The Liberal Lie, The Conservative Truth

Exposing the Liberal Lie through current events and history. “Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the democrats believe every day is April 15.” ****** "We will always remember. We will always be proud. We will always be prepared, so we may always be free." RONALD REAGAN

My Photo
Name:
Location: Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, United States

Two Reagan conservatives who believe that the left has it wrong and just doesn't get it!

Photobucket
Google
HISTORICAL QUOTE OF THE WEEK - "Always bear in mind that your own resolution to succeed is more important than any other." ABRAHAM LINCOLN

Thursday, January 11, 2007

IRAQ - THE NEW STRATEGY

In a prime time speech last night President Bush outlined a new strategy concerning American involvement in Iraq. The foremost part of the plan and the most controversial from a political stand point is an increase of 21, 000 troops deployed to the country. Most of that number will be positioned in and around Baghdad which is where 80% of the problem is. President Bush citied that the reason for the increase was that in controlling the sectarian and terrorist violence that is plaguing Iraq, US and Iraqi forces while successfully clearing out insurgents and terrorists in the many provinces in and around the capital city because of an insufficient amount of troops once the area was clear and the troops left these areas were occupied again by insurgents. The increase will allow enough troops to hold these areas preventing a return. The President also called for Iraqi forces and the government to step up to the plate stating that the presence of The United States was not open ended therefore Iraqis will be more involved with US troops embedded as advisors and for support. The President also mentioned an increase of about 4000 to the Anbar Province which is an Al Qaeda strong hold that the terrorist group is attempting to use as a launching area and base for their activities in Iraq and elsewhere.

I am going to take a moment at this point to ramble because of the Al Qaeda presence that is in and has been in Iraq in which those who oppose our mission there and especially liberals have denied and continually avoided in order to spark greater controversy over Iraq. For Al Qaeda to attempt control over one province in the country signifies a strong and a long standing presence in Iraq which is according to those who oppose Iraq the ONLY terrorists or group that we should be fighting regardless of terror states like Iran, and other groups like Hezbollah who all use similar terror tactics and or support groups like Al Qaeda. The left has made it obvious in light of the recent attacks by US forces in Somalia against Al Qaeda of their hypocritical attempts to use Iraq as a political tool rather that supporting an extremely important front in the War on Terror. I have not heard the first complaint by the left over the US presence which includes Special Forces ground troops now in Somalia nor have I heard any protesting by radicals. The claim for this, one can bet, is because we have attacked Al Qaeda yet those same liberals and protesting radicals vilify US presence in Iraq which are also fighting Al Qaeda as well as elements from terror states like Iran. Nor will they accept the fact that has been proven time and again that Al Qaeda presence was in Iraq long before we moved in and the Hussein regime supported them financially and allowed traiming facilities in Iraq.

Now back to the President's new strategy. In addition to the troop increase Bush also added that there will be political benchmarks set for the Iraqi government, expecting the Maliki administration to keep to its commitments and crack down on outlaw tribal leaders who are helping to stir the violence. Strengthening Iraqi territorial sovereignty will also be vital thus taking a stronger stance concerning Iran and Syria and stopping the influx of men and material that enters from these terror states. As a way of supporting this the President has dispatched and additional Carrier Task Group to the region as a warning to Iran especially.

Democrats were quick to jump in with their opposition to the plan with the Democrat response delivered by Senator Dick Durbin who if you recall compared our troops to Nazi SS troops in WWII during a rampage last year on the Senate floor. Durbin stated the Democrat position that the troop increase was the wrong move and we should rather be pulling out of Iraq to force Iraqis to take control of the situation whether they are prepered or not. Most experts agree that this Democrat idea would leave Iraq in anarchy since the US presence is the calming factor despite the current level of violence. Notice also that with this call for pulling out rather than completion of the mission Democrats propose nothing as an alternative, which has been what they have been doing all along.

The Congress has agreed to a non-binding vote for the new strategy which would allow the President's plan to move forward and the opportunity to succeed. Regardless of ones position on Iraq the answer in not a quick fix nor is it a situation that we can abandon as is suggested by the Democrats. To allow Iraq to drift into anarchy and leave the country in a manner that the enemy would consider a defeat of the United Sates will only hand over Iraq to terrorists and embolden groups like Al Qaeda and states like Iran into furthering Islamic radicalism and increasing terrorist activity on a global basis. Iran would in fact dominate the region and the ensuing result would be puppet states under Iranian control with oil and nuclear capability as a bargaining chip to black mail the world. We must and will prevail in Iraq and the revision of strategy that was presented last night places us well on our way to that outcome.

Ken Taylor

21 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why, oh why is this post formatted with center aligned paragraphs? Do you think that makes this bilge easier to read? Or are you already aware that your arguments are unsound and you seek surreptitiously to disincline the reader to peruse further?

I thought the story is that the schools are getting painted, candy is getting passed out, the liberators are welcome, and that the indiscriminate bombing of the brown people has been an unqualified success for liberty. All this mincing over "quick fixes" and "anarchy" is not doing much to advance the Great Conservative Cause for Free Oil in the Hands of White Overfed Christians. Please try to stick to the script in future.

12:47 PM, January 11, 2007  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

I like the plan. There is no open ended committment, the Troops wont have hier arms tied behind thier back this time, and the Iraqi's are paying for most of this.

Besides thats' what the Democrats have been asking for isnt it? More Troops on the ground? Now they will have them and watch, they will find something else to whine about.

2:07 PM, January 11, 2007  
Blogger Gayle said...

"Anonymous the critic of blogs who hasn't the guts to run his/her own blog!" Don't you just love it?! Anonymous, please feel free not to read Ken's wonderful blog. No one has forced you to come here. And since when are Christians the only ones who are "fat or overfed?" I suppose Michael Moron is the perfect example of good health! Sorry Ken, this is one of the most idiotic comments I've ever seen, and I've seen a bunch.

Another great assessment of the President's speech to which I'll post a link on Fractured Friday's post.

Blessings! I'm very glad you got your blog back. :)

3:06 PM, January 11, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Gayle,

Please feel free to keep your pathetic stylings to yourself, lest you expose your tenuous grasp on intelligence, if not sanity.

Democrats opposed the war, when Bush went ahead with the bombing, we asked for lots of troops to secure Baghdad, Rumsfeld said "bad things happen" when the cities got looted, Bremer fired the Baathists and the army, then got the medal of honor, and the end result is the present clusterfuck, excuse my French. We asked for more troops THEN, not more troops now. You ask for new snow tires before the first blizzard, not after your car is buried under a 12 foot drift. Get it? At that point, new snow tires are not much use. It's simply time to dig out and see if the engine can even still function.

Are you paragons of righteous virtue seriously suggesting that you are all OK with how everything went down over there? Do you ever plan to hold ANY or the policy makers responsible for the execution of the war accountable for their failings? If so, when? If not, WHY NOT??!!

3:34 PM, January 11, 2007  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

Anon,

Democrats opposed the war
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You really should keep up, the Democrats VOTED FOR THE WAR!!

And as early as this last December Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and others DEMANDED that more troops be sent to Iraq. And they whined about it all through thier campain's.

Now that they are getting thier wish, all of the sudden, it's a bad idea by Bush when it was thier idea to begin with!

You cant have it both way's!

4:14 PM, January 11, 2007  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

Oops I almost forgot,

Are you paragons of righteous virtue seriously suggesting that you are all OK with how everything went down over there? Do you ever plan to hold ANY or the policy makers responsible for the execution of the war accountable for their failings? If so, when? If not, WHY NOT??!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Does that mean hauling every member of Congress even those now in the Majority before Congress and hold them accountable on how they voted for the war?

4:18 PM, January 11, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Does that mean hauling every member of Congress even those now in the Majority before Congress and hold them accountable on how they voted for the war?
___________________

That is idiocy. The vote to authorize use of force is not equivalent to voting "for the war," though admittedly without that vote Bush would've had a tougher time bombing Baghdad. Regardless of who in Congress supported military action in Iraq, which was a bad call needless to say, very few of them executed the policies, nor had any say in how those policies were executed. That's why they call it the Executive Branch. Legislators legislate, they enact policy, they don't prosecute war.

I will say that there do seem to be members of Congress who abused their offices in order to protect the administration. Hastert and Sen. Roberts (R-Kansas) spring to mind. Their actions might indeed deserve close scrutiny as we examine the awful aftermath of what they have incurred.

But far and away the greater share of accountability rests with the administration and the Pentagon, and yet I never hear anyone on the right voice a single complaint, let alone call for accountability, as regards these massive arms of government. That's otherwise known as living with one's head in the sand and presumably loving it. Whatever gets you through the night, I guess.

5:07 PM, January 11, 2007  
Anonymous Randy Lancaster said...

I would recommend that if you study the history of Vietnam, the Revolutionary War, the Korean War, etc.., you will find that deception and idiocy dominate American politics ad nauseum. This war is just plain fucking stupid (excuse the inadequate proof), a false incident setting off a spending spree and thousands of poor people dead. There is no "moral" victory, no "justice" or rooting out of "terrorists". Bush, Cheney, fat white people, insane power hungry leeches, etc.. are maintaining the status quo of our country. I guess its nice to hold on, but change is good. The world is catching up, and America is finding it harder to maintain our economy at the expense of "undesirable" people. The distribution of wealth is widening again in the U.S. and the tricks of the past, i.e. starting war, starting war time economy, is old and might not work this go around.

With frustrated sighs,

Randy Lancaster

7:57 PM, January 11, 2007  
Blogger The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

That is idiocy. The vote to authorize use of force is not equivalent to voting "for the war,"

That is idiocy. Congress knew exactly what they were voting for. There have been very few instances where Congress has ever issued a formal declaration of war.

I would recommend that if you study the history of Vietnam, the Revolutionary War, the Korean War, etc.., you will find that deception and idiocy dominate American politics ad nauseum.

Don't worry: My Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn versions of American history are read in the bathroom when I sit down to take a crap.

This war is just plain fucking stupid (excuse the inadequate proof),

Proof please.

a false incident setting off a spending spree and thousands of poor people dead.

What is the "false incident"?

The military spending is a smaller percentage of our GDP (3.6%) than it was under Clinton. Perhaps Clinton should have invested more in our military instead of cutting 700,000 off from our active duty forces. Oh, but then that wouldn't have looked too good for the "Clinton surplus", now, would it?


There is no "moral" victory, no "justice" or rooting out of "terrorists". Bush, Cheney, fat white people, insane power hungry leeches, etc.. are maintaining the status quo of our country.

Excuse me, but that is so asinine. When I think "fat white people", michael moore and Rosie come to mind.

The distribution of wealth is widening again in the U.S.

What's wrong with that? (I'm not "in the rich" category, btw). So long as wealth is grown, everyone benefits. Do you think creating policy to harm the rich will help the poor? How does our "poor" compare to the poor of other nations?

12:52 PM, January 12, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fat white people and you think of tangentially important media figures?

How 'bout Roger Ailes? Rush? Richard Perle? Bill Bennet? Dick Cheney? The guy who runs Exxon? Jack Abramoff (after the period when he was photographed with Bush)?

Hey genius, here's some language from the Joint Resolution to Authorize Use of Military Force:(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.


Saddamm neither carried out the attacks on America, nor harbored al-Qaeda, who would have nothing to do with him, since he was a secular leader. This is a matter of fact and record which the administration has copped to on numerous occasions. I would agree that Democrats "knew what they were voting for" in that they realized that if Bush took executive action to bomb Iraq in response to 9/11 that the responsibility would rest with his administration. They will forever be known as the "Botchers of Baghdad."

Keep it up, knuckleheads, with your pom-poms held high in support of Fearless Leader who can Do No Wrong™. Those of us who opposed this fiasco back in 2003 have been proven right time and again, while your lot keeps shouting "rah-rah" no matter how many innocents are slaughtered, no matter how many other people's children die for cheap oil, no matter how many atrocities our own people carry out, no matter how many months the citizens of Baghdad live without electricity...the list goes on and on. You're in the twenty percent and that wad of cat fur stuck in your throat is the great big hairball of your own irrelevancy.

3:16 PM, January 12, 2007  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

Anon,

You left out the part of the "War Powers Act" when the Country is attacked first Genius.

4:35 AM, January 13, 2007  
Anonymous randy lancaster said...

How do tax cuts really work? If their effects are being felt right now, then piss on you and your "its good for everyone" theories. As energy, college tuition, housing, and health care all take a turn for the worse, how is cutting slack to big business a solution when it involves so few? Yes, not everyone is blessed with the tools to succeed. Some are dealt a bad hand from the start. To tell people that hard work will result in great reward is valid except it is even more difficult than it was 6 years ago? Why is that? What has this current administration accomplished? Clinton probably could have dome more, but there is absolute nothing to note from Bush except war, protest and division. Great job everyone!

5:38 PM, January 13, 2007  
Blogger RoxieAmerica said...

We simply must not bring another generation of warriors home in the shame of retreat in defeat. Not only is harmful to the mental health of the warriors, and their families, and negative to the nation -- it would also leave horrible problems in the Middle East.

8:57 PM, January 13, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Marie:

Iraq didn't attack us first, moron.

You must be playing some kind of sick game, nobody on earth could possibly write something so stupid and mean it.

11:38 PM, January 15, 2007  
Blogger The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

Fat white people and you think of tangentially important media figures?

Ok, will this do?

The point is, your charge of fat white people is asinine. As if that has anything to do with policy, or that one side of the political aisle has a monopoly on such superficiality.

Saddamm neither carried out the attacks on America,

Who has ever claimed he did? Strawman screed.

nor harbored al-Qaeda,

That's a bit more complex, junior.


who would have nothing to do with him, since he was a secular leader.

Lawrence Wright's The Looming Tower is the definitive book on al Qaeda's history. And he would disagree with you. Saddam pursued the relationship; Osama was the one, if any, who denied him an operational relationship of significance.



Keep it up, knuckleheads, with your pom-poms held high in support of Fearless Leader who can Do No Wrong™.

Rah, rah, rah!

Those of us who opposed this fiasco back in 2003 have been proven right time and again,

Your side has been on the wrong side of history for decades, sunshine.

while your lot keeps shouting "rah-rah" no matter how many innocents are slaughtered, no matter how many other people's children die for cheap oil, no matter how many atrocities our own people carry out, no matter how many months the citizens of Baghdad live without electricity...the list goes on and on.

and on and on and on....*yawn*

Typical moveon.org bs. It's your side that would enable more suffering, more deaths of innocents to take place.


You're in the twenty percent and that wad of cat fur stuck in your throat is the great big hairball of your own irrelevancy.

*hack* *cough*...ok, it's out now. Go ahead and leave us more of your droppings.

4:04 PM, January 17, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't know why annon seems to think that you will listen to facts. The comment

"nor harbored al-Qaeda,
That's a bit more complex, junior."

bothers me. A lot of this discourse is troubling. Look at it this way if you can, Saddam was a secular leader propped up by the CIA, supported by HW Bush and played his part quite well.
There was no love for him from the ideological maniacs of Al Queida. He didn't want a Islamic government. He was at war with one, remember? Iran? Chemical weapons brought to you by the US government?
No?
Okay.
Well, if you check the rhetoric from the Bush administration noting adds up. The actions just portray a greedy corporate agenda, a dedication to spending trillions on weapons of mass destruction and hegonomy in all matters Iraq.
The logic is that if 20,000 troops is a no go how about 80,000? Honor the fallen by allowing more to fall. Support the troops by sending them into a situation that makes them the target.
Look, Shi'a and Sunni may not agree with each other on anything else but the DO agree that they want Ameica out of their home. So why are we preparing for a permanent stay?
If you think otherwise you are not checking into the ACTIONS. You are just listening to the Snow-job. And all they do is lie.

7:29 PM, January 23, 2007  
Anonymous Randy Lancaster said...

I agree with Tree Hugger. The Wordsmith's discourse is devoid of any argumentative qualities. He just picks out sentences and starts ripping out (in his words) right wing BS. Let me try one at his level. Wordsmith, you listen to Chicago AND John Denver? Dude, what happened?

5:42 PM, January 27, 2007  
Blogger ninest123 Ninest said...

ninest123 07.21
nike free, nike outlet, longchamp outlet, prada outlet, polo ralph lauren outlet, ray ban sunglasses, kate spade handbags, coach outlet, chanel handbags, tiffany jewelry, christian louboutin outlet, louboutin outlet, louboutin shoes, gucci outlet, ray ban sunglasses, nike air max, michael kors outlet, replica watches, burberry, michael kors outlet, michael kors outlet, coach outlet, michael kors outlet, nike air max, oakley sunglasses, coach factory outlet, kate spade outlet, longchamp, burberry outlet online, jordan shoes, longchamp outlet, polo ralph lauren outlet, tory burch outlet, michael kors outlet, michael kors, oakley sunglasses, tiffany and co, louboutin, oakley sunglasses, prada handbags

3:26 AM, July 21, 2015  
Blogger ninest123 Ninest said...

coach purses, nike free, hollister pas cher, converse pas cher, ralph lauren pas cher, lacoste pas cher, air force, nike air max, true religion outlet, north face, hollister, north face, tn pas cher, michael kors, true religion jeans, air max, louboutin pas cher, longchamp pas cher, mulberry, oakley pas cher, vans pas cher, ray ban pas cher, ray ban uk, michael kors, michael kors, ralph lauren uk, new balance pas cher, timberland, vanessa bruno, nike blazer, lululemon, true religion jeans, true religion jeans, hermes, nike roshe run, burberry, sac guess, air jordan pas cher, sac longchamp, hogan

3:29 AM, July 21, 2015  
Blogger ninest123 Ninest said...

nike free run uk, ferragamo shoes, lululemon, p90x workout, hollister, valentino shoes, nike roshe, bottega veneta, longchamp, soccer jerseys, nike huarache, wedding dresses, celine handbags, new balance, nfl jerseys, herve leger, nike air max, abercrombie and fitch, abercrombie and fitch, chi flat iron, asics running shoes, ghd, giuseppe zanotti, mont blanc, mac cosmetics, babyliss, mcm handbags, nike roshe, nike trainers, north face outlet, beats by dre, insanity workout, jimmy choo shoes, nike air max, soccer shoes, vans shoes, birkin bag, instyler, reebok shoes, north face outlet

3:33 AM, July 21, 2015  
Blogger ninest123 Ninest said...

supra shoes, hollister, coach outlet, ralph lauren, lancel, juicy couture outlet, pandora charms, swarovski crystal, hollister, converse, hollister, thomas sabo, swarovski, nike air max, marc jacobs, baseball bats, converse outlet, karen millen, pandora jewelry, montre pas cher, replica watches, links of london, timberland boots, pandora charms, gucci, vans, oakley, louboutin, juicy couture outlet, toms shoes, ray ban, iphone 6 cases, nike air max, wedding dresses
ninest123 07.21

3:38 AM, July 21, 2015  

Post a Comment

<< Home

website hit counters
Provided by website hit counters website.