Carol Platt Liebau: A Clear Statement of Principle

Sunday, December 18, 2005

A Clear Statement of Principle

Some look at the challenges in Iraq, and conclude that the war is lost, and not worth another dime or another day. I don't believe that. Our military commanders do not believe that. Our troops in the field, who bear the burden and make the sacrifice, do not believe that America has lost. And not even the terrorists believe it. We know from their own communications that they feel a tightening noose -- and fear the rise of a democratic Iraq.

No, only the Democrats believe it.

Tonight, President Bush set forth, once again, his principles and his policy. The fact is that there are but two options: Victory and defeat. The terrorists cannot defeat us in Iraq -- they can win only with the help and complicity of those here in the United States who would lie about our mission and its successes.

The principle? Iraq's people deserve the opportunity to share in the blessings of freedom -- and with that opportunity will come the chance to reshape the Middle East as a democratic, prosperous and peaceful region, resulting in a more secure and peaceful world. The policy? Keep training the Iraqis so that their people can continue to assume more and more responsibility for their country's defense.


Blogger gemma said...

not only Iraqis deserve the opportunity to share in the blessings of freedom, the American people deserve to bask in the glow of providing that to the Iraqi people. Unlike the shameful mess created by the Vietnam era propaganda freaks like Jane Fonda and John Kerry, the American people and our protectors, the American Military need to stand up and take credit for the good deeds accomplished in Iraq and the safety provided in the USA. Thank God for GW....and his supporters.....

8:56 PM  
Blogger stackja1945 said...

"My fellow citizens: Not only can we win the war in Iraq, we are winning the war in Iraq."
Democracy will win!

11:08 PM  
Blogger GayPatriotWest said...

Carol, good post. You're right, like the president said, the only way we can lose this thing is at home. And therein Iraq is like Vietnam. Had the Democratic-controlled House not voted against supplying the South Vietnamese Army in 1975, that part of that troubled nation might still be free.

11:56 PM  
Blogger Greg said...

Re-shaping the Middle East is the long reaching, over-arching goal of Bush's policy. And it is a bold policy full of immense possibility and difficulty.

The enemy will not lie down and admit defeat even as Iraq stands on its on legs and begins to enjoy true freedom and prosperity. They will attempt to thwart change in Iraq, as well as anywhere else in the Middle East, at every stage.

The maddening and sad fact is that the Democrats in America and the left in Europe will highlight every struggle and difficulty along the way. They will actually aid the enemies of freedom even to the point of defeating freedom.


The only reason I can find is that they don't want conservatism, capitalism, or - God forbid - George W. Bush to get any credit for anything positive.

That is so incredibly short sighted and stupid.

10:24 AM  
Blogger Mr. Twister said...

Following the first Persian Gulf War, Dick Cheny said, "And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth? And the answer is not very damned many."

Now, that is a statement of principle.

8:09 PM  
Blogger Mr. Twister said...

In the 2000 Presidential election, George W. Bush said, "Let me tell you what else I'm worried about: I'm worried about an opponent who uses nation building and the military in the same sentence. See, our view of the military is for our military to be properly prepared to fight and win war and, therefore, prevent war from happening in the first place."

He also said, "I think what we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live in to build the nations. Maybe I'm missing something here. I mean we're going to have kind of a nation-building corps from America. Absolutely not. Our military is meant to fight and win war. That's what it's meant to do and when it gets overextended, morale drops."

Now, those are clear statements of principle.

8:19 PM  
Blogger Ruth Anne Adams said...

Flying hi-jacked jumbo jets into buildings and killing almost three thousand innocent civilians. That, too, is a clear statement of principle.

9/11 changed EVERYthing.

8:45 PM  
Blogger Mr. Twister said...

Ruth Anne wrote, "9/11 changed EVERYthing."

Ruth Anne, it seems I've heard this somewhere before. From my vantage point, it appears there is nothing the right wing won't attempt to justify by dancing on the graves of 3,000 Americans. Since you've put 9/11 forward as your thesis, you should be able to demonstrate 9/11 is more than just a meaningless platitude to you.

Please explain why attacking a country that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 is justified because of 9/11.

Please explain how invading a secular state and turning it into an Iranian-style Islamic Republic helps limit the number of terrorist attacks by Islamic fundamentalists and is justified by 9/11.

Please explain how giving every terrorist insurgency with access to the news a road map for tying down and bleeding the military might of the United States is justified by 9/11.

Please explain how turning Iraq into a terrorist breeding ground is justified by 9/11.

10:44 PM  
Blogger Ruth Anne Adams said...

Mr. Twister:

You quotes were both pre-9/11.

9-11 was brought on by Islamo-fascists [namely Al Quaeda].

We are fighting Islamo-fascist terrorists in Iraq. They fled from Afghanistan and found refuge in Saddam Hussein's Baathist dictatorship.

Gulf War I ended with a U.S. lead cease-fire. Iraq was continuing to engage our fighter pilots north and south of the no-fly zones and with increased impunity. They were attacking US as any Air Force member stationed there would assert.

We're fighting terrorists where they are rather than letting them get to us here.

We're taking that action because 9/11 revealed that you cannot use containment and appeasement to Islamo-fascists and survive.

I do not 'dance on the graves' of 3000. I mourn them enough to take action to prevent another 3000.

4:50 AM  
Blogger Mr. Twister said...

Ruth Ann, with all due respect you have missed my point completely.

All of the quotes I presented have nothing to do with terrorism, or 9/11, or anything of the ilk. They have to do with a "humble" foreign policy (George W Bush's term), and claims that it is not in general in the United States' interest to engage in nation building. Surely, most everyone of all political stripes can agree that Nixon's Vietnamization policy was a dismal failure.

What I want to know is why 9/11 suddenly made throwing the Powell Doctrine out the window and acceptable strategy?

Why did 9/11 suddenly imbue the US military with awesome new capabilities for nation building?

At the time Dick Cheney spoke, we already knew all about Saddam Hussein's evil nature. He had invaded and terrorized a neighboring state--so we knew all about rape rooms and torture. There was photographic evidence that he had gassed the Kurds in Hallabja.

Dick Cheny said, "And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth? And the answer is not very damned many." Given that Iraq in general and Saddam Hussein specifically had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11, why has this changed?

Sorry, but (summarizing your original post) 9/11 and the deaths of 3,000 Americans is not some kind of magic wand you can wave around to win any dispute.

7:34 PM  
Blogger Ruth Anne Adams said...

Mr. Twister:
You are blind to the paradigm shift that happened on 9/11.

If people like Cheney and Bush, who prior to it, advocated "humble foreign policy" [and NOT international meals-on-wheels like their immediate predecessor] can't you uderstand that something of MAJOR significance happened?

Islamo-fascists have always had murderous intent. But 9/11 proved they had more than mere intent...they were capable of inflicting major harm.

Bush is like Atticus Finch. Reluctantly, he's the dead-eye shot who was summoned to the deserted street to kill the rabid dog terrorizing the town.

I thank God that Bush/Cheney are in leadership and not willfully blind men like you.

7:38 AM  
Blogger Mr. Twister said...

Ruth Anne, you are not answering the question. You are like a little child who keeps putting her fingers in her ears a saying "la-la-la, 9/11, 9/11." The phrase 9/11 is not some talisman that magically converts non-sequiters into reasoned discourse.

Let's me make one last attempt. I will accept one of your statments as a given, and I will ask one question based on your contention. The test here is to see if you can give an honest, logical answer without invoking "paradigm shifts" or other college level pseudo-sophistry.

You wrote, "Islamo-fascists have always had murderous intent. But 9/11 proved they had more than mere intent...they were capable of inflicting major harm. "

OK, fair enough. My question is, how does using the United States military to convert Iraq from a secular state to an Iranian style Islamic Republic, lessen the threat of the Islamo-fascism?

10:39 PM  
Blogger Ruth Anne Adams said...

Here's my answer: Islamic lead goverment does not necessarily mean Islamo-fascism. The Iraqi people have had years of oppression and woe at the hands of dictators who support terrorists. I believe they will reject that type of nation-state for a more peaceful, stable form of government. Iraqis are just like us: they want to live their lives and raise their children and not live in fear.

People inherently seek freedom. When a dictator is present, freedom is minimized.

The Iraqi people, now free of Saddaam Hussein, are free to select that form of government which they choose. Being neighbors and former enemies with Iran, I hardly think they'll style their government to look like the oppressive Ayatollah-lead regime next door. In fact, while we're there, they won't.

Historically, democracies [or democratic republics like we have] DO NOT attack other democracies.

I am often baffled at how people presume that Islamic nations can't/won't/don't deserve to be free.

It took a long time post-WWII to rebuild Germany and Japan. The Marshall plan succeeded there, in making allies from former bitter enemies. I believe Bush's Middle East policy is more akin to the Marshall plan. The only way it fails is if we abandon a fledgeling democracy/republic/whatever-they-decide-upon before it is ready to fly.

5:27 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home