Reality Check?

[wulfie]

How to Look at the War on Terror
By David Horowitz
FrontPageMagazine.com | September 8, 2003

Imagine the date is September 12, 2001. Ask yourself this question: Are you willing to bet that two years will pass and there will not be another terrorist attack on American soil?

I will wager that there is not one person reading this column who would have made that bet two years ago.

There is only one reason for this relative security that Americans enjoy. It is not that the terrorists have given up their violent agendas or their hatred for us. They have not. It is not because America’s borders are secure or because America’s internal security systems have been successfully overhauled.

There is one reason – and one reason alone – that Americans have been safe for the almost two years since the 9/11 attacks.

That reason is the aggressive war that President Bush and the American military have waged against international terror and its Axis of Evil. The war on terror has been fought in the streets of Baghdad and Kabul instead of Washington and New York. By taking the battle to the enemy camp, by making the terrorists the hunted instead of the hunters, President Bush and the American military have kept Americans safe.

Now the battlefield of the war on terror is post-liberation Iraq. The jihadists of al-Qaeda and radical Islam and Arab fascism are crawling out of the snakepits of Tikrit and slithering across the borders from terrorist bases in Syria and Iran to attack American troops, UN diplomats and anyone helping the American cause. Their goal is self-evident: To force the collapse of civil order and to inflict enough casualties on American forces that America will withdraw.

Such a withdrawal would be a massive defeat for the forces of order and decency not only in Iraq but in the world at large. It would be a dramatic victory of the forces of evil.

If Iraq can be secured and become an American ally, then Syrian terrorism and Iranian terrorism and Palestinian terrorism will have no place to hide. American pressure on terrorists everywhere will be dramatically enhanced. If, on the other hand, America withdraws in defeat then terror will flourish again in Baghdad, Basra and Tikrit, but also in Damascus, Teheran and Ramallah.  

The way to think about the war on terror is to ask yourself who is supporting President Bush and the American military in this life and death engagement, and who is not?

Help is certainly not coming from the European nations who armed and then appeased Saddam Hussein and opposed the liberation of Iraq and who now refuse to aid America in securing the peace.

Far worse, with exception of fading candidates like Joe Lieberman and John Edwards, it is certainly not coming from the leaders of the Democratic Party who from the moment Baghdad was liberated have with ferocious intensity attacked the credibility of America’s commander-in-chief, the justification for our mission in Iraq, and the ability of our forces to prevail.

In this mission of sabotage, no political figure has stooped as low as Al Gore. In the wake of the war that went spectacularly well – the swiftest, most casualty-free liberation of a nation in human history – Al Gore has accused the President of deceit and cynical manipulation of the facts with the purpose of misleading the American public and sacrificing American soldiers. By linking these accusations to the Florida election recount, he and other Democrats have implied that the war was merely an instrument of a partisan plot to deprive them of their claim to the White House.

Gore’s bottom line in his August 7 speech attacking the President’s conduct of the war on terror was this: “Too many of our soldiers are paying the highest price for the strategic miscalculations, serious misjudgments and historic mistakes that have put them and our nation in harm’s way.”

Gore’s attack will be recorded as a milestone in the sad decline of one of America’s great political parties. In breaking bi-partisan ranks in the war on terror, Gore is seconded by both leaders of the Democratic congressional delegation and every Democratic presidential nominee with the exception of Lieberman and Edwards, and by the party’s politically activist base.

It is a dark day for Americans when one of their two ruling parties cannot be counted on to support the flag when it is committed in battle, and when the battle is America’s response to a bloodthirsty aggressor with access to biological, chemical and perhaps even nuclear weapons.

In a Memorial Day speech to American veterans, President Bush had this to say about our adversary: “The terrorists’ aim is to spread chaos and fear by killing on an ever-widening scale . . . They celebrate the murder of women and children. They attacked the civilized world because they bear a deep hatred for the values of the civilized world. They hate freedom and religious tolerance and democracy and equality for women. They hate Christians and Jews and every Muslim who does not share their narrow and violent vision.”

The President vowed to stay the course, but noted that it is only recently that America has done so. “During the last few decades the terrorists grew bolder, believing if they hit America hard, America would retreat and back down.”

Perhaps the President had in mind al-Qaeda’s attack on the World Trade Center in 1993, when President Clinton and Al Gore backed down.

Perhaps he had in mind al-Qaeda’s attack on American troops in Somalia, when President Clinton and Al Gore backed down.

Perhaps he had in mind the attack on the Khobar Towers, a dormitory housing American soldiers, where President Clinton and Al Gore backed down.

Perhaps he had in mind the attack on the USS Cole, when President Clinton and Al Gore backed down.

“Five years ago,” the President continued, “one of the terrorists said that an attack could make America run in less than 24 hours. They’re learning something different today. The terrorists have not seen America running; they’ve seen America marching. They’ve seen the armies of liberation marching into Kabul and to Baghdad.” And they know and respect the difference.

Now we are engaged in a war to drive the enemy into the ground. We have taken or killed half of al-Qaeda’s leadership; we have destroyed the regime of Saddam Hussein – harbor to terrorists and sponsor of suicide bombers – and captured or killed forty-two of its top fifty-five leaders.

The enemy understands the war we are in. It knows that it is fighting for its life in Iraq. In sabotaging the peace in Iraq, its aim is to intimidate America and force our retreat. In his Memorial Day speech, the President addressed this threat: “Retreat in the face of terror would only invite further and bolder attacks. There will be no retreat.”

Al Gore and the Democrats need to heed these words and change their course.

Unless the Democrats get behind this war, they will have no electoral future; if they do not, the nation will have no future that is secure.

[Ripsnort]

Great read, Wulfie.
These two really take the cake:
"By taking the battle to the enemy camp, by making the terrorists the hunted instead of the hunters, President Bush and the American military have kept Americans safe."

"If Iraq can be secured and become an American ally, then Syrian terrorism and Iranian terrorism and Palestinian terrorism will have no place to hide. American pressure on terrorists everywhere will be dramatically enhanced. If, on the other hand, America withdraws in defeat then terror will flourish again in Baghdad, Basra and Tikrit, but also in Damascus, Teheran and Ramallah."

Is it worth the billions of dollars to ensure a safer world for the future generations of non-violent people of the world?  I think it is.

[10Bears]

And from Rip's favorite rag, NEWSMAX

The Neocons Have Blown It
Paul Craig Roberts
Friday, Sept. 5, 2003
Do you remember the ridicule neocons heaped on critics who predicted a quagmire in Iraq? Now neocons William Kristol and Robert Kagen are calling for more troops and more money – two more Army divisions and another $60 billion, to be exact. "Next spring, if disaster looms," they write, "it may be too late."
John McCain – who experienced, but has forgotten, the Vietnam quagmire – has taken the bait and is urging Bush to send more troops. But there are no troops to send. The Pentagon doesn't know where it is going to get the troops to carry on the occupation of Iraq at the present level of troop strength. The Associated Press reports that our combat troops are going to be saddled with back-to-back assignments to overseas hotspots.

Army officials are concerned that they are going to begin losing many sergeants and junior officers. Officers in infantry divisions are scrambling to find other military jobs that are not subject to overseas deployment.

Meanwhile, the handful of neocons who got our country into this growing mess are still talking about the United States invading other Middle Eastern countries as part of their program to deracinate Islam. On top of it all, neocons want to take on North Korea, whose army outnumbers ours two to one.

Bush is trying to get other countries to send their soldiers to occupy Iraq. So far, success has eluded him. Other countries don't like to tell us "no" repeatedly. They say they have to have the cover of the United Nations, which the neocons intended to keep out. The U.N. would likely get in the way of the neocons' plan to use Iraq as a staging ground for invading Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia.

Bush, however, is getting desperate. As our soldiers are pushed off the streets of Iraq and congregate behind hopefully impenetrable barricades, Bush might have to let the United Nations rescue him on its own terms.

The U.N. should not do so, however, without a firm understanding that it is not freeing up U.S. troops for an attack on another Middle Eastern country.

If you think about it, you will realize that the neocons' war plans are taking us back to the draft. There's no way around it. Lacking sufficient military forces to occupy Iraq, with its small population of 25 million, what would we do once neocons get us mired down in Iran or Egypt, with their large populations?

Somebody needs to call a halt to this. It will not be the neocon press or Fox News that does it. These folks hide behind superpatriotism, but their real motive is to make the Middle East safe for Israel. The alliance of neocons with white Southern evangelicals is not enough to control U.S. foreign policy. Sooner or later, even the brain-dead are going to realize that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, was not a threat to us (until neocons got us mired down there) and had nothing to do with the events of Sept. 11.

We spent a fortune attacking a country that had done us no harm, killing tens of thousands of its people and giving the United States a black eye as an aggressor that starts wars on the basis of lies and disinformation. In the process, we also wrecked the political standing of our best ally, British Prime Minister Tony Blair. Two-thirds of the British people now believe that Blair intentionally made a false case for invading Iraq.

When the public tires of flag-waving and war propaganda, how will the Bush administration carry on with its pretense that we have made the world safe from terrorists by overthrowing Saddam Hussein? Voters will begin to wonder why Bush doesn't sack the neocons who have brought him such deep embarrassment. The longer Bush waits before sacking the neocons, the more voters will wonder why they voted for Bush.

Our situation in Iraq is already bad. It will become untenable if the Shiite majority decides to join in the effort to drive us out. It doesn't appear we will be able to buy off our adversaries with our money. Will we as a proud nation respond to Iraqi resistance by conscripting our sons and grandsons as targets for terrorists and guerrillas? While we are bogged down, what happens if something hits the fan in another part of the world? Will we be forced to resort to nuclear weapons?

Many people much smarter than neocons gave these warnings in response to the neocons' promise of a "cakewalk." It is time Bush replaced his delusional neocon advisers with wise people of integrity.

[Ripsnort]

I've never read Newsmax, except what you guys post here.

[AKIron]

We live in interesting times. (damn Chinese )

[AKIron]

Originally posted by 10Bears


The Pentagon doesn't know where it is going to get the troops to carry on the occupation of Iraq at the present level of troop strength.

At least this part is accurate 10Bears.

[fd ski]

How to Look at the War on Terror
By Bart Rajewski
htcoclubmaganize.com | September 8, 2003

Imagine the date is Febrary 27, 1995. Ask yourself this question: Are you willing to bet that two years will pass and there will not be another terrorist attack on American soil?

I will wager that there is not one person reading this column who would have made that bet two years ago.

There is only one reason for this relative security that Americans enjoy. It is not that the terrorists have given up their violent agendas or their hatred for us. They have not. It is not because America’s borders are secure or because America’s internal security systems have been successfully overhauled.

There is one reason – and one reason alone – that Americans have been safe for the almost two years since the 2/26 attacks.

That reason is the aggressive war that President Clinton and the American military have waged against international terror and its Axis of Evil........................

blah blah blah blah [insert you own rethoric here]

[Yeager]

(sarcastic mode ON):
As much as I hate to do it Im going to side with the americans on this one.

(sarcastic mode OFF):
I support the president with some serious reservations.

It is pretty obvious that the war on terror will have a huge battlefield in post saddam Iraq.  I support the young men and women in uniform and in harms way.  They are going head to head with the most severe die hards islamic terror has to offer.

These islamic fanatics know that the real batlefield is now in Iraq.  Thats where this fight is going down.  But it wont end there.

Im afraid as long as Islam allows and encourages murderous suicide the whole world will be in danger.  Our political beliefs  have no bearing on this fight.  Your either in it or running from it.

PS: Bart. what happened on that date anyway?

[fd ski]

First bombing of twin towers.

[MrLars]

Originally posted by 10Bears


The Pentagon doesn't know where it is going to get the troops to carry on the occupation of Iraq at the present level of troop strength.

Originally posted by AKIron
At least this part is accurate 10Bears.

Is anybody reading between the lines here?

Am I the only one who realises that the reason that GWB has gone to the UN is to save his bellybutton here in the US?

The fact that without the UN we most certanly will need to institute a draft to keep the level of support needed in Iraq in the years to come. That would effectivley end GWB's hopes of reelection.

This move to the UN is in direct conflict with this administrations past refrences to them. Can't anybody see this?

[rc51]

I would not be surprised if they bring back the draft.
And perhaps they should.
I for one have always felt that if you are of able body you should serve your country.
I did And it made me a better person.
Wulfi I agree with your statements 100 percent.
We as a nation Must stand behind our ELECTED leaders in these hard times.
And as a nation we must RESPECT the rights of those who disagree with the presidents policies.
It is after all America and EVERYONE  has a voice.
I am angry that it is necessary to send young men and women over there to die for a bunch of ARSE clown towel heads.
And yes I am pissed that Billions of Americans tax dollors will be going there as well.
But what are to do waite for another 9-11?
We can sit here and call pres Bush names and watermelon But i for one would not want his job right now.
God Bless America;)

[Eagler]

Originally posted by fd ski
First bombing of twin towers.

yes, i see it now

slick's response was of the same magnitude as GW's - minus the oral office action

as Bush stated in his speech last night - inaction is taken as a sign of weakness by these sandflea nutbags - one can't fault this admin for inaction

[Rude]

Originally posted by MrLars
Originally posted by 10Bears


The Pentagon doesn't know where it is going to get the troops to carry on the occupation of Iraq at the present level of troop strength.


 


Is anybody reading between the lines here?

Am I the only one who realises that the reason that GWB has gone to the UN is to save his bellybutton here in the US?

The fact that without the UN we most certanly will need to institute a draft to keep the level of support needed in Iraq in the years to come. That would effectivley end GWB's hopes of reelection.

This move to the UN is in direct conflict with this administrations past refrences to them. Can't anybody see this?

He tried the first time...UN said no thanks....he'll try this time and the same answer will present itself...no.

I can see it now....Bush loses re-election...Dean pulls the troops out and sucks hind teat of the UN...the US gets hit again and the democrats will blame Bush.

We are now paying for the poor decision making of the previous admin, while his wife and former cabinet are on the toob giving advice as to how we should proceed...sheesh.

It's a crazy world and some of you are the craziest:)

[midnight Target]

My plan to keep the alligators out of our local park has worked beautifully. Not a single alligator attack in the past 100+ years. The alligators are definitely on the run!

[Yeager]

I remember when saddam expelled the un inspectors and clinton sent in the cruise missles.  Then there was silence for a long time and everything settled down to normal.  I remember how somber faced he was after he ordered our brave cruise missles in, bit his lip even.  Those were the days.