Thinking Ahead
The deaths of American servicemen (and women) is always bad news. Note, however, that even under the Democrast' formulation -- troops would be in Iraq to fight Al Qaeda -- the same events could have transpired.
The larger question is how, after excoriating the President's team for supposedly having no "plan" for the aftermath of combat operations -- the Democrats can continue to urge withdrawal with nary a thought for the chaos and turmoil that would inevitably follow.
Do they really think bombings like this would stop if Americans left, or do they just don't care if Al Qaeda continues to try to turn Iraq into the new Afghanistan?
The larger question is how, after excoriating the President's team for supposedly having no "plan" for the aftermath of combat operations -- the Democrats can continue to urge withdrawal with nary a thought for the chaos and turmoil that would inevitably follow.
Do they really think bombings like this would stop if Americans left, or do they just don't care if Al Qaeda continues to try to turn Iraq into the new Afghanistan?
posted by LadybugUSA at 9:10 AM
7 Comments:
Your post is very defensive.
We are at war. Soldiers are going to die. You don't have to make apologies for it, or try to defend it by saying "They would have died under the Democrat plan anyway".
The larger issues are by what metrics should we measure progress, and when will we know we have finished? If we can't answer these questions, they we don't know what we're doing.
The Democrats' "Plan" has nothing to do with Iraq other than Iraq being a sacrificial pawn (along with millions of Iraqis) in their grand design to bring down the President of the United States.
They don't want to free millions of people from oppression. They aren't that visionary. They simply want to take over the White House and consolidate Congressional power.
Nothing. Else. Matters. To. Them.
We can't defeat Al Qaeda in Iraq; only the Iraqis can.
If they choose to slaughter each other that's their problem.
Gregdn
We can do anything we want to if we set our mind to it. We went into WWII without a merchant marine - we built on veritably overnight for example. The old saying - we can't win a land war in Asia - Well MacArthur had a plan, but Truman's ego got in the way.
If the disloyal opposition would just get out of the way it would be done!. Heck, let some of us old Vietnam vets do it!
You shouldn't risk American lives playing security guard in a civil war. Don't confuse Sunni V. Shia with Al Qaeda.
They just don't care as long as Bush or Republicans can be tarnished.
What plans have any former president had during wartime? I think it's pretty simple: win. How do we measure our success? No more scumbags shooting at us. I'm amused by such handwringing over Bush's plans, as if there is any better by his opponents. My favorite is "exit plans". I heard some lib journalist on Dennis Miller's program insist that no one goes to war without an exit plan. Since when? What was Roosevelt's exit plan? Lincoln's? Washington's? Win. That's the exit plan. It's better put in this manner: No one goes to war without planning to win. No one goes to war thinking there should be a way out if things don't go well. If one decides war is required, there's only one way to do it, and that's with the will and desire to do what it takes to win.
The left in this country need to sit down, shut up and and leave the adults to take care of business. The adults realize who is behind this "civil war", and that's AlQueda, unless Petraeus is lying. The adults realize the importance of winning this battle in Iraq and it's the one area where we agree with the enemy, who also believes this front to be the major one. Thank God that Bush doesn't listen to the naysayers and losers on the left. That would indeed be stupid on his part.
Post a Comment
<< Home