GW's Answer for "Movement.Org"

The Amendment was to commend 'every' man and woman serving in Iraq, including Gen Petraeus, and it stated so in the amendment. The democrats didn't vote against the General, they voted against every person in the military..... (commenter at CQ)



Posted by docjim505 September 19, 2007 6:30 PM

Here are the problems with comparing Saddam / Iraq to World War II:

1. We know how World War II turned out: we won. What is the saying? "Victory has a thousand fathers, while defeat is an orphan." Since World War II turned out well for us, EVERYBODY thinks of it as "a good war". We don't know yet how Iraq will turn out; if the libs have their way, it'll be the worst US disaster since Vietnam (another war they scuttled).

2. Evidence of Hitler's evil is well-documented and widely known. He's been the ultimate villain in American minds since 1945, the undisputed Worst Man in History.* Saddam was an amateur compared to him, and there are no undisputed tallies of just how many people he DID murder.**

3. Hindsight is ALWAYS 20 / 20. Looking back at 1919 or 1925 or 1933 or 1935 or 1938, it's obvious that Hitler was up to no good and had to be stopped. We don't have that sort of hindsight with regard to Saddam.

So a few questions to starfleet_dude and the rest of you who stoutly maintain that Saddam was not a threat, that he was contained, that we were just a bunch of ol' meanies when we picked on him:

How many nazis were there in Germany in 1929, i.e. ten years before the German invasion of Poland? Did anybody but the most hysterical alarmist think that Germany, still bloody and battered from its defeat just ten years before, was REALLY a threat to world peace? After all, there were the various terms of the Versaille Treaty to ensure that Germany had only a small, defensive army. Germany was contained, right? And who was afraid of those doofuses in the brown shirts? Why would anybody think that Germans would be crazy enough to follow a gang of losers like them?

How big a threat did Japan pose to the United States in 1931, ten years before the attack on Pearl Harbor? Anybody know just how puny Japan's industrial base was compared to ours, even counting the effects of the Depression? What was the population of Japan relative to the United States? Why would anybody but the worst alarmist in the Navy Department EVER think that Japan would be a major threat to the United States? And who would ever think that the Japanese would be crazy enough to pick a fight with a country so much larger and stronger than they were?

Since libs doubtless miss the point, let me be explicit: the world is not static. The world is not predictable. The nation that is your friend today may be your enemy tomorrow. The nation that doesn't seem a threat today may kick your ass a year from now. Claims that Saddam was "contained" are hollow as we simply don't know (and, happily, will never have to find out) what he and Iraq might have done five or ten years from now. Would the sanctions regime have held together? Almost certainly not. Would Saddam have tried to get more WMD, including nukes? A safe bet that he would. Would the UN have stopped him? Don't make me laugh!

When you say that "Saddam wasn't a threat to the United States in 2002", remember that Nazi Germany wasn't a threat to us in 1932... but we were in a desperate war with them just ten years later.

----------
(*) I've often mused about the fact that Hitler wins the title while Stalin finishes a distant third behind Schickelgruber and George Bush (or whoever the libs decide to hate on a given day). Stalin and his goons murdered far more people that the nazi regime did, yet many on the left still have fond regard for Uncle Joe and the USSR. I guess Stalin just had better PR (Walter Duranty, anyone?).

(**) Libs often sneer that more people have died in Iraq as a result of our liberation than were murdered by Saddam. Question: how many people did Hitler murder, and how many died as a result of the "Great Crusade" to liberate Europe from his odious clutches? Was World War II therefore not worth it?.............

Discovered in Captain's Quarters. Thrusday, Sept 20th, 2007

(Special thanks to docjim for his deliberate articulation)

Zawahiri is nothing but a "Tokyo Rose" by any other name. Baghdad Bob attempted to paint a similar picture as Saddam's tenure was eliminated. Bin Laden is said to be preparing to declare war on Pakistan, which leads some to think his "welcome mat" may have worn out.

At home, the Democratic Party’s latest effort to damage/sabotage surge success in Iraq fails in Senate. Webb’s attempt to use his military prowess formulating a troop deployment strategy that he had to know would wreck havoc on command and control in the theater got "shot down" for the second time.

What the "defeatocrats" don't seem to come to grips with is that following the meter-maids in the mainstream media that promote defeat and surrender for the advancement of a political agenda is not what this nation will stand for. When our brave soldiers are pounding our enemies on all fronts and propaganda machine of Al-Qaeda shows it's desperation by finding "new" countries to declare war against, many will wonder how far we could have advanced in the war on terrorism if this nation were united in victory instead of betraying a general who has givin his life to protect this nation from harm............Rovin

What You Won't See From The MSM

Greyhawk from the Mudville Gazette has posted what most Americans will NOT see reported on the events in Iraq:

So - with the Commanding General in the U.S. this week, did the troops of MNF-I slack off?
Doesn't look like it:

Sunday, 29 April 2007 72 SUSPECTED TERRORISTS DETAINEDSaturday, 28 April 2007 US, Iraqi raid in Mahmudiyah nets Iranian-marked rockets, mortarsSaturday, 28 April 2007 Marines destroy truck bomb near Karmah Saturday, 28 April 2007 17 SUSPECTED TERRORISTS DETAINED IN IRAQSaturday, 28 April 2007 Baqubah: Local’s tips lead to successSaturday, 28 April 2007 Commandos, Baghdad Eagles detain suspected extremists, find caches and IEDsSaturday, 28 April 2007 Marne Forward Newscast – Soldiers work with Iraqi PoliceSaturday, 28 April 2007Iraqi Army-led mission nets large cacheSaturday, 28 April 2007 Operation Chalons emphasizes U.S., ISF coordinationSaturday, 28 April 2007 Weapons cache foundSaturday, 28 April 2007 FOUR SUSPECTED TERRORISTS DETAINED Friday, 27 April 2007 Operation Commando Dive leads to detentions, cache findsFriday, 27 April 2007 COALITION FORCES DETAIN NINEFriday, 27 April 2007 FOUR SUSPECTED SECRET CELL TERRORISTS DETAINEDThursday, 26 April 2007 Four terrorists killed, two suspects woundedThursday, 26 April 2007 TERRORISTS KILLED, VBIED NETWORK DISRUPTEDThursday, 26 April 2007 CCCI Convicts 41, Sentences 4 to death, 3 to life imprisonmentThursday, 26 April 2007 THREE TERRORISTS KILLED DURING OPERATIONS IN SADR CITYWednesday, 25 April 2007 Six suspected terrorists detainedWednesday, 25 April 2007 Al-Qaeda in Iraq security emir killedTuesday, 24 April 2007 10 SUSPECTED TERRORISTS DETAINED, CACHE FOUNDTuesday, 24 April 2007 VBIED detonates near Diyala’s provincial council headquartersTuesday, 24 April 2007 Correction - Fardh Al-Qanoon Update Efforts Against Extremists ContinueTuesday, 24 April 2007 Weapons cache found inside Baghdad mosqueMonday, 23 April 2007 19 TERRORISTS DETAINED IN COALITION RAIDSMonday, 23 April 2007 Troops assist neighborhood with fire damageMonday, 23 April 2007 Coalition Forces see progress in Diyala River ValleySunday, 22 April 2007 ONE TERRORIST KILLED, 19 SUSPECTS CAPTURED, BOMB-MAKING CACHE FOUNDSunday, 22 April 200715 TERRORISTS KILLED, SEVEN SUSPECTED TERRORISTS DETAINEDSunday, 22 April 2007 Clearing operation Nets Five Weapons Caches in Baghdad’s Mansour district

Meanwhile, back in America, hard working newspaper editors were diligently ensuring that virtually none of these stories would appear in their headlines.

As I reported here, violence over all in Baghdad and the Anbar province is down by nearly 50% in the last month. But how can we see these changes when all that the MSM cares to report is the "of it bleeds, it leads"? How do we support this effort when only half the story is reported?

WOULD SOME ONE PLEASE EXPLAIN TO THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY THAT THEY HAVE NO RIGHTS TO PROSECUTE WARS....

Democrats Plan Bills to Withdraw Troops From Iraq by Fall 2008

WASHINGTON — House Democrats on Thursday drew a veto threat from the White House after unveiling a plan that sets specific timetables to remove U.S. combat troops from Iraq and bring them home before fall 2008.

In a direct challenge to President Bush's strategy for Iraq, the plan would have troops redeploying as early as July of this year but no later than March 2008, and full combat withdrawal by August 2008.

WHAT PART ABOUT SETTING A TIME-TABLE WILL DO NOTHING BUT PUT OUR ENEMIES ON HOLD.......DON'T THE DEMOCRATS UNDERSTAND THIS?

Definition of liberal "progressives": "regressive diversionaries"

I'm so pissed right now, I will leave this post open, go have a cocktail, and try to calm down enough to try to make some sense of this insanity.......................

UPDATE: I'm still fuming.....but Glen Beck was incredible tonight in scorning the Dems on their obstructive anti-American legislation that could very well cripple our efforts to keep the war on terrorism in the Middle East, and not back on our soil.

I'm hoping to see Allah at Hot Air get something up soon to link...........

UPDATE II: Hot Air Video: Petraeus’s first press conference; Update: Pullout could start by July 1, says Pelosi; Update: Bush counsel vows veto; Update: CNN reporter rips Dems’ timetable.........

The serious question is finally ask by Curt at Flopping Aces:

Can We Question Their Patriotism Yet?

So now the Democrats actually believe they can push through legislation that would force Bush to start withdrawing troops by next year. Yup, they will be fighting provisions that actually accomplish 9/11 Commission recommendations and make our country safer all the while they fight FOR unions to represent TSA employee's.Can we question their patriotism yet?

Rep. Boehner hits the nail on the head:

"Unfortunately, the Democrats latest plan is an old twist on an old adage: failure at any cost," he said in a Capitol Hill press conference. "Democrats are using the critical troop funding bill to micromanage the war on terror -- undermining our generals on the ground and slowly choking off resources for our troops.

This is not the last, but the beginning of a battle that the Left is going to lose. The safety and security of this great nation is being threatened from with-in. The Democratic Party will have to think long and hard about weather they intend to have the resolve to protect us. At this point, I have sincere doubts. And this battle is far from over..........

SteveK, a commentor at Blackfive ask:

What really is the "will of the people" on the war, democrat style? Most (not all) democrats I have spoken with are against withdrawing early, nor are they for not funding the troops or hard deadlines. They voted for who they did because they wanted a change in the way the war was being fought, a change of direction, new ideas. They aren't getting what they voted for because some far left extremists have high jacked the party.To be fair I'm from a conservative state where there are few far left, or far right, folks. But even in a democrat state I find it hard to believe the majority would be for these bills being discussed in Congress. Are there polls available showing what the democrat voters are really for? #

UPDATE III--Ed Morrisey at Captain's Quarters has the sad state of the left up here :

"Instead of focusing on losing the war, Petraeus needs to focus on winning it, and Congress needs to get out of his way. This gives a roadmap for the terrorists to follow to drive the US out of Iraq. All they have to do is read the list of benchmarks and do whatever they can do to block the first one, and Congress will declare defeat and run for the hills.

Expect the Republicans to successfully filibuster this bill in the Senate."