Posted on 08/15/2005 1:49:56 AM PDT by GLH3IL
In previous columns I have been adamant that we must remain in Iraq. There was, foremost, the need to respond to global terrorism. For much of Clinton’s term, for example, terrorists were allowed to attack American interests without fear of serious repercussion. They bombed the World Trade Center, destroyed US embassies in Africa, and attacked the USS Cole, killing hundreds of Americans. Clinton’s rousing response: hurl a few missiles at an empty training site in Afghanistan. A lack of popular support for war—due to a lack of popular understanding—was a straightjacket that he never cared to escape. Terrorists knew this. And so they escalated their assault on our way of life, culminating with the 9-1-1 attacks.
And indeed, the struggle not to be lorded over by America has proved quite galvanizing. Every day insurgents strap bombs to their bodies and detonate themselves in public squares. Get it? The insurgents are not trying to defeat us. They are willing to die, just to take some of us with them. We cannot win this kind of war of attrition. US soldiers are dying at a rate of one per day. Meanwhile the rest of the world is having trouble supporting the United States. You cannot lead in a global democracy, if people do not trust you. It is undeniable that we went about this in a very flawed manner. We need to admit that. We cannot solve the problem of terrorism by asserting our will on the world. Meanwhile, the deterioration of Iraq continues, serving as a sad reminder of the failed promise of this mission, and the need to pull out.
©2005 Armstrong Williams
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
Oh I get it. If someone decides to think for himself, and ends up disagreeing with the "official" Republican position on some issue, then he's a RINO.
In this case, yes....read the whole article....no positive thought.....indeed it sounds like a Howard Dean Monolouge..without the screams.
His major problem is that he lost credibility after it was "revealed" that he wrote articles promoting the Bush administration's education program...for pay.
He got kicked in the chops by the liberal SlimeStreamMedia, so now he is trying to re-establish himself by criticising the Bush White house.
Crappy tactic, transparently approached, and a thinly written article altogether...
A.A.C.
Exactly what I was thinking.
I recall the education program "contoversy" ...and I stood by Williams then...even though I'm not the biggest NCLB fan by any means. This article doesn't make sense unless, as you have said, he's more concerned about being liked than standing up for what he really believes. He's sounding all flip floppy - like Kerry....
DUmmies hated Armstrong Williams and now that Armstrong Williams is capitulating to the terrorists he will be heralded as something akin to the second coming by the DUmmies.
It'll be interesting to see who in the Right hasn't defected from 'the cause' by whenever the time comes that the last troops pull out of Iraq. I'm quite sure that Ann Coulter will be one of them, but that's about the only one I'd bet on.
What do then? Go crawl in a hole and hide? Let em' take over the whole planet? Its their religion folks, they're brainwashed from birth to martyr themselves for 72 perpetual virgins on couches with pomegranates and fig cakes..
Vaporize mecca, and drive them all out into the desert for a generation until the get their minds right, and decide they'll live in peace on this planet with there fellow humans.
Therein is the way in which Iraq will become like Vietnam.
I still don't understand our reaction, folks are acting like we are losing...and it's really a huge win.
We lost more combat troops in the battle for Iwo Jima than we have lost in Iraq. Same for the Battle of the Bulge. I don't mean to lower the significance of the sacrifice of or brave armed forces....but Iraq is a cake walk as compared to some of the rough spots in WW I, WW II, the Korean War, and Vietnam. We need, as a nation, to toughen the heck up. Grow some spine.
Exactly, he probably misses his face time on CNN and PMSNBC and no better way to get on those networks than go the buchanan route and be a "conservative" who is against the adminsitration.
"We need, as a nation, to toughen the heck up. Grow some spine"
Heading to Iraq? when?
You capitulating to the terrorists now.
Ah.....the vaunted "Chicken Hawk" argument...an incredibly inept intellectual response everytime it's tried. The intersting thing is - I know several guys that have been to Iraq...all of know my opinion....90% of 'em agree with me, NONE of them bring up the "chicken hawk" sewage.
Iraq, however, is a mammoth gamble. If Iraq fails to be a western-tolerant (or friendlier) democracy we'll have another Iran on our hands. These folks didn't toss Saddam on their own; it's unclear to many whether they'll embrace progress and freedom or select an extremist. We're playing with fire. It's unclear to me if Iraq has the values, the willpower and the initiative to survive and thrive as a free and prosperous people.
Why do the damned Left only want to free Europeans anyway? They didn't go anti-war under Clinton so why are the Iraqis unfit to be saved from a barbaric dictator and slaughter of tens of thousands, if not millions?
The Bush Administration is inept, not so much in the conflict itself, but in the PR war. And we're losing that at home. Badly.
Well, my view is that it would be disastrous for us to withdraw from Iraq prematurely, and the successful resolution of the war doesn't appear to be anytime soon. That being said, I am hardly in a "stay the course" frame of mind either. We've been 'staying the course' for two and a half years now and we're not much better off than we were in spring of 2003..
Speaking of which, I honestly don't know if this can be fixed now. Maybe it is too late. My personal view is that none of this was inevitable; the critical errors were made in the immediate aftermath of the initial invasion, and were due to severely inadequate planning for the aftermath of the Saddam regime's downfall. But, it doesn't make much difference to say that since what's done is done now..
So, I don't pretend to really know what'll happen. I don't support withdrawing but I'm not sure what I support as the alternative. I find it amazing that after all this time basic services in the major cities are so decrepit. If I had anything to suggest off the top of my head, it would be a commitment to building the civil infrastructure as swiftly as possible.
Whose fault is that, and administartion that puts out press releases every day, that aren't reported by a leftist MSM, or the MSM that is actually on the side of the terrorists.
I would say a biased mainstream media that wants America to lose.
PS. But they do say that the rule of thumb in the modern era is that the American people will support this kind of war for two years, so you better plan to get what you need done within that time limit or not bother going to war at all. Interestingly enough, the support of the war effort did in fact begin seriously crumbling right about at the two year mark..
That's the thing about the Left, they'd say the war on terror should be treated like a police action. Just look at Clinton changing our policy so that we would absorb a nuclear strike before responding. What the HELL kind of policy is that? They would have us "negotiating" with terrorists but when you have folks who don't have legitimate grievances, who are motivated by religious extremism that would require conversion and subjugation or homicide you cannot negotiate with these people. One would think that the Israel/Palestine conflict would inform them on this. Or, perhaps Hitler and Chamberlain!
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.