he's lost it, almost as badly as AlBore!!!
±
"The Era of Osama lasted about an hour, from the time the first plane hit the tower to the moment the General Militia of Flight 93 reported for duty." 
Toward FREEDOM
Posted on 05/27/2004 12:24:20 AM PDT by CWOJackson
"Nitwit pundits and Sunday morning television sages, with that faked look of thoughtfulness which is their trademark, talk about an exit strategy – as if it were just one more Mapquest printout. But any such exit strategy will lead us only on a short path to hell."
So writes Tony Blankley, editorial editor at the Washington Times, adding, "The essential strategic element in war is to defeat the enemy's will to win, and accepting anything less than triumph in Iraq will catastrophically embolden the terrorists."
Blankley raises valid and grave questions. He is saying that, no matter where one stood on going to war, we went. Now, anyone who thinks we can swiftly exit Iraq without paying a hellish price is a nitwit.
Blankley is right. Should America pull out now, our enemies across the Islamic world will indeed be emboldened. The perception of American defeat could produce a domino effect running down through the sheikdoms of the Gulf into Saudi Arabia and spreading across the region. Iraq could dissolve into chaos and civil war.
All this is possible. Indeed, the possibility that Iraq could become a giant Lebanon for the United States was among the reasons some of us implored the president not to send our Army up the Euphrates Valley to occupy a city that was the seat of the caliphate for 500 years.
But if there are risks to a too-rapid transfer of sovereignty to Iraqis, there are risks to escalating this war. Query: When Osama sees Sunnis rising up to fight Americans from Fallujah to Baghdad, and Shiites taking up arms in Karbala and Najaf and marching against America in Beirut in the hundreds of thousands, is he not rejoicing that we took the bait and invaded Iraq? Has not the invasion enlarged the recruiting pool for anti-American terrorism?
In the war on terror, a critical objective was to isolate Osama as a mass murderer who did not represent Islam. Osama's goal was to embed himself in the Arab and Islamic causes of expelling the infidel Americans from the sacred soil of Saudi Arabia and ending what he denounced as our persecution of the oppressed Iraqi people.
Osama sought to conflate his war with the Arab cause. It was in our interest to keep them separate. But the invasion of Iraq – an attack on an Arab country that did not attack us and did not want war with us – united and aroused the Arab world against us, and with bin Laden.
And just as those who argue for an accelerated withdrawal must face up to the risks, those who favor escalation must consider the risks of trying to attain a political objective that appears to be receding before our eyes.
If victory means a pro-Western democracy in Iraq that embraces American values, what is the likelihood of achieving that now, given the raging hostility in the Sunni and Shiite sectors? Are we closer to the goal than we were 13 months ago? Or has the fighting of April-May and the moral squalor of Abu Ghraib pushed our goal even further away?
What will be the final cost in blood and treasure of ultimate victory? How lasting will victory be once our troops depart, as one day they must? Will the American people – who read polls where 57 percent of the Iraqis want us out and more than half think killing our soldiers is justified, and every lethal attack on a U.S. vehicle brings out a mob in wild celebration – continue to feel Iraqi democracy is worth Americans dying for?
As Washington Times columnist Terry Jeffrey writes, idealists may dream of a democratic, secular and pro-Western Iraq, but traditionalists would settle for an Iraq that has no WMD, does not invade its neighbors and does not collude with terrorists.
Horrible as the monster was, Saddam Hussein, after his rout in the Gulf War, came close to filling the bill. That is why some of us did not believe it vital to our security to invade and dethrone him. A nuclear North Korea or nuclear-armed Pakistan where President Musharraf has been taken down by some assassin seemed far the graver potential threat.
Still, Blankley has this point: Whether we go, or stay and fight on, we are going to pay a heavy price, because we went.
Neville Chamberlain is forever condemned for capitulating at Munich. Rightly so. But by the time he got to Munich, Chamberlain had no good choices left. His country had lost Italy in the Abyssinian crisis, failed to rearm, failed to stop Hitler when Britain and France could have chased him out of the Rhineland in 1936. By late September 1939, they could no longer stop Hitler in Central Europe without a European war.
No good options were left. Chamberlain could cede the Sudetenland – or declare war to rescue a Czechoslovakia Britain lacked the power to save.
Conclusion: Chamberlain should never have gone to Munich – and Bush should never have gone to Baghdad.
And pat leads the pack.
Thought you might like this one. buchanan invoking the name of Chamberlain...now there is irony.
Thought you might like this one. buchanan invoking the name of Chamberlain...now there is irony.
Pat's rant is over taken by events on the ground, no thanks to him. Pat's been wrong so often since the fall of communism, you'd think even he'd notice.
he's lost it, almost as badly as AlBore!!!
±
"The Era of Osama lasted about an hour, from the time the first plane hit the tower to the moment the General Militia of Flight 93 reported for duty." Toward FREEDOM
NAJAF, Iraq (Reuters) - Militiamen loyal to rebel cleric Moqtada al-Sadr said their leaders had told them to withdraw from the Iraqi holy city of Najaf by midday (4 a.m. EDT) on Thursday following a truce offer from Sadr.
"It was a written and a verbal order," said Ali Abu Zahra, commander of one of the Mehdi Army units that has been battling U.S. forces in Najaf.
Earlier on Thursday, Iraq (news - web sites)'s national security adviser Mowaffaq al-Rubaie, quoting a statement signed by Sadr, said the cleric was willing to pull members of his Mehdi Army who are not from Najaf out of the holy city, and had demanded in return that a murder case for which he is wanted be suspended.
"To end the tragic situation in Najaf and the violation... of the holy places, I announce my agreement to the following: an end to all armed demonstrations, the evacuation of government buildings...and the withdrawal of all Mehdi Army fighters," the statement said.
Iraq's U.S. occupiers have spent weeks trying to crush Sadr's militia, which has support among Shi'ites in the capital and southern cities, since he launched an uprising in April after the arrest of a key aide and the announcement of a warrant for his arrest over the murder of a rival cleric.
Keep it up Pat and before you know it you will be 2nd pin to Algore.
A promotion which could lead you to notoriety frustration.
Trust me...
Deepthroat.
So when are we going to get the sage advice of Pat Paulson? He's about as relevant as Buchanan.
At least Paulson's funny. Pat Buchannan is a self-parody, perhaps, but usually just nasty to Republicans now.
This is an insane premise, considering that Sadam equated US as the great enemy, claimed victory in the first Gulf war, paid terrorists to bomb Israeli innocents, and always pushed for a single, greater Arab fascism. He played footsie with Osama to use Al Queda against us. To leave Sadam's regime in place was to already declare defeat in the Arab world, and it already was pointed to by Al Queda as an example of our weakness and vulnerability.
Pat is just wrong about this.
Takes one to know one.
Where on earth would we be without Pat and his pitchfork?
What a tremendous ego these X-speechwriters for the top elected officials have of themselves.
So what? Well, Rush's take was that if we say, "We'll leave if they want us to," knowing they certainly WON'T, it will be harder for the Dems to demand we leave. And if the IRAQI'S say they don't want the UN, then it will be the Dems vs. the Iraqis vs. the Dems vs. Bush. Also, if they say, we want you Americans to help us find the WMDs (which we now know exist!), that's another interesting step, making it the "Iraqis" who "find" the WMDs rather than us.
For the mainstream/left media, it won't work entirely, but there will be some reluctance to disbelieve the "new" Iraqi government, and they will have to pay lip service to their "requests."
No, they declared war a year later to rescue a Poland Britain lacked the power to save.
The latest from your hero.
England "lost" Italy? Just WHEN did Italy belong to the British Empire?
Saddam was "good" as a strongman,who "favored" America and that's why we should have just left him alone?
Saddam/Iraq had NO ties to al Qaeda and NO WMD? Would someone PLEASE wake Pat up? That man has now jumped off the precipice.
Pat's skewed view of WW II and Hitler,is so factually WRONG,that a slow high schooler knows more of the facts than Pat does.
Pat's soooooooooooo hung up on Chamberlain as "god",that it's mind boggling.
What is the most amusing aspect is that we still have a handful of fools who worship the sad arsed clown.
Pat wrote this yesterday, as the phony insurgency was already clearly on the wane. He's really become a nutcase.
Speaking of Chamberlain...I wonder where he is?
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.