Posted on 07/17/2007 1:10:06 PM PDT by bnelson44
No matter where my colleagues came down in 2003 about the centrality of Iraq to the war on terror, there can simply be no debate that our efforts in Iraq today are critical to the wider struggle against violent Islamic extremism. Already, the terrorists are emboldened, excited that America is talking not about winning in Iraq, but is rather debating when we should lose. Last week, Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda’s deputy chief, said that the United States is merely delaying our “inevitable” defeat in Iraq, and that “the Mujahideen of Islam in Iraq of the caliphate and jihad are advancing with steady steps towards victory.” He called on Muslims to travel to Iraq to fight Americans, and appealed for Muslims to support the Islamic State in Iraq, a group established by al Qaeda.
General Petraeus has called al Qaeda “the principal short-term threat to Iraq.” What do the supporters of this amendment believe to be the consequences of our leaving the battlefield with al Qaeda in place? If we leave Iraq prematurely, jihadists around the world will interpret the withdrawal as their great victory against our great power. Their movement thrives in an atmosphere of perceived victory; we saw this in the surge of men and money flowing to al Qaeda following the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan. If they defeat the United States in Iraq, they will believe that anything is possible, that history is on their side, that they really can bring their terrible rule to lands the world over. Recall the plan laid out in a letter from Zawahiri to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, before his death. That plan is to take shape in four stages: establish a caliphate in Iraq, extend the “jihad wave” to the secular countries neighboring Iraq, clash with Israel – none of which shall commence until the completion of stage one: expel the Americans from Iraq. Mr. President, the terrorists are in this war to win it. The question is: Are we?
The supporters of this amendment respond that they do not by any means intend to cede the battlefield to al Qaeda; on the contrary, their legislation would allow U.S. forces, presumably holed up in forward operating bases, to carry out targeted counterterrorism operations. But our own military commanders say that this approach will not succeed, and that moving in with search and destroy missions to kill and capture terrorists, only to immediately cede the territory to the enemy, is the failed strategy of the past three and a half years….
Those are the likely consequences of a precipitous withdrawal, and I hope that the supporters of such a move will tell us what they believe to be the likely consequences of this course of action. Should their amendment become law, and U.S. troops begin withdrawing, do they believe that Iraq will become more or less stable? That al Qaeda will find it easier to gather, plan, and carry out attacks from Iraqi soil, or that our withdrawal will somehow make this less likely? That the Iraqi people become more or less safe? That genocide becomes a more remote possibility or ever likelier?
Mr. President, this fight is about Iraq but not about Iraq alone. It is greater than that and more important still, about whether America still has the political courage to fight for victory or whether we will settle for defeat, with all of the terrible things that accompany it. We cannot walk away gracefully from defeat in this war.
Senator McCain “get’s it” in regard to the WOT/Iraq - His comments today on the Senate floor are outstanding and he should be given thanks for stepping up and saying such....
Does anyone here think that the Demokratz would not be pulling the same surrender stunt had we concentrated all our efforts and losses in Afghanistan and on the hunt for Obama Bin Biden like they've screeched about for years now? Any war longer that lasts longer than a doobie at a MoveOn.org convention is too long. Any price to defend our freedom is too high for these weak sisters and their leaders Reid, Levin, Leahy, Durbin, Kennedy, Schumer, Clinton, ...pardon me I have to vomit now.
BUMP
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19694666/page/3/
SEN. GRAHAM: When they re-enlist in the highest numbers anywhere else in the military, they’re speaking...
SEN. WEBB: You know, this is one thing I really—this is one thing I really take objection to...
SEN. GRAHAM: ...the soldiers are speaking, my friend. Let them win.
SEN. WEBB: ...is politicians who—at the...
SEN. GRAHAM: Let them win.
SEN. WEBB: Politicians who—may I speak?
SEN. GRAHAM: They want to win, let them win.
SEN. WEBB: Is politicians who try to put their political views into the mouths of soldiers. You can look at poll after poll, and the political views of the United States military are no different than the country at large. Go take a look at The New York Times today.
SEN. GRAHAM: The soldiers...
SEN. WEBB: Less than half of the military believes that we should be in Iraq in the first place.
SEN. GRAHAM: Have you been to Iraq? Have you ever been and talked to them? I’ve been seven times.
SEN. WEBB: You know, have you ever been to these—I’ve been—I’ve covered two wars as a correspondent...
SEN. GRAHAM: Have you been to Iraq?
SEN. WEBB: I have been to Afghanistan as a journalist.
SEN. GRAHAM: Have you been to Iraq and—have you been to Iraq and talked to the soldiers?
SEN. WEBB: You know, you haven’t been to Iraq.
SEN. GRAHAM: I’ve been there seven times.
They didn't, but there is a fair amount of evidence (trash with Arabic writing, etc) that the next batch of terrorists has already come across our southern border.
Snowe-job is one of those Greek Americans the Spartans would have ridiculed—a shameful traitorous female.
Either you are serious about defending the nation or you aren’t. He can’t have it both ways. Same goes for any other politician who blubbers on about the WOT while refusing to defend our borders.
Exactly.
I agree with everything up to the last word. She's no female.
If he'd only towed the Conservative Line and not try to be such a suckup to Big Media and the likes of Ted Kennedy, he would have actually had an opportunity to fulfill his dream of being President!
The guy actually thought that working with Democrats and opposing The President would gain him favor with Big Media and get him crossover and moderate voters.
He has only himself to blame!
The Conservative Base did not leave him, he left us!
I liked Lindsey Graham until he called me a racist, it’s ashame he hitched his wagon to that Nut MeCain.
Were it not for McCain-Feingold and his stand on the Immigration/Shamnesty Bill, McCain would still be in the chase.
Depending on what happens between now and January ‘08, I still think there is a chance Johnnie Boy just might pull it off in New Hampshire. We’ll just have to wait and see. I’m no fan of McCain, BTW.
Oh, please. We could put the highest wall on the border and a million troops, and AQ would still get in if they wanted. Hundreds, if not thousands of AQ are getting across the desert from Iran to Iraq today, and we've got the troops and equipment and ability to use deadly force, and it still doesn't stop them.
You can make the argument that it would be a bad idea to invite the entire population of mexico into the US, but the argument that the border is some kind of security threat is just dumb.
The 9/11 terrorists got into the country while the southern border was at it's most porous, but they came in through the front door, international airports.
If there is a border security threat, it's not mexico, it's Canada.
McCain's got his serious faults and supported some dumb stuff. But accusing him of not being serious about defending the nation because he wanted to change the immigration laws is off the mark.
I don’t think any of those 9/11 terrorists came across our southern border.
Straight up.
And therein lies some hypocrisy in the folks who claim their fight about the southern border is because of the fear of terrorists coming over it - Attah and his companion came over the border in my state - and were here a few days before they boarded the plane in Portland.
They spent some time above Portland scoping out Brunswick Naval Air Base - and drinking in local restaurant/bars...even using their credit cards.
Flame me all you want, Johny One Notes, but a lot of the furor and heat over the southern border, while not a peep about the northern border, smacks more of "just don't like Mexicans"
Have fun.
The libRAts played the border issue to the hilt - the masses, even the republicans, took the bait and the eye off the real ball - the WOT. They "taught" the republicans "a Lesson" by letting the devil back in control...all the while, dancing to the devils tune.
I"m not saying the border/illegals aren't a serious problem - but if we don't win the WOT, it isn't going to much matter.
WOT is our first order of business
What's amazing is that all the freepers here who whine about Graham committing "treason" by "hitching his wagon to McCain" and supporting a "path to citizenship" for illegal aliens seem to have absolutely no problem when Fred Thompson has the "exact" same record in the Senate and was McCain's best buddy. You point it out to them and instead of screaming "treason" at FDT, they shrug their shoulders and go "nobody's perfect"
Apparently it's only "treasonous" for Lindsey Graham to vote that way.
They might have more credibility if their "outrage" over amnesty and McCain-Feingold was consistent, no matter WHO votes for it.
WOT is our first order of business.
My sentiments E X A C T L Y.
On a “Path to Citizenship” for ILLEGAL Aliens
FRED THOMPSON: I think that you have to realize that you’re either going to drive 12 million people underground permanently, which is not a good solution. You’re going to get them all together and get them out of the country, which is not going to happen. Or you’re going to have to, in some way, work out a deal where they can have some aspirations of citizenship”
REPORT: http://www.latestpolitics.com/blog/2007/05/fred-thompson-no-restrictionist.html
On Republican Leadership in Washington
FRED THOMPSON: “When it comes to personal courage and integrity and the courage to do what he thinks is right, regardless of whether or not it’s particularly popular at the moment, John McCain has shown characteristics of leadership like no one else I’ve ever seen. When it comes to reform of the way Washington does business, John McCain is the leader”
REPORT: http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/08/18/president.2000/thompson.mccain/
This is the guy who has a ton of “true conservative” freepers not only worshipping his Senate “record”, but actively working to promote to leader of the free world.
Let me know when freepers start howling about Fred being a “treasous RINO” and McCain’s homosexual lover, and then I’ll start taking their protests about Lindsey Graham’s seriously.
I'm leaning toward Duncan Hunter.
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.