RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
3/7/2008, 05:26 PM
From a friend of SoonerGirl06, named Brill, an interesting opinion:
Barack Obama has made his position quite clear. He does not believe that al Qaeda existed in Iraq previous to attacks by American forces. He does not believe the Kay Report or the Dulfer Report regarding Iraq’s well documented links to terrorism. He does not believe that terrorists were trained at Salman Pak, that Abu Abas and Abu Nidal were living in Baghdad, that Iraq was a sponsor of international terrorism or that Hussein was an enemy of the US. Iraq, he contends, was a diversion in the real war on terror. "We took our eye off the ball," he claims. He does not believe that war in Iraq has anything to do with fighting terrorism. He believes that Saddam Hussein, who hosted over 600,000 civilian executions should have been left in control in Iraq. He believes that the 53 civilian deaths per day in Iraq, mostly at the hands of terrorists or as a result of sectarian violence, is a greater evil than the 125 civilian deaths per day during Hussein’s "peace." He believes that the 25 million Iraqis that were liberated should remain enslaved under the yoke of tyranny and oppression. With Obama, the rape rooms would still be in business, the children would still be in prison, and the torture of innocents would go on.
Obama is no believer in the Bush Doctrine, which said that we will make no distinction between the terrorists and the nations who harbor them. He admits that he would have gone to war in Afghanistan, which I personally do not believe. However, he would have allowed Hussein to remain in power in Iraq, thus exposing our southern flank to constant attack. But what of Iraq sanctions, no-fly zones and the constant exposure of our aircraft to missile attacks? Should we have retreated from our pledge to protect the Iraqi people from Hussein’s military? If not, how long should those flights have continued? If we immediately halted the no-fly zones the Kurds in the north would have incurred the wrath of Hussein’s madness. Would another 100,000 dead Kurds have aided in our efforts in the war on terror?
I wonder. Who do these "anti war" activists think we’re fighting? They seem to share a common notion that the war in Iraq is an unnecessary distraction in the war on terror. Yet, are we fighting Iraq? No. Iraq is an ally. How, then, is there an Iraq war? Are we are war with Afghanistan? No, they are allies. Is there an Afghanistan war? How is it that war against the Islamic extremists in one country is acceptable and yet the same war against the same enemy with a different ally is not? Nobody seems willing to give Afghanistan with its poverty back to the terrorists, but they seem willing to cede Iraq with its wealth of resources to the terrorists. Which would be the greater prize? Which would offer the greatest threat to the US? It has been said that the first casualty of war is innocence, but in this case the first and greatest casualty of war has been truth and integrity.
So what have we accomplished in this "miserable failure" we call Iraq?:
The number of IED attacks per week has greatly declined.
U.S. military deaths have fallen to their lowest level in 19 months.
In Anbar, Iraqi citizens and Iraqi forces have held parades to celebrate the driving out of the terrorists who once controlled their city.
Iraqi forces now have assumed responsibility for security in eight of 18 Iraqi provinces.
The Iraqi people are increasingly taking on responsibility for their own safety and security.
Osama bin Laden, has publicly expressed concern about al Qaeda's recent setback in Iraq. Although certain members of Congress believe al Qaeda is winning, they are under no such delusion.
After the successes of the troop surge, American forces in Iraq are again being reduced.
Inflation in Iraq has been cut in half since last year.
Electricity production is currently higher than it was under Saddam.
In Baqubah, the historic market has been reopened in a city that had been in a virtual lockdown a few months ago.
In Fallujah, workers have turned an artillery factory into a civilian machine shop employing 600 people.
In the Baghdad neighborhood of Ameriya, an al Qaeda stronghold until a few months ago, locals have returned and are reopening their shops.
In Arab Jabour, another former al Qaeda stronghold, local merchants are reporting a normalization of business.
Shia and Sunni Muslims in Iraq are growing weary of al Qaeda and Iranian backed extremists and are beginning to work together to improve their lives. Tribal leaders are coming together to talk of unity. The Iraqi people are becoming increasingly unified.
You can debate the timing of the actions in Iraq, the miltary strategy, how that strategy was executed, how the reconstruction has been executed, or whether the war costs have been properly controlled. You can argue that the US should have demanded that the Iraqi government pay for its own liberation from its abundance of oil, which would also mean out if its treasury since oil IS it’s livelihood. You can say we should have had more troops earlier, or fewer troops. It’s hard to look at the cesspool of violence that made up pre-war Iraq and say we should have done nothing. It’s easy to say there were no WMD when we didn’t find any, but it was foolishness to make such claims while they were still in Hussein’s arsenal. It’s easy to be the dissenting voice in a whirlwind because your words have no impact. It’s another thing entirely to turn the reins of power over to someone who was so fundamentally wrong on one of the most important challenges of our day.
It’s easy to count the costs of an action, but harder to count the costs of an inaction. By attacking the terrorists relentlessly we have prevented a repeat of the 9/11 massacre. By removing Hussein we preventing Iraq from obtaining long range missile and nuclear warheads. We ended the 12 year stand off and removed Iraq as an enemy by making them an ally. We have established a foothold for freedom and democracy in the Middle East. We have a secure base of operations for the removal of our next enemy; Iran. We have conveyed a message to the terrorists that they can run, but can’t hide. We have accomplished these things because we recognized that the dirty job simply had to be done, so we rolled up our sleeves and did it. The men we have lost have NOT died in vain. A free Iraq will make the Middle East a better place, even though it will take time and perseverance.
The president has withstood a barrage of attacks from both parties over the handling of Iraq, but in the end, history will record that this was the right action to take. President Bush will go down in history as one of America’s great leaders. As for Obama? He’ll go down in November.
Barack Obama has made his position quite clear. He does not believe that al Qaeda existed in Iraq previous to attacks by American forces. He does not believe the Kay Report or the Dulfer Report regarding Iraq’s well documented links to terrorism. He does not believe that terrorists were trained at Salman Pak, that Abu Abas and Abu Nidal were living in Baghdad, that Iraq was a sponsor of international terrorism or that Hussein was an enemy of the US. Iraq, he contends, was a diversion in the real war on terror. "We took our eye off the ball," he claims. He does not believe that war in Iraq has anything to do with fighting terrorism. He believes that Saddam Hussein, who hosted over 600,000 civilian executions should have been left in control in Iraq. He believes that the 53 civilian deaths per day in Iraq, mostly at the hands of terrorists or as a result of sectarian violence, is a greater evil than the 125 civilian deaths per day during Hussein’s "peace." He believes that the 25 million Iraqis that were liberated should remain enslaved under the yoke of tyranny and oppression. With Obama, the rape rooms would still be in business, the children would still be in prison, and the torture of innocents would go on.
Obama is no believer in the Bush Doctrine, which said that we will make no distinction between the terrorists and the nations who harbor them. He admits that he would have gone to war in Afghanistan, which I personally do not believe. However, he would have allowed Hussein to remain in power in Iraq, thus exposing our southern flank to constant attack. But what of Iraq sanctions, no-fly zones and the constant exposure of our aircraft to missile attacks? Should we have retreated from our pledge to protect the Iraqi people from Hussein’s military? If not, how long should those flights have continued? If we immediately halted the no-fly zones the Kurds in the north would have incurred the wrath of Hussein’s madness. Would another 100,000 dead Kurds have aided in our efforts in the war on terror?
I wonder. Who do these "anti war" activists think we’re fighting? They seem to share a common notion that the war in Iraq is an unnecessary distraction in the war on terror. Yet, are we fighting Iraq? No. Iraq is an ally. How, then, is there an Iraq war? Are we are war with Afghanistan? No, they are allies. Is there an Afghanistan war? How is it that war against the Islamic extremists in one country is acceptable and yet the same war against the same enemy with a different ally is not? Nobody seems willing to give Afghanistan with its poverty back to the terrorists, but they seem willing to cede Iraq with its wealth of resources to the terrorists. Which would be the greater prize? Which would offer the greatest threat to the US? It has been said that the first casualty of war is innocence, but in this case the first and greatest casualty of war has been truth and integrity.
So what have we accomplished in this "miserable failure" we call Iraq?:
The number of IED attacks per week has greatly declined.
U.S. military deaths have fallen to their lowest level in 19 months.
In Anbar, Iraqi citizens and Iraqi forces have held parades to celebrate the driving out of the terrorists who once controlled their city.
Iraqi forces now have assumed responsibility for security in eight of 18 Iraqi provinces.
The Iraqi people are increasingly taking on responsibility for their own safety and security.
Osama bin Laden, has publicly expressed concern about al Qaeda's recent setback in Iraq. Although certain members of Congress believe al Qaeda is winning, they are under no such delusion.
After the successes of the troop surge, American forces in Iraq are again being reduced.
Inflation in Iraq has been cut in half since last year.
Electricity production is currently higher than it was under Saddam.
In Baqubah, the historic market has been reopened in a city that had been in a virtual lockdown a few months ago.
In Fallujah, workers have turned an artillery factory into a civilian machine shop employing 600 people.
In the Baghdad neighborhood of Ameriya, an al Qaeda stronghold until a few months ago, locals have returned and are reopening their shops.
In Arab Jabour, another former al Qaeda stronghold, local merchants are reporting a normalization of business.
Shia and Sunni Muslims in Iraq are growing weary of al Qaeda and Iranian backed extremists and are beginning to work together to improve their lives. Tribal leaders are coming together to talk of unity. The Iraqi people are becoming increasingly unified.
You can debate the timing of the actions in Iraq, the miltary strategy, how that strategy was executed, how the reconstruction has been executed, or whether the war costs have been properly controlled. You can argue that the US should have demanded that the Iraqi government pay for its own liberation from its abundance of oil, which would also mean out if its treasury since oil IS it’s livelihood. You can say we should have had more troops earlier, or fewer troops. It’s hard to look at the cesspool of violence that made up pre-war Iraq and say we should have done nothing. It’s easy to say there were no WMD when we didn’t find any, but it was foolishness to make such claims while they were still in Hussein’s arsenal. It’s easy to be the dissenting voice in a whirlwind because your words have no impact. It’s another thing entirely to turn the reins of power over to someone who was so fundamentally wrong on one of the most important challenges of our day.
It’s easy to count the costs of an action, but harder to count the costs of an inaction. By attacking the terrorists relentlessly we have prevented a repeat of the 9/11 massacre. By removing Hussein we preventing Iraq from obtaining long range missile and nuclear warheads. We ended the 12 year stand off and removed Iraq as an enemy by making them an ally. We have established a foothold for freedom and democracy in the Middle East. We have a secure base of operations for the removal of our next enemy; Iran. We have conveyed a message to the terrorists that they can run, but can’t hide. We have accomplished these things because we recognized that the dirty job simply had to be done, so we rolled up our sleeves and did it. The men we have lost have NOT died in vain. A free Iraq will make the Middle East a better place, even though it will take time and perseverance.
The president has withstood a barrage of attacks from both parties over the handling of Iraq, but in the end, history will record that this was the right action to take. President Bush will go down in history as one of America’s great leaders. As for Obama? He’ll go down in November.