Are we really winning the War on Terror?
Democrat presidential contender John F. Kerry, flaunting his cheerful, sunny side, "told veterans Monday that the Bush administration has failed U.S. troops in Iraq," The Associated Press reports. "Let Me say unequivocally," said Kerry, who served in Vietnam, "I believe a lack of planning and lack of candor with the American people have placed our men and women in uniform in increased harm's way."
His upbeat assessment could not be independently confirmed, though reliable reports suggest the Bush administration's lack of planning and lack of candor with the American people placed our men and women in Baghdad sometime in early April, toppling the Saddam administration and winning the war. Kerry, who served in Vietnam, did not tell veterans Monday the now-ousted Saddam administration had failed Iraqi troops, nor did the 5-term Senator from Massachusetts, who served in Vietnam, accuse Saddam of lack of planning and lack of candor.
Addressing the national Veterans of Foreign Wars convention in San Antonio, Texas, Kerry, who served in Vietnam, said "One thing I know that unites all of us here today is our obligation to make our troops as safe and comfortable as possible."
There was no immediate comment from Saddam tonight. Former Iraqi servicemen -- those still left after Bush's disastrous failure in Iraq -- question Kerry's assessment of Bush as lousy Commander-In-Chief and cast doubt on Saddam's commitment to making Iraqi troops as safe and comfortable as possible. For ex-Republican Guardsmen, being on the business end of U.S. A-10 Warthogs and B-2 Bombers was hard to square with 'safe and comfortable as possible,' no matter what Kerry, who served in Vietnam, says about it. To be fair, Kerry's assessment of the war could be based on faulty intelligence. However, few doubt the Democrats' commitment to making enemy troops as safe and comfortable as possible (see Korea and Vietnam). No word yet on whether CENTCOM officials might consider probing Kerry's claim they're a bunch of losers. In any event, though joining the Ba'ath Party strikes Kerry as a winning career move for Iraqis, it's a view few Iraqis share.
Kerry, who served in Vietnam, said that, despite the crummy job they're doing, "We have every reason to be proud of our military today." Again, to be fair, Kerry, who served in Vietnam, blamed the crummy job they're doing on the crummy job Bush's doing.
Kerry, who served in Vietnam, is set to formally announce his struggling candidacy next week, 3 decades after serving in Vietnam. Kerry says service in Vietnam makes Kerry, who denies Bush's advantage on national security issues, "the only Democratic candidate capable of neutralizing Bush's advantage on national security issues," adds the AP. But if Republicans thought they could write Kerry off as some wild-eyed Dukakis-clone, another Northeastern liberal, ha! They're off the mark. Underscoring Kerry's profound and unflinching commitment to national security, Kerry, who served in Vietnam, voted to slash military pay, cancel "a host of weapons systems" that "were vital in Iraq," "voted repeatedly to cut or eliminate funding for the B-2 Stealth Bomber," "voted repeatedly against missile defense," voted to phase out the F-16 Fighting Falcons, B-1Bs, B-2As, F-15s, F-16s, M1 Ambrams tanks, Patriot Missile, AH-64 Apache Helicopter, Tomahawk Cruise Missile, Aegis Air-Defense Cruiser. Kerry -- a real superhawk.
In their hard-hitting, brilliant estimation, Democrats say the invasion of Iraq only further inflamed the Mideast and made the terrorists, already hopping mad as hell at us, madder still. Solution? Invade Iraq even more! -- send in more U.S. troops!, Dems insist. Democrats also complain that our troops in Iraq have made Iraq a magnet for al-Qaeda, diverting al-Qaeda's scarce resources away from its war OF terror on U.S. soil. The U.S.-led war in Iraq has been a terrible distraction for al-Qaeda, causing al-Qaeda to shift resources to Iraq, away from, um, skyscrapers in downtown Manhattan. Dems also hotly deny the war in Iraq has anything to do with the war on al-Qaeda. Comprende now?
"What we urgently need now to protect our young men and women in uniform and America's role in the world are decisions based on professional military judgments ... not politics and pride," said Kerry, angrily rejecting CENTCOM's decisions, based on professional military judgments, that more U.S. troops are not needed in Iraq. Ignoring brilliant military advice from Kerry, a five-star Senator, the head of U.S. Central Command, Gen. John Abizaid, says more U.S. troops are not needed in Iraq. The Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, Gen. Richard Myers, also too busy to be distracted by the opinions of Kerry, who says more U.S. troops are needed, says more U.S. troops are not needed in Iraq. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who also spoke at the veterans' convention Monday, says more U.S. troops are not needed in Iraq. But Kerry, who served in Vietnam, dismisses Rumsfeld. Just because Rummy is running the war doesn't mean Rummy knows anything about running a war compared to Kerry, who's never ran a war and who spends every waking hour chasing Howard Dean, who's never ran a war, either, but ran away from a war, yet is cleaning Ketchup boy's clock in Iowa and New Hamphire, recent polls show. Why is Kerry floundering? Let me say unequivocally, I believe a lack of planning and lack of candor with Fedayeenie constituents who dominate primaries and caucuses have placed Kerry in increased political harm's way.
Kerry, who served in Vietnam and is running for president, denies his criticism of Bush and of Abizaid and of Myers and of Rummy has anything to do with the fact that he's running for president, noting that he served in Vietnam.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Meanwhile, "That victory in Afghanistan has been partial, at best," TIME magazine reported on Monday. "Al-Qaeda and the Taliban are still very much alive in Afghanistan, and are right now in the midst of what appears to be a spectacular comeback." Yeah, baby! More quagmire! The Taliban guys were only partially killed!
Evidence of what appears to be a Spectacular Comeback for the Taliban -- which shouldn't need Spectacular Comebacks since the U.S. only "partially" won, at best, in the first place -- wasn't hard to find this week. In fact, this Spectacular Comeback for the Taliban was so incredibly Spectacular that "up to 50" Spectacular "Taliban fighters were" Spectacularly "killed in a big air and ground operation by" unspectacular "U.S. and Afghan forces on Monday in the southern province of Zabul," Reuters reports, citing Spectacular-challenged Afghan officials.
"The deaths" of these Spectacular Comeback Talibani fighters "were the result of heavy bombing by" stumbling and bumbling "U.S. forces and ground attacks by government forces, [Gov.] Hamdullah Watandoost told Reuters."
The Spectacular Talibani Comebackers were "killed in the Dozi area of Zabul's Dai Chopan district and the guerrillas' main base there had been overrun" by the losing side -- the Great Satan and Afghan government forces working with the Great Satan.
But there was even more grim news for Democrats and Quagmire-hungry reporters at TIME.
It's bad enough that Talibani Comebackers royally got their butts kicked right in the middle of their Spectacular Comebacking, but in another heavy blow to Democrats and TIME, "the government and Americans had not suffered any casualties" in the operation. The disturbing news for Democrats fueled troubling questions of a deepening quagmire for Taliban forces, stoking growing debate among top terrorist officials and senior terrorist advisers on whether current Taliban troop levels in Afghanistan are adequate to the task of staging a Spectacular Comeback for TIME magazine.
The deaths of the Talibani Comebackers brought to 50 the number of Talibani Comebackers killed in action since TIME magazine declared Taliban Comebackers "in the midst of what appears to be a spectacular comeback" on Monday. The loss took the Talibani death toll past the 40 Talibanis killed near the Pakistan border by Great Satan forces in early June, when Talibani Comebackers were said to be 'in the midst of what appears to be a spectacular comeback.' Darn! They just don't make 'em 'Spectacular Comebacks' like they used to anymore!
Super patriotic Sen. Joe Biden (D-Plagiarism) once called U.S. forces in Afghanistan nothing but a bunch of "high-tech" lynchers and "bullies" "lynching" and bullying the poor and defenseless Talibanis, calling for a halt to the U.S.-led bombing 2 weeks after the bombing began. Facing a growing firestorm, Biden promptly retracted his statement, saying he didn't really mean it, or that, er, those words should not have been included in his statement. But word on the Taliban street is that the Taliban agrees with Joe Biden's earlier assessment.
Meanwhile, President Bush Tuesday defended beating the crap out of the Taliban and al-Qaeda, vowing to continue kicking butt, despite growing criticism from Howard Dean and John Kerry and Carol Mosely Braun and the New York Times, who complain that the war isn't going totally perfect -- no U.S. troops should be lost just because there's a war going on -- and who say it isn't clear that Saddam really lost the war. Besides, just because we won the war doesn't mean we won the war, say top experts. (Privately, Democrats fret that, with the recession in crisis and the economy fading as an issue to use in the '04 elections, there's no end to U.S. military victory in sight.)
Bush, brushing off mounting criticism from the Dixie Chicks and other leading analysts, told a rousing crowd of veterans at the 85th Annual American Legion convention in St. Louis that "Retreat in the face of terror would only invite further and bolder attacks. There will be no retreat."
Democrats and leading experts in Hollywood like Barbra Streisand take sharp issue with this, noting that toppling Saddam, who has no links to al-Qaeda, infuriated al-Qaeda, so tight were the bonds between Iraq and al-Qaeda, who closed ranks against a common enemy -- the Great Satan. Removing Saddam from power has made America so much less secure, say Democrats, especially with al-Qaeda, which has no links to Saddam, hell-bent on revenge for our removing Saddam. "We've gotten rid of him, and I suppose that's a good thing," said former Vermont governor Howard Dean in April at news Saddam had been ousted. But troops in Iraq cost money, observed the genius, which is "going to cost the American tax payers a lot," he complained. To combat terror more effectively, "the money could be spent on schools and kids." Dean also says that we need more U.S. troops in Iraq. And that security in Iraq should be under U.N. control. Don't think the U.N. is up to the task, eh? Well, consider the remarkable job Kofi and the boys did securing their headquarters in Baghdad.
"We're making steady progress," Bush told the convention. "Nearly two-thirds of known senior al Qaeda leaders, operational managers, and key facilitators, have been captured or killed."
Democrats and al-Qaeda hotly deny the claim.
"Five years ago, one of the terrorists said that an attack could make America run in less than 24 hours," added Bush. "They're learning something different today. The terrorists have not seen America running, they've seen America marching. They've seen the armies of liberation. They have seen the armies of liberation marching into Kabul and to Baghdad," said Bush, to thunderous applause.
Again, Democrats and al-Qaeda deny the claim, contending it's America -- not al-Qaeda -- on the run. Nice try, Bush, but Al-Qaeda is reconstituted and stronger than ever, says Sen. Bob Graham, former 2-term president of Florida. The military geniuses here are bin Laden and Saddam, not Rumsfeld and Gen. Franks. Al-Qaeda, not America, is on the march to victory, says Graham, unless we elect Graham. Or Carol Mosely Braun. Or Howard Dean. Or Al Sharpton. Or John Edwards. Or Dennis Kucinich. Sheesh, what a circus.
Anyway, that's...
My two cents..
"JohnHuang2"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
