What the Stakes Are
Commemorating the fifth anniversary of the attack on America, President Bush gave this address. Notably, he linked what's past and out of our control, to what we can still affect by our deeds and our words:
If we yield Iraq to men like Bin Laden, our enemies will be emboldened ... they will gain a new safe haven ... and they will use Iraq's resources to fuel their extremist movement. We will not allow this to happen. America will stay in the fight. Iraq will be a free nation, and a strong ally in the war on terror.
It's worth pointing out that nothing can defeat America and its brave, mighty military but a failure of public will here at home. The kind of resolution that most of the country, along with the President, has displayed over the past years has resulted in notable progress in fighting Islamofascist terror, as Ralph Peters points out.
And that kind of courage and determination is warranted, for, as Rudy Giuliani notes, what's at stake is nothing less than the survival of freedom, and even Western Civilization.
It's a fight worth waging, and a battle that must be won. Certainly, it's easy for everyone to put on their solemn faces for one day a year (as Rush Limbaugh has observed, it seems to be the one day that the left is actually willing to acknowledge the U.S. was attacked). But as the 9/11 observances draw to a close and the political season gets underway, it's worth asking: Who is most committed to taking the fight to the enemy? Who will not shrink from making the tough calls and doing what needs to be done?
Who best remembers the lessons of 9/11 and has most firmly resolved to never, ever let it happen again?
If we yield Iraq to men like Bin Laden, our enemies will be emboldened ... they will gain a new safe haven ... and they will use Iraq's resources to fuel their extremist movement. We will not allow this to happen. America will stay in the fight. Iraq will be a free nation, and a strong ally in the war on terror.
It's worth pointing out that nothing can defeat America and its brave, mighty military but a failure of public will here at home. The kind of resolution that most of the country, along with the President, has displayed over the past years has resulted in notable progress in fighting Islamofascist terror, as Ralph Peters points out.
And that kind of courage and determination is warranted, for, as Rudy Giuliani notes, what's at stake is nothing less than the survival of freedom, and even Western Civilization.
It's a fight worth waging, and a battle that must be won. Certainly, it's easy for everyone to put on their solemn faces for one day a year (as Rush Limbaugh has observed, it seems to be the one day that the left is actually willing to acknowledge the U.S. was attacked). But as the 9/11 observances draw to a close and the political season gets underway, it's worth asking: Who is most committed to taking the fight to the enemy? Who will not shrink from making the tough calls and doing what needs to be done?
Who best remembers the lessons of 9/11 and has most firmly resolved to never, ever let it happen again?
posted by LadybugUSA at 8:06 PM
7 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
The answer to none of your closing questions, Carol, is George W. Bush or Republicans.
The latter have relentlessly rubber-stamped the agenda of the former who, to his very core, has no grasp on reality. From Iraq to Afghanistan to New Orleans to No Child Left Behind, he has done nothing but displayed a profound lack of follow-through.
His party has held a grip on power for nearly six years now. The fingers cannot point anywhere else.
And though you undoubtedly want to just skip right over "what's past and out of our control," the arrogant ineptitude of Bush and his handlers that launched this deadly boondoggle will never, ever, be irrelevant.
I hold you and every other blind Bush cheerleader responsible for what he has done to my country.
ad-hominem warning!
You, sir, are an idiot.
The stakes from the past.
When did Germany last invade a neighbor?
When did Japan last attack Pearl Harbor?
When did Iraq last invade a neighbor?
When did AQ OBL last attack the US mainland?
Names eddy boy, give us names. Or didn't Ware have any? If not, why should we pay any heed except to what the military says in public? I think you just love to suck up anything anyone says negatively and you take swallow like jello, which BTW has more sense than you. You and dukie were raggin on Cliff about being a sheep. But you just cling to anything against Bush with your BDS. Just once, post something worth debating. Make sure it has something to do with the thread. Your blather is wearing me out. What a putz.
This struck me as odd:
U.S. Commanders in Iraq have privately expressed the need for an increase of three times the number of troops currently serving in Iraq..."
Privately? With whom, the WashingPost? If they aren't expressing these things to the Joint Chiefs and to the Commander in Chief, what in the hell do they expect to get out of the bargain?
The MSNBC report begins:
A classified analysis from Col. Pete Devlin...has not been released but has been circulated in high-level Pentagon offices, according to wire reports.
Thanks, MSNBC. And thanks to the REMF from the 5-sided Wailing Wall that leaked it.
So the WashingPost sez there aren't enough troops.
John Pike, GlobalStrategy.org (quoted in the MSNBC story) doesn't necessarily say that's the way to go:
"The idea that we just give up and walk away is simply not going to happen. It's just the way it is and it will continue to take some combination of American and Iraqi forces continuing to do search-and-destroy missions and presence patrols to keep it to a low boil."
Post a Comment
<< Home