RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events Calling for Surrender?

Quote:

---

Matter-eater Man said:

Quote:

---

Pariah said:
That's right MEM. Play the ignorance card.

---

An easy card to play considering how well the boys back up their Dem bashing

---

Quote:

---

Wonder Boy said:

Quote:

---

Matter-eater Man said:

Quote:

---

Wonder Boy said:

In other words, like Dick Durbin and Howard Dean before her, she's backpedaling from stronger remarks she made prior to the interview you quoted.

Ive seen her make stronger remarks on PBS news and elsewhere, prior to the interview you quote.

---

Those quotes were from the same interview the RNC used for their surrender ad. The quote they took out of context is towards the end. I think such an ugly negative portayal really demands that the burden of proof lay at those making it.

---

I fail to see how Boxer was misrepresented. Sen Boxer herself misrepresented the Bush administration as not having a plan.

In her earlier comments, she basically said: The Bush administration says we have 200,000 trained Iraqis. So we should be able to pull out immediately after the election, and if the Bush administration is telling the truth, they should be able to defend their country themselves from this point.

Not everything in the opening news segments is posted online, but that's the gist of it.

But even that statement by Boxer, or the quoted comments in the Fox interview of Boxer you keep referring to, constantly refers to the need to withdraw, (1) for Bush to produce some timetable for withdrawal, and (2) Boxer and other Democrats then backpedal and say "Well, we're not demanding a timetable..."
Well, which is it, they are or they aren't?

It's a total, bogus liberal smear campaign, with no substance, except to say no matter what Bush does, it's wrong.

Here's a link to a Republican site that deconstructs the flaws in Sen Boxer's arguments, even the more mild and retracted comments she made in the FOX interview.

HERE

And here is an example of Sen. Boxer's style of operating that really sends my contempt for the woman into overdrive.

From January of this year, at Condoleeza Rice's confirmation heaing as Secretary of State:

transcript HERE

Quote:

---

[[PBS news reporter ]KWAME HOLMAN: Condoleezza Rice came before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee this morning prepared to answer questions on a wide range of foreign policy issues: The U.S. Involvement in Iraq and Middle East peace; the nuclear capabilities of Iran and North Korea; aids in Africa; the massacre in Darfur; and relief for victims of the tsunamis.

However, Rice opened her testimony by pledging to institute a fundamental change in the direction of American foreign policy, different from the directions it took over the past four years.

CONDOLEEZZA RICE: Sept. 11, 2001, was a defining moment for our nation and for the world. Under the vision and leadership of President Bush, our nation has risen to meet the challenges of our time, fighting tyranny and terror and securing the blessings of freedom and prosperity for a new generation.

The work that America and our allies have undertaken and the sacrifices we have made have been difficult and necessary and right. Now is the time to build on these achievements to make the world safer, and to make the world more free. We must use American diplomacy to help create a balance of power in the world that favors freedom. The time for diplomacy is now.

KWAME HOLMAN: As expected, questions about Iraq dominated the hearing, most of them about U.S. Involvement once elections are held. However, it was California Democrat Barbara Boxer who challenged Rice over the reasons for going to war in the first place, and it led to this exchange.

SEN. BARBARA BOXER: On July 30, 2003, you were asked by PBS NewsHour's Gwen Ifill if you continued to stand by the claims you made about Saddam's nuclear program in the days and months leading up to the war. In what appears to be an effort to downplay the nuclear weapons scare tactics you used before the war, your answer was, and I quote, "It was a case that said he was trying to reconstitute. He's trying to acquire nuclear weapons. Nobody ever said that it was going to be the next year." So that's what you said to the American people on television-- "Nobody ever said it was going to be the next year."

Well, that wasn't true, because nine months before you said this to the American people, what had George Bush said, President Bush, at his speech at the Cincinnati Museum Center? "If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year." So here you are, contradicting, first contradicting the president and then contradicting yourself. So it's hard to even ask you a question about this, because you are on the record basically taking two sides of an issue.

CONDOLEEZZA RICE: Senator, I have to say that I have never, ever lost respect for the truth in the service of anything. It is not my nature. It is not my character. And I would hope that we can have this conversation and discuss what happened before and what went on before and what I said without impugning my credibility or my integrity. It was the total picture, Senator, not just weapons of mass destruction, that caused us to decide that, post-Sept. 11, it was finally time to deal with Saddam Hussein.

SEN. BARBARA BOXER: Well, you should read what we voted on when we voted to support the war, which I did not, but most of my colleagues did. It was WMD, period. That was the reason and the causation for that, you know, particular vote. But again, I just feel you quote President Bush when it suits you but you contradicted him when he said, "Yes, Saddam could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year." You go on television nine months later and said, "nobody ever said it was..."

CONDOLEEZZA RICE: Senator, that was just a question of pointing out to people that there was an uncertainty. That no one was saying that he would have to have a weapon within a year for it to be worth it to go to war.

SEN. BARBARA BOXER: Well, if you can't admit to this mistake, I hope that you'll rethink it.

CONDOLEEZZA RICE: Senator, we can have this discussion in any way that you would like. But I really hope that you will refrain from impugning my integrity. Thank you very much.

SEN. BARBARA BOXER: I'm not. I'm just quoting what you said.

---

Although she's clearly not "just quoting" Rice, is she ?
Anyone can plainly see in the quoted remarks that the alleged "contradiction" that Boxer quotes of Rice is not a contradiction at all.
Rice agreed with, and was consistent with, President Bush's quote, who said that Saddam Hussein could be able to produce a nuclear weapon within one year.
Not that he absolutely could. But that Hussein was seeking it.
And that the Bush administration took preventive action to avoid that potential.
The same potential that was not forseen in North Korea. But happened sooner than expected.
The same potential that was not forseen in Libya. but happened sooner than expected.
The same potential that was not forseen in Iran. But now may happen sooner than expected.

And Sen. Boxer just snottily repeated her false allegation over and over, for the TV cameras, and for her liberal voters who despise Bush and are eager to hear any new allegations against Bush's staff, no matter how groundless, and spread them across the media as absolute fact.

---

Quote:

---

Wonder Boy said:

Quote:

---

Matter-eater Man said:

Quote:

---

Pariah said:
That's right MEM. Play the ignorance card.

---

An easy card to play considering how well the boys back up their Dem bashing

---

Your approach is, when myself, WBAM, G-man and others answer your points, and prove consistently what inflammatory lying assholes your Democrat party leaders are, you simply pretend we haven't proven it.

I don't want to sink this to personal insults, but you can ask yourself how honest a response that is on your part.

I think I made my case pretty well.

...

---

Quote:

---

Matter-eater Man said:

Quote:

---

Wonder Boy said:

Quote:

---

Matter-eater Man said:

Quote:

---

Pariah said:
That's right MEM. Play the ignorance card.

---

An easy card to play considering how well the boys back up their Dem bashing

---

Your approach is, when myself, WBAM, G-man and others answer your points, and prove consistently what inflammatory lying assholes your Democrat party leaders are, you simply pretend we haven't proven it.

I don't want to sink this to personal insults, but you can ask yourself how honest a response that is on your part.

I think I made my case pretty well.

...

---

No you didn't. You didn't refer to anything else Boxer said that supports what the RNC presented.

---

Yes, I did.
You just ignored it.
Although I didn't have the exact quote to click-and-drag here, I wrote down the gist of it.

How Senator Boxer:

(1) made a strong statement for putting a time-limit on our troops being in Iraq,
and then
(2) backpedaled and said later that she only advocated removing U.S. troops when Iraqi forces are ready.
Which is a contradiction.
If you advocate troops to stay till they are no longer needed, that is what the President is doing NOW ! So what is Boxer proposing as an alternative to the President's plan, except
(A) smoke and mirrors to badmouth a President who's implementing a withdrawal plan that is reaching fruition,
or
(B) Boxer is advocating a premature withdrawal, which she backpedals from when pressed on.

Although your wikipedia link even provides documentation of Boxer's hypocrisy:

Quote:

---

Wikepedia listing for Senator Barbara Boxer:

In October 2002 Senator Boxer voted against the joint resolution passed by the U.S. Congress to authorize the use of military force by the Bush Administration against Iraq. [6], [7], [8]
Later on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart she called her vote "The best vote of my life."

In June 2005, Senators Barbara Boxer and Russ Feingold (D-WI) cosponsored Senate Resolution 171 to push for a clear timeframe for U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq.

In a speech on the Iraq War, delivered at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco, on July 6, 2005, [9] Boxer said:

"It is difficult to keep track of all the missions we've had so far in Iraq.
There was the weapons of mass destruction mission.
Then the regime change mission.
Then the rebuilding mission.
Then the democracy mission.
And finally, terrorism, which the president mentioned more than 30 times in his speech (at Fort Bragg). "Our mission in Iraq is clear," he said. "We will hunt down the terrorists."
That mission is a guarantee of a never-ending cycle of violence because our open-ended presence in Iraq is itself fueling the recruitment of terrorists.
With that as a mission, we will find ourselves on a treadmill that never stops. We stay there to hunt down the terrorists and more terrorists are recruited, so we fight them and more terrorists are recruited and so the cycle goes."

---

Sounds like someone who really believes in taking a strong stance against terror.


And Senator Boxer's comments are pretty much in line with Cheney's statement a few months ago, that:

Quote:

---

Vice President Cheney:

the Republican response to 9-11 was to prepare for war.

The liberal Democrat response was to offer sympathy and therapy to our enemy.

---

Which a lot of Democrat leaders vociferously objected to, even though it is demonstrably true.

Quote:

---

Matter Eater Man said:
The closest you came was the exchange between Rice & Boxer. While that actually used what Boxer was saying it didn't have anything about her advocating an immediate exit from Iraq.

The rest of it was more of the same, other Republicans & yourself "deconstructing" what Boxer really meant. Oh & a bunch of name calling. Boxer has done some wonderful things for this country & I should thank you for at least forcing me to do a bit of research on her. Wikipedia

---

The Boxer exchange with Rice at her confirmation hearing is very relevant to her Iraq/timeline/withdrawal rhetoric.

It demonstrates the same type of inflammatory posturing, without any substance to posture on. As she postured against Rice with nothing, she is posturing against President Bush with nothing to stand on.
The Iraqi force is being trained. transition to Iraqi control and U.S. troop withdrawal is imminent. All Boxer is doing is throwing acid on a wound that is healing, and complicating the process. And scoring points in front of TV cameras for her rabidly anti-Bush voter majority. Emotionally charged fluff, completely lacking substance.

Quote:

---

Wonder Boy said:
...
Yes, I did. You just ignored it. Although I didn't have the exact quote to click-and-drag here, I wrote down the gist of it. How Senator Boxer:

---

Quote:

---

Supports the men and women of the Armed Forces in Iraq and deeply appreciates their admirable service.

Recognizes that stability and democracy in Iraq are in the U.S. national interest.

Expresses the sense of the Senate that: (1) the United States should remain committed to providing long-term diplomatic and political support to Iraq; (2) the United States should continue to pursue a robust and multi-faceted campaign against international terrorist networks in Iraq and around the world; and (3) not later than 30 days after the Senate agrees to this resolution, the President should report to Congress describing the Armed Forces' remaining mission in Iraq, and a time frame for the subsequent withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

---

Quote:

---

Although your wikipedia link even provides documentation of Boxer's hypocrisy:

Quote:

---

Wikepedia listing for Senator Barbara Boxer:

In October 2002 Senator Boxer voted against the joint resolution passed by the U.S. Congress to authorize the use of military force by the Bush Administration against Iraq. [6], [7], [8]
Later on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart she called her vote "The best vote of my life."

In June 2005, Senators Barbara Boxer and Russ Feingold (D-WI) cosponsored Senate Resolution 171 to push for a clear timeframe for U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq.

In a speech on the Iraq War, delivered at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco, on July 6, 2005, [9] Boxer said:

"It is difficult to keep track of all the missions we've had so far in Iraq.
There was the weapons of mass destruction mission.
Then the regime change mission.
Then the rebuilding mission.
Then the democracy mission.
And finally, terrorism, which the president mentioned more than 30 times in his speech (at Fort Bragg). "Our mission in Iraq is clear," he said. "We will hunt down the terrorists."
That mission is a guarantee of a never-ending cycle of violence because our open-ended presence in Iraq is itself fueling the recruitment of terrorists.
With that as a mission, we will find ourselves on a treadmill that never stops. We stay there to hunt down the terrorists and more terrorists are recruited, so we fight them and more terrorists are recruited and so the cycle goes."

---

Sounds like someone who really believes in taking a strong stance against terror.


And Senator Boxer's comments are pretty much in line with Cheney's statement a few months ago, that:

Quote:

---

Vice President Cheney:

the Republican response to 9-11 was to prepare for war.

The liberal Democrat response was to offer sympathy and therapy to our enemy.

---

Which a lot of Democrat leaders vociferously objected to, even though it is demonstrably true.

---

Quote:

---

Wonder Boy said:
I'll just keep spinning Boxer's words over & over again,since I can't find any that suit my needs

---

Quote:

---

Matter-eater Man said:

Quote:

---

Wonder Boy said:
I'll just keep spinning Boxer's words over & over again,since I can't find any that suit my needs

---

---

Quote:

---

It's the job of the administration to propose a withdrawl strategy,

---

Quote:

---

Wonder Boy said:
...

Quote:

---

Matter Eater Man said:
And here is actually what she & Feingold put forth...
Here is the summary of Boxer's Senate Resolution 171 (what you & the RNC call surrender)...
Quote:------------------------------------------------------------------------
Supports the men and women of the Armed Forces in Iraq and deeply appreciates their admirable service.
Recognizes that stability and democracy in Iraq are in the U.S. national interest.
Expresses the sense of the Senate that: (1) the United States should remain committed to providing long-term diplomatic and political support to Iraq; (2) the United States should continue to pursue a robust and multi-faceted campaign against international terrorist networks in Iraq and around the world; and (3) not later than 30 days after the Senate agrees to this resolution, the President should report to Congress describing the Armed Forces' remaining mission in Iraq, and a time frame for the subsequent withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS

---

Note the bolded section of your post. I added no spin, all I did was give emphasis to the part that you refuse to acknowledge.

---

Quote:

---

An Invitation to Withdraw
- Theodore C. Sorensen, Arthur Schlesinger Jr., New York Times
Tuesday, December 6, 2005

From History: Kennedy's plan for exiting the Vietnam War offers lessons for Bush.

What did we not hear from President Bush when he spoke last week at the U.S. Naval Academy about his strategy for victory in Iraq?

We did not hear that the war in Iraq, already one of the costliest wars in American history, is a running sore. We did not hear that it has taken more than 2,000 precious American lives and countless -- because we do not count them -- Iraqi civilian lives. We did not hear that the struggle has dragged on longer than our involvement in either World War I or the Spanish-American War, or that by next spring it will be even longer than the Korean War.

And we did not hear how or when the president plans to bring our forces back home -- no facts, no numbers on America troop withdrawals, no dates, no reference to our dwindling coalition, no reversal of his disdain for the United Nations, whose help he still expects.

Neither our military, our economy nor our nation can take that kind of endless and remorseless drain for an only vaguely defined military and political mission. If we leave early, the president said, catastrophe might follow. But what of the catastrophe that we are prolonging and worsening by our continued presence, including our continued, unforgivable mistreatment of detainees?

The responsibility for devising an exit plan rests primarily not with the war's opponents, but with the president who hastily launched a pre-emptive invasion without enough troops to secure Iraq's borders and arsenals, without enough armor to protect our forces, without enough allied support and without adequate plans for either a secure occupation or a timely exit.

Kennedy began to understand that withdrawal was the viable option. From the spring of 1963 on, he began to articulate the elements of a three-part exit strategy, one that his assassination would prevent him from pursuing. The three components of Kennedy's exit strategy -- well-suited for Iraq after the passage of a new constitution and the coming election -- can be summarized as follows:

Make clear that we're going to get out. At a press conference on Nov. 14, 1963, the president did just that, stating, "That is our object, to bring Americans home."

Request an invitation to leave. Arrange for the host government to request the phased withdrawal of all American military personnel -- surely not a difficult step in Iraq, especially after the clan statement last month calling for foreign forces to leave. In a May 1963 press conference, Kennedy declared that if the South Vietnamese government suggested it, "we would have some troops on their way home" the next day.

Bring the troops home gradually. Initiate a phased American withdrawal over an unannounced period, beginning immediately, while intensifying the training of local security personnel, bearing in mind that with our increased troop mobility and airlift capacity, American forces are available without being stationed in hazardous areas. In September 1963, Kennedy said of the South Vietnamese: "In the final analysis, it is their war. They are the ones who have to win it or lose it." A month later, he said, "It would be our hope to lessen the number of Americans" in Vietnam by the end of the year.

Kennedy had no guarantee that any of these three components would succeed. In the "fog of war," there are no guarantees; but an exit plan without guarantees is better than none at all.

If we leave Iraq at its own government's request, our withdrawal will be neither abandonment nor retreat. Law-abiding Iraqis may face more clan violence, Balkanization and foreign incursions if we leave; but they may face more clan violence, Balkanization and foreign incursions if we stay. The president has said we will not leave Iraq to the terrorists. Let us leave Iraq to the Iraqis, who have survived centuries of civil war, tyranny and attempted foreign domination.

Once American troops are out of Iraq, people around the world will rejoice that we have recovered our senses. What's more, the killing of Americans and the global loss of American credibility will diminish. As Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, a Republican and Vietnam veteran, said, "The longer we stay, the more problems we're going to have." Defeatist? The real defeatists are those who say we are stuck there for the next decade of death and destruction.

In a memorandum to Kennedy, roughly three months after his 1961 inauguration, one of us wrote with respect to Vietnam, "There is no clearer example of a country that cannot be saved unless it saves itself." Today, Iraq is an even clearer example.

Theodore C. Sorensen and Arthur Schlesinger Jr. were, respectively, special counsel and special assistant to President John F. Kennedy.

---

Representative John Murtha, the Pennsylvania Democrat who has come to national prominence since his call for a quick withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, said Thursday night that he worries about "a slow withdrawal which makes it look like there's a victory."

Appearing at a town meeting in Arlington, Virginia, with fellow Democratic Rep. James Moran, Murtha said, "A year ago, I said we can't win this militarily, and I got all kinds of criticism." Now, Murtha told the strongly antiwar audience, "I worry about a slow withdrawal which makes it look like there's a victory when I think it should be a redeployment as quickly as possible and let the Iraqis handle the whole thing."

Mudville Gazette has the details on an Army soldier who confronted Dem Reps. John Murtha and Jim Moran at a town hall meeting in Arlington, Va:

"Yes sir my name is Mark Seavey and I just want to thank you for coming up here. Until about a month ago I was Sgt Mark Seavey infantry squad leader, I returned from Afghanistan. My question to you, (applause)

"Like yourself I dropped out of college two years ago to volunteer to go to Afghanistan, and I went and I came back. If I didn't have a herniated disk now I would volunteer to go to Iraq in a second with my troops, three of which have already volunteered to go to Iraq. I keep hearing you say how you talk to the troops and the troops are demoralized, and I really resent that characterization. (applause) The morale of the troops that I talk to is phenomenal, which is why my troops are volunteering to go back, despite the hardships they had to endure in Afghanistan.

"And Congressman Moran, 200 of your constituents just returned from Afghanistan. We never got a letter from you; we never got a visit from you. You didn't come to our homecoming. The only thing we got from any of our elected officials was one letter from the governor of this state thanking us for our service in Iraq, when we were in Afghanistan. That's reprehensible. I don't know who you two are talking to but the morale of the troops is very high."

Moran - who is one of the few congressmen supporting Charlie Rangel's call to restore the draft - responded quickly: "That wasn't in the form of a question, it was in the form of a statement. But, uhh... let's go over here." And he took the next question.

The video is
here (.wmv file).

Sgt. Mark Seavey to Murtha and Moran: "I don't know who you two are talking to but the morale of the troops is very high."

My favorite moments were the look on Rep. Jim "Bad Boy" Moran's face when Sgt. Seavey challenged the Dems' "demoralized troops" meme and noted that Moran didn't bother to send a single word of praise or attend a homecoming event when 200 of his Moran's constituents returned from duty in Afghanistan...

...and the look on Murtha's face as Moran scrambled to move on to a friendly moonbat questioner...

Quote:

---

Web Site Attacks Critic of War
Opponents Question Murtha's Medals

Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), the former Marine who is an outspoken critic of the war in Iraq, has become the latest Democrat to have his Vietnam War decorations questioned.

In a tactic reminiscent of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth assault on Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) during the 2004 presidential campaign, a conservative Web site yesterday quoted Murtha opponents as questioning the circumstances surrounding the awarding of his two Purple Hearts.

David Thibault, editor in chief of the Cybercast News Service, said the issue of Murtha's medals from 1967 is relevant now "because the congressman has really put himself in the forefront of the antiwar movement." Thibault said: "He has been placed by the Democratic Party and antiwar activists as a spokesman against the war above reproach."

Cindy Abram, a spokeswoman for Murtha, said, "We certainly believe that the questions being raised are an attempt to distract attention from what's happening in Iraq." As for how Murtha won the Purple Hearts, she said: "We think the congressman's record is clear. We have the documentation, the paperwork that proves that he earned them, and that he is entitled to wear them proudly."

Cybercast is part of the conservative Media Research Center, run by L. Brent Bozell III, who accused some in the media of ignoring the Swift Boat charges, but Thibault said it operates independently. He said the unit, formerly called the Conservative News Service, averages 110,000 readers, mainly conservative, and provides material for other Web sites such as GOPUSA. "We won't run anything against anybody if we don't have the goods," he said.
...

---

The details did little to counter skepticism from Democrats and some law enforcement officials who have questioned whether the reported scheme had ever been put into operation before it was thwarted.

Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Sherman Oaks) described Bush's speech as a political stunt meant to draw attention from the mounting criticisms of the National Security Agency's warrantless wiretapping program and other questions about administration tactics.

"I can't think of a governmental reason to disclose these details at this time to the general public. Clearly, the goal was to create headlines," said Sherman.

Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, the senior Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said he "didn't find [Bush's comments] very helpful . . . from a professional point of view."

Former Vice President Al Gore told a mainly Saudi audience yesterday that the U.S. government committed "terrible abuses" against Arabs after 9/11 and said most Americans opposed such treatment.
Gore also accused the Bush administration of playing into al Qaeda's hands by "thoughtlessly" blocking visas for Saudis.

Fifteen of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were Saudis who got visas under a visa "express" program. It was ended after 9/11, and Saudis are now subject to tougher scrutiny

This is asinine both substantively and procedurally.

Substantively, the idea that cracking down on Saudi visa applications is "playing into al Qaeda's hands" is laughable. Had we scrutinized Saudi visas a little more carefully in 2001, thousands of Americans who died on September 11 that year might well have lived. Fifteen of the 19 hijackers on that day were Saudi nationals. If we had denied some or all of them visas, exactly how would that have "played into al Qaeda's hands"? . . .

Procedurally, Gore's speech is repugnant. It is one thing to say such things to an American audience in an effort to change our policy. . . . It is, however, another thing entirely to travel to a foreign country that features pivotally in the war of our generation for the purpose of denouncing American policies in front of the affected foreign audience. It is especially problematic to mess with Saudi political opinions, which are subject to intensive influence and coercion by internal actors and the United States, al Qaeda, and Iran, among other powers. Supposing that some Saudis were inclined to be angry over the American visa policy, won't they be more angry after Al Gore has told them that they're being humiliated? How is that helpful?

Finally, Gore's outrage at the American treatment of Arab and Muslim captives may be genuine, and it may even be worthy of expression in the United States, where we aspire to do better than press accounts suggest we have done. But whatever nasty things we have done in exceptional cases in time of war, they pale in comparison to the standard operating procedure in Saudi Arabia. So this is what Gore has done: he has traveled to Jiddah to explain to the elites of an ugly and tyrannical regime that the big problem in the world isn't the oppression of Arabs by Arabs throughout the Middle East and North Africa, but the mistreatment of a few hundred Arabs in the United States. This is like visiting Moscow in 1970 and denouncing the United States in front of a bunch of Communist Party deputies for the killings at Kent State. . . .

There is simply no defense for what Gore has done here, for he is deliberately undermining the United States during a time of war, in a part of the world crucial to our success in that war, in front of an audience that does not vote in American elections. Gore's speech is both destructive and disloyal, not because of its content--which is as silly as it is subversive--but because of its location and its intended audience.

Quote:

---

wannabuyamonkey said:
Insighting violence against America is patriotic!

---

Once again WBAM has expanded the English language and vocabulary. Not only has he used a noun as a verb but we are treated to its participle! Good show! You've incited me to laughter!

We find our troops in the middle of an escalating civil war...Half of the service members listed on the Vietnam Memorial Wall died after America's leaders knew our strategy would not work. It was immoral then and it would be immoral now to engage in the same delusion.

Iraqi politicians should be told that they have until May 15 to put together an effective unity government or we will immediately withdraw our military. If Iraqis aren't willing to build a unity government in the five months since the election, they're probably not willing to build one at all. The civil war will only get worse, and we will have no choice anyway but to leave.

If Iraq's leaders succeed in putting together a government, then we must agree on another deadline: a schedule for withdrawing American combat forces by year's end.

As Jews the world over observe Passover, in celebration of an exodus from tyranny and the birth of a great nation, we find ourselves fighting furiously for freedom on distant shores. There is much inspiration to be gleaned from that tale of yore, not least because that oppression-and-redemption cycle is clearly built into all of Jewish history -- most recently in their climb from the ashes of Auschwitz in 1945 to the independence of Israel in 1948.

But it occurs to me that there is a much more immediate and specific lesson that we must internalize in this season. It is an insight into national conduct that is prerequisite in the process of securing freedom. Let's review the story. For two hundred and ten years the descendants of Jacob had been residing in Egypt, with their rights of citizenship being gradually eroded, until finally they were conscripted into slave labor. (According to the tradition, that condition existed for eighty-six years.)

There was a man named Moses who had never lived among his fellow Jews. He spent his younger years, ironically, in the palace of the Pharaoh, as the adopted son of the monarch's daughter. His middle years were spent in other countries, as a fugitive from Egyptian justice. At age eighty he receives a prophecy to approach the Jews, fire them up with the prospect of imminent rescue, and then initiate a negotiation with Pharaoh to allow the Jews freedom of religion and some flexibility of movement.

He is explicitly warned in the prophecy (Exodus 3:19-20) that the Egyptian government will resist very strongly and it will take a long drawn-out process to succeed. When he returns to Egypt to begin this program, the Jews quickly decide to back him, but his visit to Pharaoh is disastrous. The king proclaims a new decree that in addition to their current bricklaying work, the slaves will be responsible for manufacturing the bricks as well. At this point, Moses goes back to God and complains: "Why did you make things worse for this nation and for what purpose did You send me?" (ibid 5:22)

Think about it. He had been told that it would be a tedious, laborious process. He knew to expect rejection and obstruction. Yet, after going into this with his eyes open, he returns to gripe bitterly, in tones that suggest shock at the outcome. How is this reconciled? The explanation, I believe, is clear enough. Sure, he understood that it would be a long, staged process and he had geared up to persevere patiently. What he had not anticipated, what rocked his world, was the idea that things would actually get worse. Slowly get better, yes. But get worse before it gets better? No way! He didn't sign up for that.

This is the exact situation of our nation at this exact moment in time. We entered Iraq understanding, to varying degrees, that eliminating Saddam Hussein and fashioning a moderate democratic regime would have a plethora of positive consequences. It would nudge that region away from turbulence and toward tranquility, which in turn would dissuade both the citizenry and the potentates from exporting terror to our shores. We were prepared by President Bush for a "long haul" and by Secretary Rumsfeld for a "long slog."

The three years have not worn us down. The tragic deaths of our brothers and sisters who wear the uniform have not worn us down. Brutal images of beheading innocent hostages have not worn us down. We can handle long.

What is in danger of wearing us down is the recent sense that things may be deteriorating. This strategy of bombing mosques and shrines is designed to exacerbate tribal divides. Our soldiers cannot throw a thick enough blanket over a country to prevent this from occurring. And if the Iraqi man-in-the-street gets angrier now than he was last year and the year before, this is a major setback, a significant backslide.

Even Moses, armed with a prophecy for eventual guaranteed victory, found this experience disconcerting. And sure enough, the AP poll has the President's support down to 36 percent because, as one independent voter it quotes notes, people think "he is in over his head in Iraq." Perhaps we can use this Passover season to remind ourselves that this is how life works, even in prophetic and miraculous moments. It gets worse before it gets better.

But the good guys, the stubborn, valiant, indefatigable vanguard of freedom, always win in the end.

Al-Zarqawi's death . . . will not end the insurgency that has pushed
Iraq into a violent downward spiral. . . . As long as large numbers
of U.S. troops remain indefinitely in Iraq, that tragic death toll will continue
to rise, because Iraq will remain a crucible for the recruitment and development
of a wide range of terrorist networks determined to fight so-called American
"occupiers."

The first step in creating a strong national security policy is recognizing
that our massive presence in Iraq weakens our national security. Our Iraq-centric
policies are diverting resources and attention from other places around the
world where terrorist networks that threaten the U.S. are operating. . . .

It's time to return to our true national security mission in the wake of
9/11 by crafting a comprehensive strategy to fight terrorism. . . .
This strategy must focus on developing strong partnerships with countries
like Indonesia, the Philippines, and Mali, focused not only on security assistance,
but on the development of a strong rule of law, respect for human rights,
and fighting corruption.

A comprehensive strategy to fight terrorism must also address countries like
Somalia. Failed states like Somalia are the breeding grounds for terrorism
and instability.

To put this more concisely, Feingold makes two arguments against the U.S. presence
in Iraq:

• It makes Iraq "a crucible for the recruitment and development of a
  wide range of terrorist networks determined to fight so-called American 'occupiers.' "
  
  
  
  


• It is "diverting resources and attention from other places around the
  world," such as Indonesia, the Philippines, Mali and Somalia.

If the first premise is true--that would-be terrorists are motivated by resentment over the U.S. presence in Iraq--why should we think that they would not likewise be inflamed by an expanded U.S. presence in Indonesia, the Philippines, Mali, Somalia, etc.? Feingold doesn't say.

It seems likely that Feingold is simply engaging in what one Wall St Journal commentator called "vicarious terrorism"--that is, projecting his own policy preferences onto America's enemies and asserting that the enemies will be appeased if only those preferences become policy.

From Fox News:

President Bush made a surprise visit to Iraq on Tuesday to meet newly named Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and discuss the next steps in the troubled, three-year-old war.

It was a dramatic move by Bush, traveling to violence-rattled Baghdad less than a week after the death of terror chief Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in a bombing attack. The president was expected to be in Baghdad a little more than five hours.

You can say what you will about his successes and failures as a President, but George W. Bush certainly has courage. Not many Presidents—actually none that I know of, but I hardly claim empiracal knowledge—have made it a practice to visit our soldiers and our allies in an active war zone, and I can’t recall a time when the technological capability for the enemy to strike against a President during a visit been greater.

This article (and others, to be sure) tells a reeling al Qaeda where Bush is and when he will be leaving the airport, and the flight paths in and out of the airport are anything but secret. Frankly, I fear the possibility of an attempt to use MANPADS against Air Force One as it leaves Baghdad International. We know that insurgents have Russian-designed SA-16 man-portable surface to air missiles, and if DEBKAfilecan be believed, as many as a thousand Iranian-built SA-7s. I do not know how much of a threat to Air Force One small man-portable missiles would be, but a volley of these missiles fired simultaneously as the President’s plane was ascending could be problematic to say the least.

Those worries aside, the reasoning behind Bush’s visit is sound. He is there to give a morale boost for an American military accused of murdering innocent civilians, and to show support for the Iraqi government that seems serious about cracking down on both insurgent and sectarian violence.

Good show, Mr. President.

Quote:

---

Matter-eater Man said:
Which Dems do you feel are saying pull out but really want to stay Wonder Boy?

Personally I have more faith in the convictions of Murtha & Hillary Clinton then Rove/Bush who have demonstrated a complete lack of understanding & leadership concerning Iraq. Their "leadership" has made it tougher for our troops.

---