What Some Dems Didn't Want To Hear
Here are some excerpts from the speech by Iraq's Prime Minister that some Democrats wanted to cancel. Indeed, as predicted, he began by thanking the American people -- thanks that must have turned to ash in the mouths of those who have sought to cut and run:
Let me begin by thanking the American people, through you, on behalf of the Iraqi people, for supporting our people and ousting dictatorship. Iraq will not forget those who stood with her and who continues to stand with her in times of need.
Thank you for your continued resolve in helping us fight the terrorists plaguing Iraq, which is a struggle to defend our nation's democracy and our people who aspire to liberty, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. All of those are not Western values; they are universal values for humanity.
One supposes that it's not entirely surprising that he's better able to frame the larger meaning of what's happening in his country better than the people who wanted to deny him the podium in the House of Representatives. Later in the speech, he notes:
And wherever humankind suffers a loss at the hands of terrorists, it is a loss of all of humanity.
It is your duty and our duty to defeat this terror. Iraq is the front line in this struggle, and history will prove that the sacrifices of Iraqis for freedom will not be in vain. Iraqis are your allies in the war on terror.
History will record their bravery and humanity.
The fate of our country and yours is tied. Should democracy be allowed to fail in Iraq and terror permitted to triumph, then the war on terror will never be won elsewhere.
One can only hope that assurance will silent the spurious Democratic "doubts" about where Iraq stands when it comes to the U.S. and the war on terror -- and help them understand what's at stake in the struggle for a secure Iraq. Finally:
Iraq is free, and the terrorists cannot stand this.
They hope to undermine our democratically elected government through the random killing of civilians. They want to destroy Iraq's future by assassinating our leading scientific, political and community leaders. Above all, they wish to spread fear.
Do not think that this is an Iraqi problem. This terrorist front is a threat to every free country in the world and their citizens. What is at stake is nothing less than our freedom and liberty.
Confronting and dealing with this challenge is the responsibility of every liberal democracy that values its freedom. Iraq is the battle that will determine the war. If, in continued partnership, we have the strength of mind and commitment to defeat the terrorists and their ideology in Iraq, they will never be able to recover.
In other words, Prime Minister Maliki explained, so simply that even John Murtha should be able to understand it, why America must continue in Iraq until the job is done, and why gthe war in Iraq is, indeed, the central front in the war on terror.
Whatever one's views on Iraq, it should be an inspiring and joyful moment to see the democratically elected prime minister of a free Iraq address the representatives of the people who made that freedom possible. No doubt the left will be full of sour grapes; even so, it was a wonderful, heartening affirmation that America is doing what it should do -- and what it must do -- in Iraq.
Let me begin by thanking the American people, through you, on behalf of the Iraqi people, for supporting our people and ousting dictatorship. Iraq will not forget those who stood with her and who continues to stand with her in times of need.
Thank you for your continued resolve in helping us fight the terrorists plaguing Iraq, which is a struggle to defend our nation's democracy and our people who aspire to liberty, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. All of those are not Western values; they are universal values for humanity.
One supposes that it's not entirely surprising that he's better able to frame the larger meaning of what's happening in his country better than the people who wanted to deny him the podium in the House of Representatives. Later in the speech, he notes:
And wherever humankind suffers a loss at the hands of terrorists, it is a loss of all of humanity.
It is your duty and our duty to defeat this terror. Iraq is the front line in this struggle, and history will prove that the sacrifices of Iraqis for freedom will not be in vain. Iraqis are your allies in the war on terror.
History will record their bravery and humanity.
The fate of our country and yours is tied. Should democracy be allowed to fail in Iraq and terror permitted to triumph, then the war on terror will never be won elsewhere.
One can only hope that assurance will silent the spurious Democratic "doubts" about where Iraq stands when it comes to the U.S. and the war on terror -- and help them understand what's at stake in the struggle for a secure Iraq. Finally:
Iraq is free, and the terrorists cannot stand this.
They hope to undermine our democratically elected government through the random killing of civilians. They want to destroy Iraq's future by assassinating our leading scientific, political and community leaders. Above all, they wish to spread fear.
Do not think that this is an Iraqi problem. This terrorist front is a threat to every free country in the world and their citizens. What is at stake is nothing less than our freedom and liberty.
Confronting and dealing with this challenge is the responsibility of every liberal democracy that values its freedom. Iraq is the battle that will determine the war. If, in continued partnership, we have the strength of mind and commitment to defeat the terrorists and their ideology in Iraq, they will never be able to recover.
In other words, Prime Minister Maliki explained, so simply that even John Murtha should be able to understand it, why America must continue in Iraq until the job is done, and why gthe war in Iraq is, indeed, the central front in the war on terror.
Whatever one's views on Iraq, it should be an inspiring and joyful moment to see the democratically elected prime minister of a free Iraq address the representatives of the people who made that freedom possible. No doubt the left will be full of sour grapes; even so, it was a wonderful, heartening affirmation that America is doing what it should do -- and what it must do -- in Iraq.
posted by LadybugUSA at 9:19 PM
10 Comments:
Nice post ditto. Are you trying to say that it still sucks over there? That as there are still scumbags causing trouble that life will take some time to resemble normal? Just how long does it take you to find these negative snippets and what makes you think any rational human being would believe there's no positive story that counters it? If you come here posting this crap in order to sway opinion, you have to realize that the conservatives here aren't as sheep-like as you lefties are, and can weigh the positives and negatives and still see that fighting this evil is the right thing to be doing for the sake of future generations. That you, Jill and others of your ilk have a problem with your moral compasses, if indeed you've ever had one, doesn't lend credence to your position. Israel pulling out of Gaza and Lebanon should be proof enough of who we're dealing with and what our pulling out of Iraq will accomplish. Open your eyes, take off the blinders and meet reality.
If one of them was that blonde chick from Florida, I saw that bit. And it's true, the left has no idea of what is to lost by not seeing this through. They're incapable because they are blinded by their hate for Bush. They don't care about anything else. Polls, schmolls. Who's being asked? How many are being asked. Without any real plan of their own, polls are just another weapon in their campaign to divide the country and cause problems for Bush. Those pathetic hate-mongers can't see far enough to understand the real harm they are causing. No ditto. Your moral compass hasn't pointed north since at least Nov 2000.
May God bless Iraq with peace and prosperity.
I believe freedom has a chance in Iraq. I believe freedom in Iraq has the potential to improve the plight of all the people in the Middle East.
So do the terrorists. And that's why they are fighting so hard.
Greg, you're a breath of fresh air, thank you
70% of Americans think...
I asked this before of Ditto, and I may have missed it. But I'll ask again:
Ditto - based on the last 5+ years of observing GWB in office, do you think it matters to him what X % of the people think? Do you think if it becomes X+y%, that he will suddenly change his mind?
Well clearly polls only work one way in America. I do recall many a supporter of the GOP trumpeting the dip in the polls Clinton suffered at the height of his impeachment and scandalous infidelity. Nows "polls don;t matter". Odd that this would be the case since the resurgence of the GOP is based upon polling. Post-Goldwater the GOP utilized direct mailing and polls to identify what the braodest swath of the American people wanted and they ran with it. Out of this came Reagan, Bush the Elder, the Contract With America, ad the rise of the theocrats and the neocons. Each and every one of these polled out to the maxiumum to ensure political potency.
But I do feel the real American Iraq policy failure is two fold. The continuing lie that Iraq was something other than a totalitarian state before the invasion is one half and the follishness of fighting a political war instead of a military one is the other.
Back the media out of Iraq and wipe out the insurgency. Bomb baghdad to the ground if necessary. Make the living for insurgents such a Hell the UN demands the US to stop, but stop making Iraq a miniature Vietnam with draconian rules of engagement.
Americva has not the stomach Israel does. It cannot prosecute warfare in the 21st century against an enemy that hides behind children and women and wears no uniform. Were the Americans serious they could level Iraq. Given that choice I would hope any president would choose departure with honor rather than the destruction of an entire peoples.
Can anyone tell me how long US troops should stay in Iraq? As long as IT takes is no answer because not any of you nor anyone in the Bush administration can define the It they seek.
I think the modern world is too comples for either of the ideological camps in America. it may be time for America to elect a can-do President in 2008 instead of another evangelical rubber stamp or a corporate liberal lackey too rooted in their bases to effect any sort of positive change in the world.
In ten years people will repost the vitriol seen in these and liberal blogs and laugh at how dangerously silly we all were.
Cavalor Epthith
Editor-in-Chief
The Dis Brimstone-Daily Pitchfork
Well clearly polls only work one way in America. I do recall many a supporter of the GOP trumpeting the dip in the polls Clinton suffered at the height of his impeachment and scandalous infidelity. Nows "polls don;t matter".
Blah-blah-blah-blah...
Anyone who has watched GWB in office can tell that in some matters he will NOT be swayed. Period. This is one of those matters.
The quickest route out of Iraq is by victory. If you want the troops home, root for victory. It won't kill you.
The problem isn't we do not wish an American victory, nothing would be better than a unified stable Iraq rooted in democracy that is an ally of the West. But the fact remains that no one in the administration or their supporters can define what "victory" is or how to achieve it. The sure solution to increse the number of troops and break the back of the insurgency, literally re-invading Iraq and doing the job properly the second bite of the cherry.
This would be akin as you Yanks like to say to "throwing Momma under the train". "Momma" in this case is the GOP senators and reps running for election in November. The opposition would trumpet escalation and the failure to gain quick victory, which never happens when fighting an insurgency, would elicit new shouts of quagmire and echoes of Vietnam.
Such would not be the case and i am certain that if 300,000 US troops were in Iraq security could be maintained indefinitely. This being the case i think Bush should state that this number would be posted in Iraq for secuirty indefinitely. Once again this is political suicide for all those tied to the titular head of the GOP.
You cannot run a war politically and this is the lesson that neocons have not learned from Vietnam. All the rooting, patriotism, and support for a stubborn president cannot change the political landscape of a nation that is as culturally heterogeneous as Iraq.
They had no experience with democracy and as three separate nations with a cruel history of violence America was ill prepared to "fight the peace". The military once again betrayed by poor political policy. It can be fixed but at the cost of George Bush's political legacy, because of the error of the "small force", and his base pandering "Mission Accomplished" exposes the lack of expertise in such matters on the part of the current administration.
Good luck.
C.E.
The problem isn't we do not wish an American victory, nothing would be better than a unified stable Iraq rooted in democracy that is an ally of the West.
That's the first I'm hearing of it. But I'm glad that is the way you feel about it.
So often the war is framed in media reports as "Bush's war" or "a big setback for Bush". It is as though the writers cannot see anything OTHER THAN Bush. They can't imagine anything bigger at stake than the political fortunes of the President.
Should the Congressman who said the following also be disallowed from speaking in Congress?
"I don't take sides for or against Hezbollah; I don't take sides for or against Israel."
When asked, "You're not against Hezbollah?"
[Congressman] answers, "No..."
Post a Comment
<< Home