Carol Platt Liebau: What Some Dems Didn't Want To Hear

Wednesday, July 26, 2006

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.

18 Comments:

Blogger JillMartin said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

10:01 PM  
Blogger JillMartin said...

The majority of Americans are tired of the republicans and the administration lying to them.

Words are cheap especially when they come from the administration's writers and followed with a request for more money and more troops to help fight an Iraqi CIVIL WAR.

Now, Bush is considering taking a major role in a 30,000 commitment of troops to Lebanon. The uniformed military, however, is ardently opposed to sending American soldiers to the region. “They are saying 'What the f**k?'. Most of our combat-ready divisions are in Iraq or Afghanistan, or on their way, or coming back. We're already way overstretched.”

10:12 PM  
Blogger JillMartin said...

New record low for Bush!

Pessimism about the Mideast extends to U.S. efforts in Iraq. Just 27 percent of Americans — the lowest number to date — now believe the United States is winning the war.

10:21 PM  
Blogger Dittohead said...

More evidence Bush is incompetent, negligent and not fit to be CIC:

"It sucks. Honestly, it just feels like we're driving around waiting to get blown up.”

The patrol led by Capt. Mike Comstock, 27, of Boise, Idaho stopped at homes and shops to conduct a "SWET assessment": checking the sewage, water and electricity services available to residents. "I can't fix electricity or sewers all the time" Comstock told Adnan, a Bayaa resident. "Patrolling your neighborhood is one thing we can do. I hope that helps."

"We just receive promises around here, nothing else," Adnan, told Comstock. "Three years, just promises, and promises and promises."

According to Mohamed Taha al-Mousawi, an adviser at the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs, the national unemployment rate surpassed 60 percent last year. "And the rate rose further in the first quarter of this year, as many policemen and army members quit their jobs due to threats by militants groups," al-Mousawi said. He added that his ministry had no plans to promote employment until the security situation had improved.

11:27 PM  
Blogger Dittohead said...

Jill,

I wonder where Bush is going to get the troops. He promised 6,000 troops to secure the US/Mexican border and couldn't find enough ...

"Operation Jump Start, to strengthen the Border Patrol with National Guard troops, seems to have stalled. There are less than 900 guards actually on the border right now." (CBS' "Evening News," 7/9/06)

11:57 PM  
Blogger Marshall Art said...

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.

12:03 AM  
Blogger Dittohead said...

Marshall,

70% of Americans think Bush has led the country in the wrong direction and made the US less secure. As Jill commented only 27% think the US is winning the war. And 80% of national security experts say we are losing the war on terrorism, the world is less safe. The nation is also divided evenly on the Israel/Lebanon conflict.

Fact of the matter is that the Iraqi PM has close ties to Iran and Hezbollah. Bush can pretend all he wants for political reasons but it simply does not change things.

No one who is serious believes Iraq will have a democracy for many decades, if ever. Voting doesn't create a democracy as can be seen with Iran.

What Bush has really accomplished is to unite the shittes, Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. It is a swarming hornets nest now.

My moral compass is properly aligned with the majority of Americans. You might want to consider better and more varied news sources.

2:34 AM  
Blogger wile e coyote said...

Dhead and Jill Martin arguments revolve around public dissatisfaction with the war and overstretched US forces.

The only opinion poll that really matters is the election. A majority of electors and (this time around) a majority of voters signed onto Bush for another four years as commander and chief. Our war in Iraq was properly authorized by massive bipartisan Congressional support; Congress had the responsibility to dig into the intelligence to determine for itself whether the Administration was right in its assessments.

If you ran wars by opinion polls, we would have lost the Revolutionary War around the time of Valley Forge, the Civil War around the time of Cold Harbor, and World War II before we entered it. (Had the public understood the degree to which Roosevelt was propping up England before US entry into the war, there would have been cries for impeachment in 1940/41, US aid would have stopped and Britain would have fallen.)

As is the case in any war, there have been massive screw ups. Much of the blame belongs to arrogance and pig-headedness in Rumsfeld's Defense Department. So what do we do? Quit and go home? If you run from these people, they will come after you.

We are in it; now we have to win it. I think we will have troops in Iraq for 30-60 years, about as long as we have had troops in Germany and Japan. If we lose 1,000 troops a year, we can be in Iraq 50 years before we hit the number of fatalities from Vietnam or Korea.

My own view is that the states principally supporting the insurgency, Iran and Syria, need a taste of their own medicine. It wouldn't be such a bad thing if insurgents funded and trained by Iraq started blowing up government buildings and infrastructure in those countries.

Jill and Dhead also make an excellent case for reviving the draft, which I support. (And yes, Dhead, I registered for the draft when I was 18. I also applied for a reserve commission in the Navy after college, but it was during the late 1980's reduction in force and the Navy didn't need any reserve officers.)

I can't see why any American would be satisfied with the state of affairs in Iraq. But, I don't see any hard-headed proposals about what else to do.

We broke it, we bought it.

Deal with it.

7:45 AM  
Blogger dodger said...

Marshall and Wiley, good rebuttals. Good reaffirmation of what we are about. If there were a poll question put to me, "Do you like war?" what would my answer be? Or, "Do you like necessary wars?" Same answer. I presume the MSM polls ask those same questions, more cleverly spun. "Do you approve of how the President is conducting the war?" Well, he hasn't won yet, so what do you think my answer would be. "Do you approve of waging war against terrorists?" Now there is a question I could answer. On one talk show a couple of Democrat congress were asked if they would characterize Hez and Hamas as terrorists. They were asked about seven times. They still would not answer yes or no. Maybe that's the problem, those on the left don't even know what a terrorist is.

8:13 AM  
Blogger Marshall Art said...

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.

12:51 PM  
Blogger Greg said...

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.

6:46 PM  
Blogger The Flomblog said...

Greg, you're a breath of fresh air, thank you

8:05 AM  
Blogger eLarson said...

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?

11:30 AM  
Blogger Cavalor Epthith said...

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

3:38 PM  
Blogger eLarson said...

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.

6:20 AM  
Blogger Cavalor Epthith said...

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.

8:53 AM  
Blogger eLarson said...

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.

5:43 AM  
Blogger eLarson said...

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..."

8:51 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Google