House Supports Troops
Despite all the rhetoric the last two days by liberals saying we should give the terrorists a timetable for our withdrawal from Iraq, the House voted 403 to 3 against it. Al Jazeera made it the lead story.
It's really hard to believe Democrats in Congress continue their campaign to erode the support for our troops in the field. They ignore the fact that Iraqis are on their way in record numbers to the polls for the third time this December to elect a permanent government. They ignore that we have trained 200,000 Iraqi soldiers. They ignore that these soldiers are taking over more and more of their own security. Common sense tells you that this progress means our troops will begin to come home in the very near future.
No one should discount the more than 2000 soldiers who have given their lives. However, this cut and run strategy would only mean they died in vain.
The other thing that really bothers us is that Democrats are accusing the President of lying about the intelligence that lead to the War in Iraq. This is the intelligence largely gathered by, and supported by, the Clinton Administration. The CIA director who called it a "slam dunk" was appointed by President Clinton. Leading Democrats from Harry Reid to Hillary Clinton (not to mention the Kerry-Edwards ticket) made the same claims about Saddam Hussein's pursuit of WMD's. Watch the video on www.gop.com and listen to Democrat after Democrat talk about Saddam's WMD program.
It's another case of Democrats saying whatever they believe will benefit them politically.
The dishonest Democrat leaders Dave Obey supports are playing politics with our troops. It's time to rid ourselves of this win at all costs mentality and elect a Representative who shares our values when it comes to supporting our troops until they get the job done.
It's really hard to believe Democrats in Congress continue their campaign to erode the support for our troops in the field. They ignore the fact that Iraqis are on their way in record numbers to the polls for the third time this December to elect a permanent government. They ignore that we have trained 200,000 Iraqi soldiers. They ignore that these soldiers are taking over more and more of their own security. Common sense tells you that this progress means our troops will begin to come home in the very near future.
No one should discount the more than 2000 soldiers who have given their lives. However, this cut and run strategy would only mean they died in vain.
The other thing that really bothers us is that Democrats are accusing the President of lying about the intelligence that lead to the War in Iraq. This is the intelligence largely gathered by, and supported by, the Clinton Administration. The CIA director who called it a "slam dunk" was appointed by President Clinton. Leading Democrats from Harry Reid to Hillary Clinton (not to mention the Kerry-Edwards ticket) made the same claims about Saddam Hussein's pursuit of WMD's. Watch the video on www.gop.com and listen to Democrat after Democrat talk about Saddam's WMD program.
It's another case of Democrats saying whatever they believe will benefit them politically.
The dishonest Democrat leaders Dave Obey supports are playing politics with our troops. It's time to rid ourselves of this win at all costs mentality and elect a Representative who shares our values when it comes to supporting our troops until they get the job done.
posted by ObeyOut2006 at 11:09 PM
6 Comments:
This post seems very inconsistent.
Because of the recent elections and the training of the Iraqi forces, why should US forces continue to have to stay there and risk their lives? Seems to me that the fact that Democrats are seeking a timetable for withdraw means that they have more confidence in the troops than they are being portrayed as having.
But I guess you'd rather play politics...
Jaxebad
Jaxebad,
Please tell me you don't believe that stuff you're saying. A timetable just tells the terrorists when they can expect us to get out. It will embolden them. We should stay there until the Iraqi troops are ready to secure their own country fully, then get out. If we don't finish the job, I agree with Obey Out, those who died will have died for nothing. A timetable isn't necessary, a goal is. When we acheive the goal, we get out. If it's 3 months or 3 years, then that's the right time.
When we acheive the goal, we get out. If it's 3 months or 3 years, then that's the right time.
Ok.
In that case, how do you think the goal is going along right now?
Jaxebad
Well, we've helped secure two free elections with a third on the way next month (women are voting which is big in that part of the world). We've trained over 200,000 Iraqi soldiers and police officers and they are going to begin to take over for British and American forces in certain parts of Iraq in the next couple of months. We have a substantial amount of the Iraqi infrastructure up and running. Considering it took us 10 years to rebuild Japan and Europe after World War II, and we still have troops in Europe today, I'd say we're doing ok. Could it be better, sure, but we are moving forward.
In my opinion, when our military commanders believe the Iraqis can start doing to job on their own, we will begin to draw down our forces. If we don't leave behind a security force able to do the job, Iraq will be taken over by the insurgents who will be completely empowered to export even more terrorism to the World. We have to win because if we don't, the terrorists win.
I assume you may be in the "Bush lied" camp. Check out this Michael Barone article. Barone lays out a pretty interesting case about the intelligence on Iraq and how the "Bush lied" mantra is just Democrat spin.
we are in for dark days...
option 1: stay in iraq.
until when? forever? guess that option would presuppose that the public is willing to deal with dead formerly young americans as a constant in life.
option 2: leave iraq
and create the biggest terror camp in the world? or base for the next caliph?
and stop trying to blame dems for any of this. blame is accurately placed squarely on the shoulders of bush and members of his administration.
Post a Comment
<< Home