BUSH: GIVE HIM CREDIT WHEN CREDIT IS DUE
For those of you who read this site daily or occasionally you know that I am a Bush supporter who does not support blindly and has a number of disagreements with the President. I disagree with much of his immigration policy. I disagree with the entitlements that he has introduced and have become active. I disagree with some of his domestic spending because it has been excessive and also along with the entitlements has actually increased the size of government and as a conservative I am against big government. To his credit he has started to come around fiscally though his immigration stance still remains the same. With that said it is high time to give the President credit where credit is due. I am mainly speaking of Iraq and the rest of the War on Terror. There have been numerous calls by Democratic leaders like, Nancy Pelosi, John Murtha, Harry Reid and John Kerry for an immediate pull out from Iraq thus abandoning this theater of war even as progress which has been taking place all along but is now become so evident that the press can no longer hide this truth. The President after making his surprise and unannounced visit to Iraq this week stated that the calls by the left for a pull out are political grand standing in an election year. I agree. To leave Iraq now because of the great success that has taken place in the last weeks with the death of Zarqawi and the crack down that has and is taking place as a result of information acquired from Zarqawi would be one of the largest military and political mistakes that this country has ever made. We made a commitment to the Iraqi people and the new government to stay the course until Iraq could govern and protect herself completely. This is happening and the end game is near but the full mission is not complete. To his credit, despite pressure from the left and the misinformation from the media which has caused popularity of the Iraq situation to fall, President Bush has stayed the course and stood steadfastly to insure that the mission is completed. More and more evidence is coming forth as documents from the Hussein regime are being translated that not only prove the President correct in moving against Iraq but Hussein's involvement with Al Qaeda, and other terrorist groups shows he was sponsoring terrorism though not directly involved with 9/11. This combined with the documented revelations concerning the whereabouts of the hiding and dispersal of Iraqi WMD again proves that Iraq was a danger to the world. People seem to forget that the United Nations and the previous U.S. administration created the policy of regime change in Iraq due to the WMD threat and Iraq's continual lack of cooperation with the world community. President Bush because of the after effects of 9/11 and the way that the attacks changed our view of terrorism and those who sponsored terrorism moved in a war status on both Afghanistan and Iraq based on certain policies that were already in place before he took office and upon military and policy evaluation after 9/11. War is not an exacting science. In every conflict throughout history wars are fought with a plan in place that requires continual changes and correction which in most cases are learned by blunders and mistakes that have taken place in planning and execution on the battle field. Iraq and Afghanistan are no different. Both theatres in the war on terror have had blunders and great success. Accomplishments far out weigh the mistakes. Yet with the continual help of the media and the critics from the left, the mistakes are all that are viewed and reported. Yet despite this both countries have freely elected governments and Constitutions. Both countries are defeating and over coming the terrorist and sectarian violence within their land. And both countries are experiencing freedoms that they never thought possible in the past. Staying the course does have it set backs but its accomplishments are far more evident because of what these two nations have and are becoming. It takes a considerable amount of character and stubbornness to stand firm when most are crying retreat. When one is standing for what is right then being stubborn is an attribute and not a detriment. President Bush and the men and women of the United States military have displayed this attribute to their credit and to the betterment of the world and especially the security of the United States and the lives of the people of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Ken Taylor
Ken Taylor
posted by The Liberal Lie The Conservative Truth | 2:55 PM
7 Comments:
"War is not an exacting science. In every conflict throughout history wars are fought with a plan in place that requires continual changes and correction which in most cases are learned by blunders and mistakes that have taken place in planning and execution on the battle field. Iraq and Afghanistan are no different. Both theatres in the war on terror have had blunders and great success. Accomplishments far out weigh the mistakes."
Mike, I wouldn't call them "blunders" but "unexpected hazzards". The biggest trouble is that MSM focuses too much on these than the accomplishemnts our military has done. It is folks like you, me and countless other bloggers who need to keep reminding others of this. Keep up the good work! We ARE being heard!
Well said Ken! I am proud to have a President that stands firm on his beliefs and sticks with it to the end no matter what the polls say.
I am very limited as to my ability to criticize the President. I am an avid supporter, with an occasional bone to pick. In regards to the war however, I think he has done a good job. And Pamela, I am glad you brought up the fact that a war does start out as a science in its initial conception. But very quickly it becomes more of an art.
Ken,
Give Bush credit? Come on, you are smarter than that! To give Bush credit would mean having to push your entire purpose of existence to the side, some may unwillingly be willing to give a quiet nod in his direction. But far too many are invested to the eyeballs with the demise of the President, Bush curing cancer wouldn’t be enough to convince them he is not the horrible person they are intent on proving.
Here was the plan - go in with too few troops (we still have too few troops for the mission). Remove all forms of functioning government and disband the military. Once there are no functioning institutions left in the country, put Chalabi and a few Iraqi exiles in charge, sprinkle some fairy dust, and presto - we have Jeffersonian, pro-American democracy. Childishly silly.
In the first Gulf War we had a half million U.S. troops and another 160,000 coalition troops (including many from Arab and Muslim countries). Seventy percent of the war's costs were paid for by other countries. The doctrine of overwhelming your enemy was at work. On top of that, there was no plan to occupy the country. We can see how poor the plan was this time in terms of casualties and cost.
Well at least the Chinese are happy. Since the war began they have purchased nearly $200 billion in U.S. treasury notes which allows us to fund Bush's grand experiment in democracy. Of course we have to pay them back with interest. But hey, America will pay any cost and go into as much debt as necessary so that Iraqis can live in a free Islamic theocracy.
“On top of that, there was no plan to occupy the country. We can see how poor the plan was this time in terms of casualties and cost.”
Right, the goal of the first war was attained. The guidelines for that war were from the UN. Which allowed Saddam to stay in power and ultimately continue weapons development, kill his own people, and say “FU” to the UN inspectors.
Every death is HORRIBLE, but when compared to other wars this casualty level doesn’t even compare. If the war required more troops, and we are in it whether people like it or not, why aren’t the politicians demanding more troops NOW? In modern war we have become overly cautious of civilian casualties. I know that sounds bad, but when the war started and a town was identified as harboring terrorists they should have been given the chance to point out who’s who. If that didn’t happen the town should have been bombed into the stone-age.
Yes, all of it. You can try to target suspected buildings, but this explicit exemption for anyone not in uniform is a joke. Terrorists don’t wear uniforms. Sometimes they ARE women and children. No one wants to kill children, but in my personal opinion if there is a radically religious school for kids teaching them to hate America and training the children to use AK-47’s. Well a kid with an AK does no less damage than a 30 year old.
It is the cold hard truth. Al Jazeera and the likes would never actually show the weapon in the child’s hands or nearby, it was just an innocent child playing in the yard. Pay no attention to the ammunition in the family’s home or the gun 2 feet away.
Vern just in case you haven't been paying attention. Zarqawi was in Iraq and harbored by Hussein when he fled Afghanistan. The terrorist, whose name I have forgotten, that masterminded and executed the Achille Laurel terrorist attack in the 80's. He disappeared and after the invasion was found to have been living as a guest of Iraq since his disappearance. Additionally their were numerous terrorist training camps found in Northern Iraq shortly after Husseins defeat. Some of which contained a plane fusalge in order to practice the hijacking of planes. Whether you accept the documents that have been translated or not the fact remains that through documentaion by the Hussein regime he harbored and trained terrorista and supplied material and financing for terroist attacks. Or do you think that Bush had these documents created in Arabic then translated in order to prove him right ? This is just the type of stupidity that some of the left has tried to accuse Bush of. Fabricating a war for oil, assasinating civilians, fabricating intelligence, lying to the public, so why not add creating false documents in Iraq. Problem is that all of the above are not nor ever have been true. the iraqi documents have been found in Iraq and have been translated showing what was taking place for years prior to and just before the invasion. This argument though is a moot point because as MDComservative said regardless of the accomplishments or the success or the proven facts the left will never give credit to Bush or the military for anything except to accuse both of waging war for false and illegal reasons.
Ken
All the pre-war reasons for invading Iraq have proven false. But let's say there was a good reason (which I do not believe), the execution of the "plan" (if we can call it that) has been horrible and continues to be childish.
The plan today is just stay the course and just hope things get better. At best we are going to be able to leave in about a year after a fragile Shiite theocracy that is more closely aligned with Iran than the U.S. is established. At worst, we are going to stay in Iraq for years, expend several thousand more American lives, spend billions more of borrowed Chinese money and continue to fight a useless battle to create a Shiite theocracy that is more closely aligned with Iran than the U.S.
Whether we leave now or later won't make much difference to the end result. The civil war that is raging may or may not worsen, but it will continue for years. We have FUBAR'd the country and the question is do we want to waste more American lives and borrow more money to pay for Bush's experiment.
Post a Comment
<< Home