I'll bump ya with this from Pookie18's FR "Today's Toons" thread 02/16/07:
Posted on 02/17/2007 1:14:42 AM PST by JohnHuang2
On the Democrat side, the '08 presidential race appears to be a contest to see who can get the troops out of Iraq the quickest. Not a single candidate has said the first word about the consequences of removing U.S. troops. Do they not care what the consequences might be? Or, are they convinced that the American people don't care? The consequences of removing U.S. troops before the Iraqi forces can provide security for the new government will have impacts no American wants to contemplate.
Consider the people who are vying for control: on the one hand, the elected but very shaky government that is trying to build new democratic institutions, build security forces, build an economy and rebuild infrastructure either damaged in the war or worn out from Saddam's neglect.
On the other hand, there is al-Qaida in Iraq, the remnants of Saddam's Baath Party, the Sunni and Shia religious sects, Hezbollah, and the influence of Iran and Syria – all struggling for control.
(Column continues below)
Hillary, Obama and the rest of the Democratic slate seem to think that once the American forces are removed, these conflicting forces will fade into the woodwork, and all will be well in Iraq. Or, they don't care what happens in Iraq.
The left-leaning anti-war protesters who applaud the increasingly virulent anti-war rhetoric of the candidates point to the daily reports of bombings in Baghdad and the slaughter of innocent civilians as the primary reasons to remove U.S. forces. Do these people think that the slaughter will end with the removal of U.S. troops?
Those seeking to overthrow the newly elected government and control Iraq by force have clearly demonstrated their contempt for human life. Women, children and shopkeepers are nothing more than props to be exploded for their daily television production, designed especially to sicken the American audience.
Should these less-than-animal terrorists succeed in cowering the American public into forcing a premature withdrawal of U.S. forces, chaos in the streets of Baghdad and across Iraq will intensify for a while, leaving many more thousands of innocent victims in its wake. The prevailing force will not be an ally of the United States. Iraq will become the new retreat for terrorists. Iraq, with its oil riches, would become a new launching pad for the Islamic extremists to attack the U.S. and its allies.
Why will the Democrat candidates not address these consequences? Why will the media not ask these candidates to address this issue? Why will the American people not demand that each candidate address this issue?
But no. When the troops are withdrawn, to the cheers of the anti-war crowd, the same crowd will be the first to blame America for the slaughter in the streets of Baghdad, for leaving the new government defenseless. Apparently, Democrats and their anti-war supporters do not believe that the al-Qaida, Islamo-fascist declaration of war on the U.S. is serious. Perhaps some still believe that the World Trade Centers attack was a George Bush trick to justify going to war. They just ignore the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Centers, the bombing of the USS Cole, the bombing of the U.S. embassies and the very long list of other attacks by these terrorists. Democrat presidential candidates appear to be concerned only about the number of votes that may be secured by pandering to the anti-war crowd. They seem unconcerned about the consequences of their position.
The consequences of prematurely withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq reach far beyond the Middle East. Around the world, the U.S. has pledged to defend other nations in exchange for economic and other political considerations. Taiwan, South Korea and Japan, for example, are depending upon the U.S. for their defense. They see that the United States has repeatedly pledged to support and defend the newly elected government of Iraq. But when the Democrats took control, the solemn pledge of the United States became meaningless.
Should China attack Taiwan, what would a Democrat leader do? Should North Korea suddenly decide to invade South Korea – again – what would a Democrat leader do? Should the goofball president of Iran or a new terrorist dictator of Iraq decide to attack Israel, what would a Democrat leader do? Just how reliable is the word of the United States government? Apparently, the Democrat candidates for president in '08 don't care. They are racing to withdraw U.S. forces prematurely to the applause of a segment of the American audience that doesn't seem to give a damn about the consequences.
There is a segment of Americans that cares. They are sickened by the replay of the Vietnam era condemnation of America. These are the people who still believe in the U.S. Constitution, who still believe that the pledge of the American government is sacred, who believe that freedom is, indeed, worth defending, even at the cost of war, when necessary. These are the people who believe the Islamo-fascists are serious and fully intend to destroy the United States. These are the people who will not be voting for candidates who disagree.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
How silly. Every lefty knows that cutting off aid to Israel is the way to usher in world peace.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
I'll bump ya with this from Pookie18's FR "Today's Toons" thread 02/16/07:
Bingo!
Oh, they care. They just figure they will blame the total chaos caused by an expedited "withdrawal" on Bush. So in 2009 when there is regional war over there, well, Bush will be blamed, and their base will buy that. The MSM will push the concept and so the middle will buy into it as well.
Obama mentions the savaging of Blacks by Whites in the US.
But Obama didn't care a whit about the lives of the "savaged" Shi'ites.
How about Murtha? Does he have a preference for keeping Sunnis in charge?
----
Contrary to Democratic lies, this War has been much less bloody than most of our previous ones.
For example, 30,000 Americans died in Korea under Truman in 30 months. Less than 1/10 that number, (less than 3,000 Americans) died in Iraq under Bush in the same amount of time .
On some dates during the Korean War, 400+ Americans lost their lives. (If it were around back then, would CNN have taken the time to read all 400+ names during their evening broadcast? Would CNN have pointed out that many of the dead and injured had been drafted? )
The very fact that there are low numbers of American deaths during this war, allows the MSM to report something along the lines of , "20 Americans died today in Iraq. That is the highest number since ....(fill in the date)"
Many Iraqis have died since the invasion in 2003. Millions of Koreans died, too, in what can be viewed as their Civil War. (Most countries seems to have a Civil War in their history.)
---
6 months into the Korean War, the Democratic Administration imposed full wartime censorship. Correspondents were subject to courtmartial, could not criticize the Allied conduct of the War and could not send dispatches that were demoralizing. *
It's apparent that Democrats are intolerant of contrary opinions, Yet, the MSM and the Democrats say that Bush wants to "shut down" opposition to "his" Iraq war.
What a crock.
*You can see the rest of the rules at the link I've provided a few lines above.
They don't care. They just don't care about anyone but themselves, and the power they crave.
And if we pull out, they won't have to see the results, because who's going to cover it, the MSM?
Besides, they can always blame it on Bush.
I am absolutely disgusted by what I heard this week by Congress. Disgusted. I don't think I've ever been this, this, I can't even think of the word I want. Angry but sad at the point we have reached. When I saw Waxman up there in the well calling Iraq a defeat, and it had been a defeat the whole time...
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.