Dems Must March in Lock Step, Or Else!

Democrat Washington Representative Denis Baird is feeling the heat for changing (gasp!) his stance on the war in Iraq and supporting Bush's Surge strategy.

A month after Baird, a Democrat from Washington state, switched his views on Iraq and embraced President Bush’s surge strategy, he remains persona non grata in many circles.

At home, he is besieged by angry protesters and hostile ads.

There is no room in the Democrat Party these days for difference of opinion! He must be discredited and driven off.

I give Rep. Baird a lot of credit because he had to know that he would be attacked by the extreme left wing that influences his party and tried to unseat Joe Leiberman.

“There were a few who felt I undermined the message, but I could really care less,” he said Tuesday. “Some were mad at me that I was going off message. In fact, even some of the people who had been pro-war said that to me. ... They were so quickly jumping to criticism of someone with a different position. It’s unfortunate that we’re being driven by such an extreme wing right now.”

Baird argued that the anti-war faction of his party allowed no room for alternate approaches.

“They are driving the agenda far too much, and it’s the wrong direction for this country,” he said. “We all agree that we can’t stay forever there, but how we withdraw and when we withdraw and why we withdraw matters a great deal to our own security, the legacy we leave in Iraq and our public image internationally.”

Hang in there Mr. Baird. Your doing the right thing.

Troop Withdrawl Proposal

Supporting the War - Why we must win in Iraq

In my previous post, Shane referenced a couple of posts I made several months ago. It gave me a chance to reread them and reflect on what I had said. I'm very happy with what I wrote and wanted to actually expand on a point I brought up here.

I believe that Iraq is the front line in the war on terror. We are there to stabilize the region by helping Iraq democratize. I believe that spreading freedom and liberty is a good thing. It is in our county's best interest to have stability in the Middle East. Frankly, we need a free flow of oil. By doing so, they can have peace and prosperity and stop hating and resenting the USA.

It is critical that we set up a long term base of operations in Iraq. We must be a presence in this region that is a hotbed and training ground for terrorists. By our being there we will stabilize the area and provide hope for the vast majority of the peace loving population. We can eliminate Muslim Extremest Terrorism by being there. If we leave now, the terrorists will overtake these countries and create a situation that will imperil the US and the rest of the western world.

Supporting the Troops

Shane goes through some pretty convoluted attempts to claim he supports the troops in Iraq here. He calls out a couple of my previous posts somehow trying, I think, to prove that I'm a hypocrite on the subject. I've read the post several times and still have difficulty trying to understand his point.

He claims this "To speak out against the war was to put the troops in harms way. Andy typifies that here, when he made the false claim that terrorist would attack the US before the last election: (emphasis mine)"

in reference to this statement from me "By liberals and Democrats opposing the war the way they do, they put our service men in more danger. The terrorists and insurgents know that they have their chances of victory are greater if liberals and Democrats are in power. And by knowing this, their resolve is strengthened. If, on the other hand, liberals and Democrats were in full support of the war and not so passive and anti-Bush, the enemy would be demoralized and weaker with less of our service men dying.
-
Yes, I blame the anti-war liberals and Democrats for the reason more Soldiers and Marines are dying than should be. The enemy knows that they can easily manipulate our liberal media and liberal politicians"

I don't know were he gets that I claim terrorists will attack the US before the election. I also don't see where I'm a hypocrite.

Anyway, in rereading the two posts he references, I still stand by them and still believe them to be true. I'm calling out the anti war Liberals and Democrats and how their anti war position on the war is hurting our troops and strengthening the resolve of the enemy.

I believe they want to lose the war and are doing all they can to see that happen as I say here. Harry Reid has even publicly declared the war lost. What kind of message does that send our troops? What kind of message does that send our enemy? When the Senate Majority Leader makes a declaration like that, it only confirms what I have said.

I also cannot reconcile the statement "I support the troops but I don't support their mission". How can that be? They all volunteered to serve knowing the risks and what they're mission is. They are going into it willingly. How can you honestly say you support the troops but not what they are doing? Perhaps I'm affected by the anti war people during the Viet Nam war who openly and publicly expressed their hate and disgust towards the troops.

Read this without getting upset

I heard about this today, it's from Michael Yon: Online Magazine, a blogger reporting from Iraq. It sounds too evil to be true and maybe it isn't but after reading much of his recent entries in his Blog, I believe it to be true.

The official reported that on a couple of occasions in Baqubah, al Qaeda invited to lunch families they wanted to convert to their way of thinking. In each instance, the family had a boy, he said, who was about 11-years-old. As LT David Wallach interpreted the man's words, I saw Wallach go blank and silent. He stopped interpreting for a moment. I asked Wallach, "What did he say?" Wallach said that at these luncheons, the families were sat down to eat. And then their boy was brought in with his mouth stuffed. The boy had been baked. Al Qaeda served the boy to his family.

This, along with their (al Qaeda) beheadings and Saddam's evil atrocities is not reason enough to wipe these monsters out? I'm sure most of the Soldiers, Marines, Sailors and Pilots fighting in Iraq right now would love to kill one of these al Qaedas.

Most importantly, these are the people we will leave to take over Iraq and attack the US if we leave and pull out before the job is done.

Is what supposedly happened in Abu Ghraib or Gitmo even come close to what these people do to other people? I don't think so.

By the way, I couldn't think of anything for the rest of the day but to get home and give my 12 year old son a big hug and kiss.

Which Party Benefits if We Lose in Iraq?

And which party benefits if we win?

To answer my own rhetorical question, the Democrat Party have clearly positioned themselves to be the beneficiaries of a loss in Iraq. They have invested heavily in the US "redeploying" and pulling out, letting the Iraqis fight it out amongst themselves in their so-called "sectarian civil war". This is why they oppose the additional 20,000 troop surge and are fighting to defy the Constitution in usurping the President's powers and responsibilities.

They cannot afford to allow the United States of America to win the war in Iraq. They fear victory and oppose the President's every move. They are enjoying and reveling in the current problems we are experiencing, ignoring war history where every war we have fought has been full of problems and mistakes that had to be overcome.

It's sad that we have a political party who wishes defeat for our country. Their actions are giving our enemies encouragement to fight on. I can only hope that President Bush can keep his faith that he is doing the right thing and history will be kind to him.

More on Hillary Lying

There is more on Hillary lying this past weekend when she spoke in Iowa. In October 2002, she gave a speech on the Senate floor fully supporting President Bush and her vote authorizing him to use military force.

Here are a few highlights from that speech.

Now, I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people, even his own family members, to maintain his iron grip on power. He used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds and on Iranians, killing over 20 thousand people.

In 1998, Saddam Hussein pressured the United Nations to lift the sanctions by threatening to stop all cooperation with the inspectors. In an attempt to resolve the situation, the UN, unwisely in my view, agreed to put limits on inspections of designated "sovereign sites" including the so-called presidential palaces, which in reality were huge compounds well suited to hold weapons labs, stocks, and records which Saddam Hussein was required by UN resolution to turn over. When Saddam blocked the inspection process, the inspectors left. As a result, President Clinton, with the British and others, ordered an intensive four-day air assault, Operation Desert Fox, on known and suspected weapons of mass destruction sites and other military targets.

This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make -- any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction.

And perhaps my decision is influenced by my eight years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our nation. I want this President, or any future President, to be in the strongest possible position to lead our country in the United Nations or in war. Secondly, I want to insure that Saddam Hussein makes no mistake about our national unity and for our support for the President's efforts to wage America's war against terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. And thirdly, I want the men and women in our Armed Forces to know that if they should be called upon to act against Iraq, our country will stand resolutely behind them.

Hillary Lying About Her Vote to Authorize Military Force

Back in 2003, Senator Hillary Clinton said the following to Code Pink, an anti-war group:

There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm's way, that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm. And I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something I've followed for more than a decade. If he were serious about disarming, he would have been much more forthcoming. I ended up voting for the resolution after carefully reviewing the information, intelligence that I had available, talking with people whose opinions I trusted, tried to discount the political or other factors that I didn't believe should be in any way a part of this decision. I would love to agree with you, but I can't based on my own understanding and assessment of the situation.

With respect to whose responsibility it is to disarm Saddam Hussein, I just do not believe that, given the attitudes of many people in the world community today, that there would be a willingness to take on very difficult problems, were it not for the United States leadership, and I'm talking specifically about what had to be done in Bosnia and Kosovo where my husband could not get a Security Council resolution to save the Kosovar Albanians from ethnic cleansing. And we did it alone as the United States, and we had to do it alone. And so I see it somewhat differently. So forgive me for my experience and perspective.

Last Saturday, in Iowa, she said this about her vote to authorize military force:

I think it's the height of irresponsibility, and I really resent it. This was his decision to go to war. He went with an ill-conceived plan and an incompetently executed strategy, and we should expect him to extricate our country from this before he leaves office.

I said that we should not go to war unless we have allies, so he took the authority that I and others gave him, and he misused it. And I regret that deeply. And if we had known then what we know now, there never would have been a vote, and I never would have voted to give this president that authority. … There are no do-overs in life. I wish there were. You know, I acted on the best judgment that I had at the time, and at the time I said this was not a vote for preemptive war, and the president took my vote and other votes and basically misused the authority we gave him

Back in 2003 she was gung-ho about going to war against Iraq and seemed to be putting the anti-war group Code Pink in their place. Now she's claiming Bush lied and basically tricked her into voting for the authority.

She's either lying, not bright enough to remember what she said about something this important, or thinks the American people are too stupid to figure out what she's doing.

Cpl. Jason Dunham, Medal of Honor

From USA Today:

In April 2004, Dunham, a 22-year-old corporal, received a report that a Marine convoy had been ambushed, according to a Marine Corps account. Dunham led his men to the site near Husaybah, halting a convoy of departing cars. An insurgent in one of the vehicles grabbed him by the throat when he went to search the car and the two fought. A grenade was dropped, and Dunham covered the explosive with his Kevlar helmet, which along with his chest plate absorbed some of the blast.

He died a few days later.

"I've lost my son but he became a part of history," Dunham's mother, Deb, said after the ceremony. "It still hurts as a parent, but the pride that you have from knowing he did the right thing makes it easier."

What the Democrats Said About Iraq and WMDs

With the Democrats bashing Bush for wanting to win the war by increasing troop levels and renewing their claims that he lied about WMDs I feel it important to remind everybody what Democrats said about Iraq, Saddam, and WMDs when they had the White House and when the polls supported war soon after 9/11.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source


- I got the quotes from the Glen Beck web site.

Iraq's Economy is Booming, Believe it or Not

Check this out. Good news about Iraq. Seems that their economy is doing quite well. They seem to have embraced the Free Market concept.

Give Rep. Silvestre Reyes a Break

The newly appointed chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Democrat Silvestre Reyes recently failed a "test" given to him by Congressional Quarterly's National Security Editor, Jeff Stein.

Mr. Stein embarrasses Rep. Reyes in his article by asking him if Al Qaeda is made up of Sunni or Shia and what Hezbollah is. Reyes answered wrong on the Al Qaeda question and was unable to answer the Hezbollah question.

At first I thought it was funny and felt smug that he didn't know but being honest with myself, I couldn't answer the questions either. I consider myself fairly knowledgeable in the Middle East but I discovered that I didn't really know as much as I thought.

Reyes probably should know, but I know that as a Rep. he has a lot of work on his plate every day and just finished an election campaign. He and all the Reps are very busy people with a tremendous amount of responsibilities. They can't know everything.

So I say give the guy a break! He's a smart man with a good staff. He'll soon know all there is to know about the Middle East and the situation there.

By the way I now know that Al Qaeda is made up of Sunii who hate the Shiite and that Hezbollah is an Iranian organization that is close to taking over Lebanon and helping train Iraqi Shiites to kill Sunnis hoping to start a civil war.

How Liberalism Created the Current Mess in the Middle East

It all started with Liberal President Jimmy Carter in the late 1970's. I know I'm going back before most of you Liberal bloggers were born but it is important to understand how the actions of one Liberal President in four short disastrous years created the current situation in the Middle East that we are now living with and trying to clean up.

Back in the 70s, we were allies with Iran. The Shah was our friend, even though he was not the best ruler. He was trying to bring a backwards society into the modern world and it could be agreed that he ran an oppressive regime by trying to do so. However, our alliance with him was strategically important. Considering the other governments and regimes in the Middle East at the time, the Shah was pro-America and the best we had.

Soon after Carter became President, he pressured the Shah to stop holding military tribunals and to release political prisoners, most of whom were known terrorists, and try them in civilian courts. These civilian trials soon became flash points for anti-Shah demonstrations and protests by his enemies.

Carter also threatened to cut off military aid and support unless the Shah permitted "free assembly" which certainly isn't a bad thing and I'm sure Carter meant well, but under the circumstances at the time, it allowed the Shah's enemies to exploit the situation. By changing his policy under pressure from Carter, the Shah's enemies saw more weakness and opportunity to stir up unrest, protests and demonstrations.

In November 1977, the Shah went to Washington to meet with Carter who urged the Shah to appease the protesters and not to use force to stop the protests and demonstrations. He was also pressured by Carter not to do anything in 1979 when the revolutionary riots began. Had the Shah's government arrested the most corrupt government officials and businessmen who were spearheading the revolution, they would have been able to stop it.

The Shah, having been a friend and ally of the US for over 35 years, thought we would not let him down. However, Carter didn't even want to allow him medical sanctuary when he was forced to escape Iran after the overthrow. Carter abandoned the most pro-Western leader in the Persian Gulf which led to the takeover of the country by the Ayatollah Khomeini who was strongly anti-American.

Carter thought that he would win support of the new Iran government by his appeasement and "neutral" policy towards the situation. He even rushed to formally recognize the new government. Of course, the new Iranian government took over our embassy and held American citizens hostage until Reagan's first day in office a year later. Carter, as we all know, failed miserably in dealing with the Iran Hostage Crisis.

With our only ally in the Persian Gulf gone, we were forced to align ourselves with Saddam Hussein and Iraq who were at war with our new enemy, Iran. The Iran/Iraq war came about from Hussein rising to power and seeing weakness in Iran through them rejecting us as their ally and going through their revolution. Reagan, who wanted stability in the region, had to choose the lesser of two evils and went with Hussein.

This clearly shows Carter's Liberal appeasement with Iran throughout his Presidency did not prevent war and bloodshed in the region. It created more. And we are still dealing with the consequences today.

Sources:

• Chuck Morse, "Carter Sold Out Iran - 1977-1978"
• Eilo Bonazzi, "Double Standards and Deception: How the Left Treats Iran and the Middle East" www.iranvoice.org
• Ronald Reagan, "An American Life"
• David Reynolds, "One World Divisible: A Global History Since 1945"
• J.M. Roberts, "Twentieth Century, The History of the World, 1901 to 2000"
• Samir al-Khalil, "The Republic of Fear: The Inside Story of Saddam's Iraq"
• Sean Hannity, "Deliver Us From Evil"

Iraq Celebrates as Saddam is Convicted!

What a wonderful day for the people of Iraq. Saddam is convicted of crimes against humanity and is sentenced to death.

Iraqis celebrate!

Good triumphs over evil!

Stuk & Stoopid Soldiers

First Person Good News About our Presence in Iraq

The Missoulian ran a nice letter to the editor from an individual who has been there twice. Once as a soldier in 2003 and again, recently, as an archaeologist on the Mass Graves Investigative Team.

Letters for Monday, August 28, 2006

Media doesn't report on the positive

I just returned from a tour as an archaeologist on the Mass Graves Investigative Team in Iraq. Basically, I spent my summer excavating mass graves of Saddam Hussein's victims. This was my second time to Iraq, my first being a combat tour in 2003. It sickened me (as it did the first time) as the media reported on everything negative but nothing positive on what is going on in Iraq and the war against Islamic fascism. To enlighten all you left-wing elitists, let me tell you what I observed.The vast majority of Iraqis love Americans. I know this because I worked with them daily and learned their customs, their language and their world view. When the press shows some disgruntled Iraqi whining about Americans, it is one of Saddam's former minions who benefited from his regime.

The Iraqis want more, not fewer American troops, as they know we will get the job done and do it right.Marines, sailors and airmen are fed up with the left-wing media and their biased reporting. While I was in Iraq, American troops built hospitals, schools and infrastructure that did not exist prior to the war. American troops provide medical care, counseling for Iraqi families and have inoculated millions of Iraqi children. Millions have benefited from the American liberation of Iraq, yet the press seems fixated on focusing its efforts to dishonor America and her fighting men and women.So, this is for all the progressive and "open-minded" folks here, especially those of you who are ready to start back up at the university. America is winning the war against Islamic fascism. The Iraqi people love Americans and appreciate all the good that we have accomplished. The press is biased and its goal is to dishonor our nation and our fighting men and women.

Thomas Livoti, Missoula

Thank you, Mr. Livoti, for your letter and your service to our great country!

Feminization of War

War has become "feminized". We can no longer go into a war situation and just crush the enemy. Not since WWII have we been able to decisively win a war. Korea is still in a cease fire, we lost in Viet Nam, we didn't finish the first Gulf War, and we are playing around in Iraq right now. In every one of these cases we did not unleash the full force of our military to completely win and force the enemy to surrender. The masculine thing would have been to do just such - wipe out the enemy. The feminine thing to do is what and why we are in the current state of affairs now. The enemy and/or future enemies are not afraid of us. They know we will wimp out and capitulate in the end because our liberal polititians and media will do everything they can to sway public opinion by emphasizing the cost in lives. We need to toughen up and fight this war until we win it. Quit worrying about what the world thinks and whether we might hurt the feelings and offend the detainees and prisoners at Gitmo or Abu Ghraib or listen in on a terrorist's phone call originating from the US. What a joke! Toughen up buttercup.

During WWII, the US lost over 292,000 soldiers while the Japanese lost over 2.0 million soldiers and Germany lost over 2.3 million soldiers. All this in four years! Compare that with the last four wars. We took WWII seriously and put our full force and might towards winning - and we did - decisively. When there is evil in the world - and there certainly is - who what to destroy our way of life and security we have to defend ourselves and our way of life. We have become so comfortable and sanitized that we can no longer tolerate a costly war. The media are going nuts over the 2500+ US deaths in Iraq. By comparison, it should be celebrated that so few are being lost.

Every death is a tragedy, however, when it is in defense against evil, it is necessary. I am proud to live in a country where my liberty and freedom are worth dying for. I honor and celebrate those who gave their lives so that I can enjoy these freedoms. I have relatives that have fought and died and understand that cost. I am willing to do the same and I know my son is as well. It's the cost we must pay as a freedom loving civilization.