridiculous calls of “We support the Troops, but not the war.” You cannot support anyone and not what they do, it doesn’t work that way.

there will surely be some photographic image of national humiliation as the U.S. struggles to extract its troops.

And this is what you all are hoping, dreaming and praying for. You fail to realize just what harm you do not only to your party, but also to the nation as a whole as you salivate hoping for such a dramatic end.

this defeat will convince more people around the world that it is not even that powerful.

Finally, the truth comes out. You hate that America is a Super Power, the lone Super Power and desire to see her stripped of global power. Do you think it will only affect Republicans and not Democrats as well?

You should be thankful that you live in such a country and be desirous of helping others elevate themselves up to our standards, not wanting to see us lowered to theirs.

Just remember, no one has ever been attacked because the enemy sees them as too powerful. They attack the weak, what you want America to become.