A Message to All the Cut and Run Freepers Currently Polluting Free Republic

Friday, November 24, 2006 | Kristinn

[kristinn]

I'm reading an astonishing number of comments on Free Republic these days by posters who have joined the ranks of the anti-American left in calling for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Some claim to have military experience, some claim to be patriotic Americans and some claim to be smarter than the rest.

These posters are joining the Murtha-Rangel-McDermott treason caucus. Oh, they say they love the troops, but their decision to abandon them in the field speaks otherwise.

Three years ago, the United States led an international coalition to rid the world of one of the worst regimes on the planet. Saddam Hussein was an international terrorist: He financed terrorism, he trained terrorists and he harbored terrorists. He waged war on Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Israel. He waged war on the people of Iraq, including genocidal campaigns against the Kurds in the north and the marsh Arabs in the south.

Saddam successfully subverted the Oil-for-Food program and was wearing down support for continuing the sanctions keeping him in check.

He had numerous contacts with al Qaeda over the years. He tried to assassinate a former U.S. president. He maintained research capabilities to implement nuclear, chemical and biological weapons as soon as the sanctions were lifted. There is evidence that some of these programs would have been operational within a year even with the sanctions in place.

The decision to remove Saddam and his regime as part of the Global War on Terror was correct.

Three-and-a-half years after Iraq and the world were liberated from Saddam and his terrorist regime, there are those on Free Republic who are clamoring to give up, surrender, cut and run, stab the troops in the back, betray the Iraqis, betray our allies in the GWOT, spit on the graves of our fallen heroes and join Cindy Sheehan, Medea Benjamin and Ramsey Clark in bringing about America's defeat in the GWOT.

It's only been three-and-a-half years--only six months since the freely elected government in Iraq was formed. In that time, what has been called a mini-Marshall Plan of construction and reconstruction has come to fruition. The Iraqis have held three national elections, they have held numerous local elections, fourteen out of eighteen Iraq provinces are relatively peaceful and stable.

Six months ago, when the Iraqi government was formed, the experts said the war would be taken to Baghdad because our enemies in the region could not abide the example of a free, democratic society in the Middle East. For once, the experts were right. The battle of Baghdad has been a prolonged Tet Offensive style operation of headline-grabbing attacks intended to sap the morale of Americans and Iraqis alike.

From what I've been reading on Free Republic lately, a lot of Freepers have fallen for the enemy's ploy and are howling like barking moonbats for our immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Some of that talk is couched in talk of 'we're fighting a PC war like Vietnam!' The soldiers I met in Iraq recently told Debra Argel Bastian to pass on a message to the Vietnam vets criticizing the war: With all due respect to your service, this is not Vietnam. It is not being fought like Vietnam. Please let us finish our mission.

But our enemy is playing the Vietnam ploy to great benefit. They know they can count on the American and world media to broadcast their propaganda. They work with leftist Americans to sabotage the war effort at home. They know these leftist Americans have allies in the Democratic party. They know they do not need a military victory--only political and psychological victories are needed to defeat America.

You guys are playing right in to their hands. Congratulations.

There are those who argue that murder and dictatorship is the mindset of the Middle East and that will not be changed by our actions. Funny how those who smugly denigrate the Arab peoples' capacity for freedom forget the wholesale slaughter of millions of Westerners by Westerners at the hands of Western dictatorships just a few generations past.

I hear complaints that the Iraqis aren't standing up. Yet, to use one common example, when police recruits are slaughtered in bombings, Iraqis line up the next day at the same recruiting center. The insurgency is small in number, but they are able to do enough damage on a daily basis to stretch out the time it will take to secure the whole of Iraq.

At this time of our testing, the American people are starting to go wobbly. Sadly, many Freepers are too. Our troops and their Commander-in-Chief are not, thank God. It's only been three-and-a-half years. The progress made has been phenomonal. Throw in the towel now, and you'll just have the terrorists follow us home. Everyone knows that, including you. I'm not willing to pay that price, not now, not ever, but you are.

Let me close by offering similar sentiments recently offered by two men 'in the know' on the situation in Iraq who are not giving up. First, Kurdish Regional Government Prime Minister Barzani: "When I was in the United States recently and read the negative news in the Washington Post, New York Times and in the network TV broadcasts, I even wondered if things had gotten so bad since I had left that I shouldn't return."

Next, Gen. Abizaid: "When I come to Washington, I feel despair. When I'm in Iraq with my commanders, when I talk to our soldiers, when I talk to the Iraqi leadership, they are not despairing."

[MNJohnnie]

Sorry I do not validate the insane ranting of pseudo Conservative" Democrat Activists posturing as "Betrayed Conservatives". Pretty obvious you are no Conservative. All one has to do is check your posting history. Sorry but if you have to lie about your REAL background to try and win, you have all ready lost the debate. Wander back to Daily Kos boyo, you fool no one with your posturing here.

[ohioWfan]

I don't agree at all.

Bashing the mission........the kind that's been going on right here on FR..........is the equivalent of spitting on our soldiers.

Not by all, but by many.

I do not believe the leftist mantra that you can support the troops while belittling and denigrating their mission.

When you tell my son that his mission is a waste, you are telling HIM that what he did was a waste. (And trust me, he would be furious if he read this thread....he knows what he did was just and right, and he is anxious to get back and help finish the job).

You cannot separate the two from each other. I'm sorry, because you are obviously trying to do that.

[MaineVoter2002]

Even the 911 Commission confirmed Saddam's connection to Al Qaeda. That connection trumps any WMD he may have had.

[ohioWfan]

The border threads are occupied by the insane. They are like Savage threads.

For institutionalized freepers only.....

[The Old Hoosier]

that is your own personal weakness speaking in buckling to the pressure of the anti-American MSM.

Thanks for the psych analysis, now I don't even have to go see my therapist. :-)

All I know is that if I keep reading this kind of trashing of our mission, then I will no longer be at home on FR.

If you don't like bad news or contrary opinions about Iraq, then don't read Iraq threads or Iraq-related news, that would solve the problem entirely.

[ohioWfan]

So your ignorance is President Bush's fault.

Because you don't know what's going on and haven't been paying attention to what he has said over and over and over again, he is to blame.

What a proud member of the late 20th century blame everyone but ME culture you are!

[MaineVoter2002]

Sorry ohiowfan, you lost me when you admitted that advocating a victory in Iraq ASAP has "literally nauseated" you... that's where we part ways BIG TIME!

I know for sure Bush does not share that opinion with you. Thank God!

[processing please hold]

Maybe that's why I like them so much. Nothing gets the insanes blood pumping as much a good knife fight. Never been institutionalized though--at least that I remember. Meds must be working just fine, at least that's what the voices are telling me.

[FreeReign]

The rationale is buried down near the bottom, "The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder.".

Well said Mr. President. Thanks for the reminder, Mike.

Here's just some of what he was talking about.

foxnews.com Iraq acknowledged making 2,200 gallons of anthrax spores -- enough to kill millions if delivered effectively -- but U.N. inspectors determined Iraq could have made at least three times that much. As many as 16 missile warheads filled with anthrax are missing. Iraq also was working in the 1990s to produce a deadlier dry, powdered form of anthrax, inspectors say. That powder could be sprayed from aircraft, put into missile warheads or given to terrorists, inspectors say.

Link

Saddam was supposed to destroy the Anthrax and Saddam was supposed to prove that he did.

Do you want a list of the rest of the stuff?

[gusopol3]

The question I have is, why the HE** isn't Bush and Company screaming about these things from the roof of the White House on a daily basis? Someone oughta tell him that it might help the war effort to sell his side

I'm in 100% agreement with you on this. It reminds me of the old noblesse oblige of his father who refused to vaunt our victory over USSR in 1992, apparently out of some tender feelings for Gorbachev, I suppose. He needed to tell the electorate that had stood with the Republicans through the nuclear freeze lies of the leftists in the '80's that they had been instrumental in the victory, but he couldn't summon the will to rub Gorby's face in it. You know Ben Franklin's rule of dealing with other people is never to be directly confrontational, as never to contradict, etc. I think this works well in personal affairs, as Proverbs 15:1 " A soft answer turneth away wrath." But it's lousy in politics. For instance, why hasn't Bush attacked Fitzgerald the way Clinton attacked Starr? Why, because it wouldn't be gentlemanly and what would DAD think?

[oh8eleven]

So he was a troll - BFD. He wrote a great reply that I agreed with and the fact that you think I should "try again" merely exposes your ignorance, disrespect and immaturity.

[Thumper1960]

Our shores do not constitute a barrier for safety. One picks the battles one fights. We are in Iraq. For good or not, we are there and to cut and run is not an option. Good campaign slogans, notwithstanding. The facts are what they are. It is what it is. We are committed and to abandon the battlefield is surrender, in any language. The reasons for which we engaged were, and are, valid. Rampant ignorance of the prevailing conditions at engagement is no strategy for withdrawal.

[The Old Hoosier]

Your son did what a good soldier does -- what he's told. Thank him from me.

But if you take your argument to its conclusion, you would have to agree with everything the government does to the military. Aren't we a democracy (or better, Republic), where at some point we're supposed to have a public conversation about what we're going to do with our military?

Can we debate ideas about it without already being treasonous? And who decides which ideas are okay and which ones are "not okay"? Is it the president?

Remember when Clinton got us involved in Kosovo? Was I unpatriotic for opposing that?

[mikegi]

Saddam was supposed to destroy the Anthrax and Saddam was supposed to prove that he did. Do you want a list of the rest of the stuff?

Yes, I'd like to see the list of WMDs that were found by our troops after the war when we had unfettered access. I'm not talking about some ancient 1990 junk, I'm talking about real WMD weapons.

Also, I assume your reply means that you agree that WMDs were the rationale for the war?

[wku man]

Whatever...I tried extending the hand of FRiendship to you, but you're too much of a pu**y to take it. I guess we know who the real men are on this thread. Go watch your Japanimation and dream of Xena, Warrior Princess.

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

[corlorde]

I've appreciated your posts today, thanks.

~Corey

[The Old Hoosier]

He can't command a cohesive national military hostile to the US. That includes all the NBC programs and conventional weapons (terrorism) at his disposal.

That is true, and it is the best answer yet. Although no one has argued that there were specific Iraqi threats on us prior to the war.

[Thumper1960]

By all accounts, from Iraq and those who are serving in comments and e-mails to stateside families, from officers and enlisted, the majority overwhelmingly believe in the mission.

[Fraxinus]

Osama Bin Laddin himself said Americans were "soft". Muslims and Islamic society is a war obsessed society and cutting and running is out of the question. To loose face by leaving at this juncture would endanger what little respect tehy might have for us. At this point it isn't much. It was quite a bit after Shake and Awe.

Propaganda assault suggestion for the State department. Have Someone say to the Arabic press in Arabic, "The US remains unalterably opposed to Bin Laden's crusade." The use of the word crusade is deliberate.

[Thumper1960]

It's an obvious sentiment, to me.

Only the dense wouldn't trust the instincts and honor of those in harms way.