[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Editorial See other Editorial Articles Title: The Price We Will Pay For Reid's Perfidy The Price We Will Pay For Reid's Perfidy By: Douglas J. Allan, For The Bulletin 05/10/2007 If Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid, Democrat, is not a traitor, then the word has no meaning. Mr. Reid, as the entire world now knows, said last week that the war in Iraq is already lost. This week we learn that Senator Reid's remarks are being quoted on Islamist jihad Web sites. The damage Reid and his comrades have done to the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan is incalculable. Their primary motivation of course, has been to try to make Bush and the Republican administration look bad or incompetent, in order to seize political power. Claims of their "supporting the troops" are exposed by their continuous undermining of the very mission carried out by those troops. Now Congressman John Murtha is talking about impeaching the president. Reid, Murtha and Co. have attacked and vilified Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Alberto Gonzales, Tom DeLay, and above all, Karl Rove. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is the notable exception, because she is a black female, and attacking her might hurt them politically. Such principles have these honorable men. Some observations and background. First of all, no one can predict a war's outcome with certainty. Neither Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld nor Tommy Franks ever made any claim of knowing the future. They spoke in probabilities, both about the war and likely events after. The Democrats and "mainstream media" (a disingenuous misnomer) claim we rushed into war. That is demonstrably false, and General Franks, the man who led us in battle, recently confirmed that exactly the opposite was true. Bush deliberated for many months, advised by many of the world's top experts. Saddam had to go, for many reasons, and most Democrats supported the mission - at least when it served them politically. Our country's leaders were the architects of one of the greatest - and shortest - major military victories in history. It wasn't just because of our military's superb capabilities; it was because of the tremendous talent and planning that went into the war. The Democrats and their "mainstream media" lackeys then claimed that there wasn't any planning for the aftermath. That is false. There were hundreds at the Pentagon alone working on various scenarios including a civil war directly following the 2003 campaign. We now know that Saddam planned an insurgency among the Sunnis before we even attacked, as he knew very well the U.S. would prevail in an all-out war. Many Shiites then rallied around the murderous cleric Al Sadr, backed by Iran and Syria which supplied weapons and IED's, anticipating an oil grab. Al-Qaida, decimated or worse in Afghanistan, has now been reborn in Iraq and is working to kill all the innocents they can - to intimidate the masses and grab power themselves when chaos results. There is only one force stopping them - the United States military, and the Iraqi army and policeman we're training. If you read Soldier of Fortune, or Oliver North's columns, or go to any military oriented site, or talk to several soldiers, instead of "the BBC reporting from Toronto," or Katie Couric, military expert, you will learn that we are winning overwhelmingly. Our troops are killing 20 terrorists for every one of our own, and are ready to stay - and adapt - until the insurgency is no more. Yes, the troops are overextended, overworked, and sleep deprived. They are also gung-ho, believe in the mission, and they will prevail, if only we let them. Much of the country is pacified already. As even the anti-U.S. government New York Times now reports, many Sunni tribal leaders are advising their followers to destroy the virulent al-Qaida and join the Iraqi army and police. If it takes another year or five years, this war is a must win. Make no mistake though - Iraq is a war of wills. Our troops are getting their legs blown off and yet can't wait to get back into the fight, while a traitor leading the United States Senate says "we've already lost," and Democratic presidential candidates are falling all over each other trying to abjure having voted for a war for which they overwhelmingly voted in the first place. They are beneath contempt. Almost as onerous are those Republican "leaders" who are now starting a "we made a mistake but we're stuck with it, at least for now" routine - this in response to the latest polls. Note to the Congress: The wars against Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida were both urgent, and we were right to go in. Because it's been more difficult than most thought doesn't mean it was a mistake! No one was guaranteed a cakewalk, and major wars don't always work out as planned. The solution is to re-evaluate, adjust and win - which our superb military has been doing. Yes, there is an insurgency, and Americans (and our Iraqi allies) continue to die. As General David Petraeus has made clear, in the short term, we'll probably take more casualties, because we have more troops in harm's way. There is no question we will win in the long term - if we stick it out - because the democratically elected government of Iraq's forces are growing stronger and the U.S. troop surge hasn't even been completed, much less been given a chance to succeed. Meanwhile, the "mainstream media" continues to broadcast defeat. The Senate Majority Leader - incredibly - says we've already lost, and he very obviously hopes that we do. A-Qaida and the Baathists could not hope for a better ally, and as has become increasingly clear from Mr. Reid's own words, he expects political gain from a defeat. What a patriot! Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, Democrat, has made things infinitely worse by her ill-advised trip to chit-chat with our enemies in Syria. The only thing she accomplished was to add to their disdain for the world's superpower, as represented by a ditzy Congresswoman looking for surrender terms in the middle of a war. The Democrats are now saying that the only viable solution is to negotiate with all parties, i.e. by talking. By talking? Are they kidding? As men far wiser than I have stated throughout history, most major international crises are resolved - for good or ill - by military action. I've long observed that that liberals live in a make-believe land of how they feel the world ought to be, rather than how it is. They are convinced that talking and feeling empathy for our enemies is the cure, with globs of self-analysis as to why it's our fault that al-Qaida attacked the World Trade Center. "Free health care for everybody!" - "Gun-free zones!" - "Zero tolerance!" - "War is not the answer!" It's not reality, but platitudes do make liberals feel good. A "political solution" (with whom, pray tell?) and "we must work with the U.N. and the 'International Community'" will get us exactly where we are now in Darfur, and what Neville Chamberlain achieved before WWII, and what the Europeans accomplished in Bosnia before American power was asserted - catastrophe. Unfortunately, a majority of U.S. voters, brainwashed by the barrage of defeatism and bad news, voted last November for a Democrat majority. No matter that soldiers are e-mailing their families that the "mainstream" media is not to be believed. Most citizens don't know that the New York Times provides talking points every day for CBS, NBC, ABC, PBS, CNN, MSNBC etc. and dozens of liberal and radical left city newspapers. You'll rarely hear good news from any of those sources. Then again, a large percentage of citizens don't know the name of the vice president or for that matter Senator Reid or Speaker Pelosi. It would seem a large number of our fellow citizens have been getting their foreign policy news from "The View." Rosie O'Donnell and Joy Behar - Statespersons! No wonder then, that Bush and Cheney, who are heroic in their steadfastness, have such low approval ratings. They are not driven by opinion polls, unlike the "world's smartest woman," who has yet again dropped the Rodham from her name during an election (what integrity she has!); or her husband, or the pretty-boy with his $400 haircuts, who is so very, very sorry he voted for the war. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, now Senator Clinton, has begun spinning the tale that it was only because she was misled by "this president!" and "this administration!" that she voted for the war. For the record, at the time, both she and President Clinton said there was overwhelming evidence that Saddam had WMD's, one of several reasons for which America took him out. But now, thanks to Reid and his minions, al-Qaida and the other terrorists are telling their followers to just keep up the pressure until the next election. If the Democrats get in, the U.S. will immediately surrender; er, I mean "re-deploy.. The mass murderers of innocent children will have won, and Bush will be blamed for the catastrophe caused by the very same defeatism used by the Democrats from the minute they lost power in January 1969 - with the same very predictable result. Oh yes, every serious observer of the Middle East agrees that an enormous bloodbath will ensue, but none seem to get any more specific about what that means to us in America. Well, I for one am ready to make some predictions. If the Democrats force us out of Iraq, al-Qaida will grow stronger, and Iran under the insane Ahmadinejad will obtain nuclear weapons. Saudi Arabia (Iran's enemy) will descend into chaos, and the oil supply on which Americans depend will be in very serious jeopardy. The Europeans, who mostly chose not to get involved, will see their oil prices go up exponentially. Israel will be forced to use nuclear weapons or be obliterated, and all hell will break loose. A third world war will not be unlikely, and if you think that's impossible, may I suggest you read what was said about all-out war in 1910 and 1938. Winston Churchill for example, was scoffed at by liberals and "moderate" conservatives in Britain. That's not important to Senator Reid though, so long as he and his crew of "we support the troops, but not the mission (!!!)" Democrats will have achieved their political victory. Oh, one minor last prediction. The United States military will be forced to go back in, with many times the losses we've incurred thus far, in one of the lowest casualty wars ever fought by a major army. That isn't exactly what American voters thought they were voting for. Fortunately, the president and vice president, Gen. Petraeus and our troops, still intend to win. We should unequivocally and unwaveringly support them. Douglas J. Allan is a Bryn Mawr resident, a strategic consultant and president of the Napoleonic Historical Society. He can be reached at paladinmer@aol.com
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 15.
#5. To: BeAChooser (#0)
Perfidy, say, that's like when rich spoiled brats go AWOL from a served to them on a silver platter Air Guard pilot's job to keep from going to war, isn't it? Bush's brand of hypocritical perfidy is purile. He's like Patton was once described, as 'old Blood and Guts.' But the punchline of that, 'our blood and his guts' really and truly applies to him far better because unlike chickenhawk Bush, General Patton was a brave warrior. Bush has a yellow streak where a backbone gose in a normal human. Having him as POTUS is like giving a two year old a loaded gun to play with to keep him quiet.
Bush didn't go AWOL. From "The Real Military Record of George W. Bush: Not Heroic, but Not AWOL, Either" By Peter Keating and Karthik Thyagarajan ... snip ... "Bush may have received favorable treatment to get into the Guard, served irregularly after the spring of 1972 and got an expedited discharge, but he did accumulate the days of service required of him for his ultimate honorable discharge". Bush flew many hours in one of the more accident prone (and therefore dangerous) planes in the US arsenal. Bush flew F102s in performance of a mission in the cold war. And lastly, he would not have gotten the opportunity to fly one in Vietnam anyway because someone else decided to phase them out about the time he completed his flight training. Now let's contrast that to the behavior of Kerry, who (didn't you say?) you voted for? Granted, Kerry ended up in Vietnam but he didn't want or expect to go. He initially tried to defer military service a year but was turned down because he'd already completed his degree course. He already knew how to fly but what does he do? Join the navy ... actually, the Naval Reserve. At the very worst, he expected to serve on a ship in the waters OFF Vietnam. In fact, at the time he started training for swift boats, they were not being used in Vietnam in the role they had when he actually got there. And then we all know how soon Kerry was able to accumulate the medals that got him home and how suspicious the circumstances are (http://www.swiftvets.com/swiftvetsandpows/ ) surrounding some of the *wounds* those medals reflect. But that's all water under the bridge. Right?
Bull. USAF F-102 Delta Dagger squadrons had been stationed in Thailand since 1961 and South Vietnam since March 1962. This is during the Kennedy Administration. USAF F-102 squadrons were in both nations during most of the Vietnam War. The F-102 was based at Tan Son Nhut, Bien Hoa, and Da Nang in South Vietnam and also stood alert at Don Muang and Udorn in Thailand. The planes were usually used for fighter defense patrols and as escorts for B-52 bomber raids. It was considered one of the most useful and adaptable air defense aircraft there. It was know to have the quickest response time of any fighter stationed in South Vietnam. Sounds like you don't have your fact too straight, now does it?
#17. To: Ferret Mike, ALL (#15)
I didn't say they weren't used in Vietnam. What I said is that the decision to phase them out was already made by the time Bush finished flight training and might have served there. He would have had to qualify for a different aircraft to go. And consider this. In Vietnam F102s performed many dangerous missions. At the time Bush volunteered to learn to fly one, they were still doing that in Vietnam. So he should have expected to go, eventually. That says something in comparison to an individual who joined the Naval Guard with a reasonable expectation that he wouldn't face combat in Vietnam. But he ended up there anyway, and then look what he did. No, it sounds like you don't know how to read.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||