Twister: Democrats' Iraq Policy Version
Six days from my last post and I'm struggling to find something to write about. There have been 206,943 articles about the President's falling poll numbers and an ever increasingly "unpopular war" in Iraq and the bright prospects for the Democrats to clean-up in November. Maybe I can pull something together. Oh, I know . . .
Please, can a Democrat write in and tell me the position of the Democratic Party on the war on terror and the war in Iraq? I'm so bloody confused by party leaders saying things like, "I actually voted for it before I voted against it," that I don't know where they stand.
Oh, and can anyone tell me what the heck a "popular" war is? I'm picturing Washingtonians taking carriages out to picnic and watch the first Battle of Bull Run. War is either "necessary" or "unnecessary"; let's discuss that. I truly don't know how to talk to people that think of war in terms of "popular" and "unpopular".
I believe the war in Iraq and the war on terror are necessary.
Anyway, a few things for Democrats contemplating a reply to keep in mind:
On September 20, 2001, the President of the United States, the global leader in the war on terror, George W. Bush said, "This war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion . . . Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success . . . And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism . . . I ask for your patience . . . for your patience in what will be a long struggle (google 'president bush, address to the country, terrorist attacks' for full text)." What words do sunshine Democrats need help defining? Lengthy? Patience? Long?
On March 19, 2003, in announcing the beginning of the war in Iraq, the President said, "A campaign on the harsh terrain of a nation as large as California could be longer and more difficult than some predict (google, 'president bush, iraq, March 2003, war)." Do Democrats and other Bush-haters not know what "longer" and "more difficult" mean?
On November 18, 2005, Rep. Jack Murtha voted with 402 other members of the House, 186 of them Democrats, in voting down a measure calling for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.
Sen. Hillary Clinton wrote the following to her constituents on November 29, 2005, "Nor do I believe that we can or should pull out of Iraq immediately."
On December 8, 2005, Sen. John F. Kerry called for 30,000 to 40,000 U.S. troops to remain in Iraq into 2007 (Boston Globe, December 9).
Boston Globe columnist Tom Oliphant wrote the following on December 15, 2005, "The President has also continued to be dishonest about what is about to happen in Iraq in terms of the American armed forces. The truth is that after a brief interval, the more than 20,000 extra troops brought in for the run-up to the elections will be withdrawn. Shortly after the first of the year, the force level will be reduced still further because people returning to this country as part of regularly, already scheduled rotations in the combat zone will not be replaced. That will have the effect of cutting the force level still more - probably to about 120,000. In other words, though Bush would insist that everything depends on how the war is going, the United States has plans to remove about one-third of its forces over the next three or four months. Just for the record, that is not any different from what supposedly antiwar Democratic Congressman Jack Murtha of Pennsylvania has said should happen over the same period." That's right, Tom, George and Jack agree, so why the Bush bashing?; the knife (logic) cuts both ways.
I believe that at least 2,500 Americans would be dead today if the U.S. did not remove Saddam Hussein from power. Obviously, we will never know. If my Sophie's Choice is 2,500 innocent American civilians or 2,500 military personnel, I choose the military personnel every time.
Again, if anyone can articulate what Gov. Dean, Sens. Clinton and Kerry, Reps. Pelosi and Murtha, and a host of others cannot, I'd love to hear from you.
Six days from my last post and I'm struggling to find something to write about. There have been 206,943 articles about the President's falling poll numbers and an ever increasingly "unpopular war" in Iraq and the bright prospects for the Democrats to clean-up in November. Maybe I can pull something together. Oh, I know . . .
Please, can a Democrat write in and tell me the position of the Democratic Party on the war on terror and the war in Iraq? I'm so bloody confused by party leaders saying things like, "I actually voted for it before I voted against it," that I don't know where they stand.
Oh, and can anyone tell me what the heck a "popular" war is? I'm picturing Washingtonians taking carriages out to picnic and watch the first Battle of Bull Run. War is either "necessary" or "unnecessary"; let's discuss that. I truly don't know how to talk to people that think of war in terms of "popular" and "unpopular".
I believe the war in Iraq and the war on terror are necessary.
Anyway, a few things for Democrats contemplating a reply to keep in mind:
On September 20, 2001, the President of the United States, the global leader in the war on terror, George W. Bush said, "This war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion . . . Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success . . . And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism . . . I ask for your patience . . . for your patience in what will be a long struggle (google 'president bush, address to the country, terrorist attacks' for full text)." What words do sunshine Democrats need help defining? Lengthy? Patience? Long?
On March 19, 2003, in announcing the beginning of the war in Iraq, the President said, "A campaign on the harsh terrain of a nation as large as California could be longer and more difficult than some predict (google, 'president bush, iraq, March 2003, war)." Do Democrats and other Bush-haters not know what "longer" and "more difficult" mean?
On November 18, 2005, Rep. Jack Murtha voted with 402 other members of the House, 186 of them Democrats, in voting down a measure calling for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.
Sen. Hillary Clinton wrote the following to her constituents on November 29, 2005, "Nor do I believe that we can or should pull out of Iraq immediately."
On December 8, 2005, Sen. John F. Kerry called for 30,000 to 40,000 U.S. troops to remain in Iraq into 2007 (Boston Globe, December 9).
Boston Globe columnist Tom Oliphant wrote the following on December 15, 2005, "The President has also continued to be dishonest about what is about to happen in Iraq in terms of the American armed forces. The truth is that after a brief interval, the more than 20,000 extra troops brought in for the run-up to the elections will be withdrawn. Shortly after the first of the year, the force level will be reduced still further because people returning to this country as part of regularly, already scheduled rotations in the combat zone will not be replaced. That will have the effect of cutting the force level still more - probably to about 120,000. In other words, though Bush would insist that everything depends on how the war is going, the United States has plans to remove about one-third of its forces over the next three or four months. Just for the record, that is not any different from what supposedly antiwar Democratic Congressman Jack Murtha of Pennsylvania has said should happen over the same period." That's right, Tom, George and Jack agree, so why the Bush bashing?; the knife (logic) cuts both ways.
I believe that at least 2,500 Americans would be dead today if the U.S. did not remove Saddam Hussein from power. Obviously, we will never know. If my Sophie's Choice is 2,500 innocent American civilians or 2,500 military personnel, I choose the military personnel every time.
Again, if anyone can articulate what Gov. Dean, Sens. Clinton and Kerry, Reps. Pelosi and Murtha, and a host of others cannot, I'd love to hear from you.
posted by Zack at 1:50 PM
6 Comments:
zacklyright, you say it exactly right, the dems hate bush. everything they say and do is rooted in hating him and I have heard nothing positive or creative from them in 5 years. yes, the media gives the impression they have a position on iraq, but they don't. bush told us the struggle would take time; who in the MEDIA doesn't understand the words "long", "lengthy", "patience", etc.? such enablers. in the tank for the dems. i can't help you with "popular" war. is that a war where we kick ass and no Americans die? yeah, I'm for that, but that doesn't sound like it woud fit the definition of war. people on both sides die in wars.
Hey, zacklyright-
If I actually spoke "doublespeak", I might be able to help articulate the Dems. position on the war. Sorry, bud, you're on your own!
The day a Democrat has an original, positive idea on either the war on terror or the war in Iraq will be the day hell actually does freeze over.
More on Twister: Democrats on Iraq Version.
Right Foot - I actally voted against the war before I voted for it.
Left Foot - I voted for the war and I called for the immediate withdrawl of troops, but I voted against the immediate withdrawal of troops; troops, by they way, that I fully support, of course.
Right Hand - I voted for the war but against the $85 billion in aid for the troops; $85 billion for salaries, body armor, and armor-plating for Humvees, but, make no mistake, I fully support the troops; look, I'm wearing a yellow ribbon.
Left Hand - I voted for everything the public supports; I voted for everything the public does not support; I have the congressional record to prove it; and, of course, I support the troops.
Forked Tongue - I voted for the war; I voted for a resolution authorizing the President to conduct war but I did not vote for the war.
Forked Brain - I'm brilliant; I was duped. I saw the same intelligence the President saw; I was misled.
Sorry, me again, the Democrats got me so confused on where they stand on the war that at Left Hand I wrote, "I voted for everything the public does not support" before I corrected it with this post, of course I meant, "I voted against everything the public does not support."
Can you guest-host for Leno sometime?
Post a Comment
<< Home