Today is

Monday, March 05, 2007

American Troops Denied Victory

Krauthammer Iraq war Opinion:
Of course, the Democrats believe that the war cannot be won. But if that's the case, they should order a withdrawal by cutting off the funds.
Of course! That’s all I ever hear lately, that democrats want America to lose the war, when indeed the opposite is true. But what is so wrong believing the war was won, many times over in fact, and we now just want to bring our victorious troops home. Is there something wrong with that? Think about it.

It is primarily Bush supporters who are talking as if the war is lost, and if I may be so bold as to return to the original justifications for the war as presented by the Bush administration, as wrong-headed as it was, every one of the ever changing stipulations he ordered have been accomplished. Put it another way, if our military is to be used offensively to topple indifferent regimes and seize control of sovereign nations, our troops not only did a fine job in Iraq, they were resoundingly victorious.

First it was about the WMD, then it was regime change, then liberation, then a constitution and finally a democratically elected government. What more can anyone ask for? Really. Just consider that victory No. 1 occurred when our troops seized Baghdad and toppled Saddam’s statue. That was a huge symbolic victory.

The most deceptive justification of all for the invasion presented by the Bush administration was the irrefutable and undeniable threat of WMD posed by Iraq. Remember? But it wasn’t too long after Saddams statue was pulled down when over 2,000 American inspectors concluded that WMD were no longer present on Iraqi soil. Final victory and end of threat? I recall when Bush stood on the aircraft carrier declaring an end to major combat in Iraq under the Mission Accomplished banner. Some said (including myself) it was premature at the time, given that U.S. casualties in Iraq since then have surpassed those before it. But did we invade Iraq to conquer it?

Sure, it sounds almost too funny, but it’s the truth. These weren’t battles mind you, these were earmarks of victory. Victory No. 3 happened when our troops secured the oil fields. Victory No. 4 occurred when Saddams sons were killed. Victory No. 5 happened when Saddam was pulled out of a dirt hole and brought to justice. Regime change accomplished! Victory No. 6 was the most important one perhaps, the Iraqi people elected a democratic form of government. This is mission accomplished. Our troops should have been pulled out of Iraq the next day with huge victory celebrations in every city. I’m not joking. Our troops overcame great odds under the errant direction and orders from our commander-in-chief. This is why I support our troops, they are and were phenomenal. So, why are they being kept in Iraq and denied victory?

John Murtha seen this in November of ’05 and if Bush would have listened our troops would have been home by the summer of ’06. Instead, Bush and Cheney completely blew off Murtha, and more than 750 men and women have died since. We’ve poured another $160,000,000,000 into the war with another hundred billion about to get pitched into the black hole of Iraq, sectarian warfare is getting fiercer and 21,500 additional troops have been thrown in to fight somebody else’s battles.

The war in Iraq did not thwart one terror attack against America and our troops must be pulled out and redeployed to defend our homeland against possible future terror attacks. Fighting sectarian violence and civil wars in Iraq won’t do it.

Given that we cannot go back in time and bring over 3,100 precious soldiers back to life, I'm more than willing to give Bush his victory trophy right now if it would bring our troops home.
“It’s still George Bush’s war. But we run the risk of gaining some ownership of it if we don’t make it absolutely clear that we are the party that wants to get out of there.” -- Russ Feingold
Unfortunately, the longer our troops stay in Iraq the more these victories will be squandered away not because Democrats believe the war was won as I have just explained, but because Bush and his supporters are willing to gamble away all the victories until the war is finally lost!


Whybealeftie said...

The democrats most certainly want us to loose the war. They believe it's "Bushes war" but, yet they fail to look at the vote in the senate that allowed the war in Iraq to happen. The vote was 99-1 to go into Iraq. But, now they feel they have to make a political statement again. We all know the democrats have to make everything political. If the have such a dislike for the war in Iraq why not just use their constitutional autority and stop funding of the war? Why? Because they know that would be a bad political move. Why can't they just come up with a common plan among themselves? There plan is to simply to say that Bush is doing it wrong. Yet they have not offered a plan of there own. We all want to have our troops home as soon as possible that's not the issue the issue is what is the best plan? Right now there is the President's plan which has been implemented recently and the democrats plan which is to bash Bush's plan. Which is no plan at all. They were elected in November to make a change and to be leaders in Washib=ngton and as of now they haven't done a dam thing.

Lou Kaye said...

The presidents plan is to surge the troops and escalate the war. Why is it so hard for people to understand what it means to go in the opposite direction? The opposite direction is not bashing Bush. It is just as much of a plan as the Bush plan - just the other way. Simple.

The dem's have been in the majority for two months, its going to take alot longer than that to reverse the direction and repair the damage. Besides, you still need 60 senators pass major reforms and there is only 51 Dems.

Jimdaddy said...

The dems haven't been in the majority for two months but, they have come up with the 17 resolution today. The resolutions that most likely will cost America defeat in the war against terror. It seems that out of all the 17 resolutions they can't get the 60 votes to move it forward which usually means that the plans don't have much substance. If they were good plans they could easily get 9 republicans to sign on to the plan. There are enough RINOS that they could lure into their "plan(s)."

Lou Kaye said...

Dismissing the substance of legislation because it doesn't have the votes doesn't sound quite right to me. They are playing politics.

Post a Comment