Posted on 05/10/2004 11:02:06 PM PDT by abigail2
Why Iraq Is Becoming Vietnam
Liberals have long dreamed of turning our occupation of Iraq into another Vietnam, a scar on the face of America that they could revel in. I believe in many ways, they are succeeding.
Their latest victory is their success in turning incidents of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib prison into an indictment of American foreign policy and the President. Our Defense Secretary was dragged before a motley group of Senatorial inquisitors, many of whom don’t have the moral standing to tie his shoe, much less interrogate him.
The “scandal” is the Mai Lai massacre to this generation of liberals, and it reaches them like manna from heaven. They are hoping it is the turning point that allows them to toss dirt onto our Iraqi operation. It follows close on the heels of the Fallujah debacle, where America flinched instead of laying down the boot on crazy cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and his band of fanatical thugs.
America essentially let human scum get away with murdering our countrymen and desecrating their bodies on worldwide TV. Everyone knew the appropriate response would be to cordon off the city, allow the innocent to escape, and liquidate the terrorists. But we didn’t have the will to follow through, fearing the world would view too many civilian casualties on TV.
The failure cannot be blamed on liberals. After all, they’re not failing—they’re succeeding. It is the decent people of America who are suffering the failure of will. Our president is guilty of the same.
President George W. Bush has proven himself to be a very capable war president, but an uneven president in non-war matters. The reason is that he correctly perceived a need in war to do whatever it took to prevail. But once the hot war was finished in Iraq, he began to filter his decisions through the prism of political consideration. That is a recipe for failure.
When will we learn, I wonder. Vietnam was a humiliating defeat. Not because it was an immoral war, as liberals like to say, but because we failed to let the troops win due to political considerations. Iraq is no different. The Marines could have subdued Fallujah in days, if not hours, if they were given a free hand.
What has all of this political consideration gotten for Mr. Bush and for America? We are so worried about the “Arab street” and what they will think about everything. To hell with the Arab street! The Arab street are the same people who cheered on 9-11.
It is obvious to anyone with half a brain that America is a decent nation, and that terrorists are evil. When wrongdoing is found on our side, it is an anomaly. With terrorists it is their modus operandi. Yet CNN and their ilk continue to produce pieces spotlighting America’s errors in war, and not the daily routine of our bloodthirsty enemies.
President Bush had it right when he long ago called Iraq, Iran, and North Korea the “axis of evil.” We would have done well to quickly move as needed against these enemies. But indecision, weakness, and lack of preparation have caused the Iraq campaign to languish. Its overall slowness is killing whatever support and goodwill the administration may have had for future campaigns.
On September 11th, 2001, fanatical terrorists made clear that they had declared war on us. This would be a war of annihilation—either theirs or ours—there was no third solution.
Currently we have the world’s terrorists right where we want them—coming to us in Iraq. Would we prefer they come back to New York City. Or perhaps Los Angeles, or Chicago?
Are we naïve enough to think that if we walk away from Iraq, we won’t be followed home? That the world’s terrorists won’t correctly gather that we are running away with our tail between our legs? Look what happened when we left Vietnam—mass graves and lost prestige.
Lack of will was our true enemy in Vietnam. We must exorcize this demon, or we will be condemned to repeat history.
©2004 Patrick Rooney
Patrick Rooney is the Director of Special Projects at BOND, the Brotherhood Organization of A New Destiny, a nonprofit organization dedicated to “Rebuilding the Family By Rebuilding the Man.”
For more information, please visit www.bondinfo.org, call 1-800-411-BOND (2663), or write to patrick@bondinfo.org.
But I'm pretty sure this is the right thing to do. Press ahead with this thing, try to.... we knew when we did the bombing in '98 that we hit all the known or suspected sites based on the intelligence we had, from all the people that were doing that work there. we knew at the time that we had set his program back a couple years. But sooner or later in the millennium the new Administration, whether it was Gore's or Bush's, would have to take this matter up again.
Flashback! Excerpt from Kerry on CrossFire in 1997 (Kerry RIPS into France, et al)(CrossFire (excerpts only from Lexis-Nexis - fair use, public comments) | 11/12/97)
SEN. JOHN KERRY, (D), MASSACHUSETTS, FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE: Well, John, you're correct that this resolution is less than we would have liked. I don't think anybody can deny that we would have liked it to have threatened force and we would have liked it to carry the term serious consequences will flow. On the other hand, the coalition is together. I mean the fact is there is a unanimous statement by the security council and the United Nations that there has to be immediate, unrestricted, unconditional access to the sites. That's very strong language. And it also references the underlying resolution on which the use of force is based. So clearly the allies may not like it, and I think that's our great concern -- where's the backbone of Russia, where's the backbone of France, where are they in expressing their condemnation of such clearly illegal activity, but in a sense, they're now climbing into a box and they will have enormous difficulty not following up on this if there is not compliance by Iraq.[snip]
KERRY: Well, John, there's absolutely no statement that they have made or that they will make that will prevent the United States of America and this president or any president from acting in what they believe are the best interests of our country. And obviously it's disappointing. It was disappointing a month ago not to have the French and the Russians understanding that they shouldn't give any signals of weakening on the sanctions and I think those signals would have helped bring about this crisis because they permitted Saddam Hussein to interpret that maybe the moment was right for him to make this challenge.
SUNUNU: But isn't what he has seen is a loss of U.S. leadership and an erosion under an administration that has failed to lead?
KERRY: On the contrary. The administration is leading. The administration is making it clear that they don't believe that they even need the U.N. Security Council to sign off on a material breach because the finding of material breach was made by Mr. Butler. So furthermore, I think the United States has always reserved the right and will reserve the right to act in its best interests. And clearly it is not just our best interests, it is in the best interests of the world to make it clear to Saddam Hussein that he's not going to get away with a breach of the '91 agreement that he's got to live up to, which is allowing inspections and dismantling his weapons and allowing us to know that he has dismantled his weapons. That's the price he pays for invading Kuwait and starting a war.
[snip]
KERRY: Correct, absolutely correct, and I believe, and they stood with us today and I am saying to you that it is my judgment that by standing with us today and calling for the unrestricted, unconditional, unlimited, you know, access, they have now taken a stand that they are duty bound to enforce and if Saddam Hussein doesn't do that, the president, I think, has begun a process which you remember very well, John, was not done in one week, in one day, in one month. It took months to weave together the fabric to lead up to an understanding of what was at stake. I am convinced that many people have not yet even focused in full measure on what is at stake.
Again, these labels don't help. Many "liberals" have helped defend your constitutional rights to free speech and a free press. Many conservatives -- e.g. John Ashcroft -- on the other hand, have attempted to restrict your liberties.
Right to bear arms? Don't "need" guns. Toss that out.
I have heard few liberals suggest banning guns altogether. I think you may be thinking of a very far left, radical fringe that only represents a small portion of people on the political left, much as Pat Robertson represents a small portion of people on the political right.
Right to property? Inheritance tax is a scheme to redistribute wealth (it doesn't really belong to you). Toss that out.
Is inheritance tax really a burning issue? I'll take your word for it. I'm more concerned with what government is doing with income tax. And right now, the "conservative" George Bush is busy spending all manner of tax revenue on the biggest government in U.S. history, operating on a staggering deficit.
Right to freedom of religion? Freedom FROM religion to hear the left tell it.
Both are important. Any self-respecting person on either side of the political spectrum who respects democracy and the U.S. Constitution will defend your right to practice any religion, or no religion.
In summary there were plenty of reasons to remove him. His continued existence as ruler of Iraq was a serious threat to our security and that of our friends. That's enough for me. And the fact that you think things are looking grim reveals a lot. Did you think things were grim when we were "bogged down" in the sandstorm in the first week of the war?
Some LIBERALS are contacting the press trying to deny FReepers their constitutional right to free speech (fair use being a part of this consitutional right).
Gannett/USA Today just sent out a notice to Jim Robinson, the operator of FR, telling us that we are not permitted to excerpt any lines from their articles.
This includes the Army Times and other "seemingly apolitical named" information sources.
You see how this site works. We comment on the news and enter our own conversations. We use lines from articles to point out bias, error, and support our statements with fact.
There is no commercial advertising on FR. No popups. No memberships required. Even a first time poster can plotz any sort of garbage thread here (whether it "remains" on FR is up to the moderators).
Some websites have asked that articles only be excerpted (like the LA Times and Washington Post). It took a lawsuit for them to get to that stage. They get the click throughs now while FR still gets to discuss the articles.
Gannett/USA Today opposes that and wants a tighter grasp on their "facts".
It has become quite obvious that the left is lighting this fire (with the Constitution). Look at Democratic Underground and you will see many cheers every time a thread is launched at FR by Jim Robinson to tell us of another media source that doesn't want us commenting on their reports.
Stick with your convictions, W!
The people who care about America, freedom and democracy are behind you.
Now is not the time to give in to the chattering masses in the media.
The liberals want nothing more than to bring down President Bush. The first step is to get him to cave in to "popular" opinion.
Do what you know is right, Mr. President. It's better to be respected than to be popular.
If you earn your pay and pay taxes to the government at the time that money is earned, who does that money belong to when you die?
Is there a right to property? Some on the left will tell you that "all property is theft".
Some on the left will say "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".
In November he will be roadkill.
BUMP
Armchair generals should at least be expected to get their facts straight. al-Sadr had nothing to do with Fallujah.
Sorry, this is simply not accurate. I'll just point out three things here:
* those reasons were not cited from the very beginning. The WMD justification came out in 2001 or 2002, well before the 'humanitarian' justification. But none of that matters, because...
* there were no WMDs.
* Saddam wasn't linked to Al Queda.
Um, so what's your point. That he didn't flit from lie to lie but was consistent in telling the same lies from the beginning?
In one part, I'm wrong and you're right. Bush did not say Saddam posed an imminent threat. He said Saddam posed a growing threat.
Continue perpetuating those lies and you will likely receive the same lack of respect, but only cause you earned it the same way they did.
As opposed to the way you are earning it from me, which is to harp on a small point while willfully ignoring the big, important point, which is that the war was unjustified and pursued under confused and false pretenses.
Don't Ask; Don't Tell became the new "implied policy" under a previous administration. We are today witnessing the results. We need a new, stronger, more specific policy to cover queers and the S/M crowd in the military it seems, something along the lines of:
Come November you will be eating those words. This is my bookmarking bump.
Marshal your facts before spouting, sonny.
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.