California Conservative

15 Responses to “Dems Suggest Bush Lead the Way on Iraq”

1. Sticky Notes Says:
   November 13th, 2006 at 5:36 am

   Dems Suggest Bush Lead the Way on Iraq…

   Ripped from the headlines right off California Conservative:
   He reports on Wesley Clark’s and the Dem’s plan for Iraq.

   You’re not gonna believe this. Then again, yes you will….

2. Benn Says:
   November 13th, 2006 at 10:46 am

   Wesley Clark does not know what he is talking about, obviously. Did he even ever serve in the military? Probably not! Why can’t he just admit it? He is a Democrat!

3. Mike@CopTheTruth Says:
   November 13th, 2006 at 1:35 pm

   Now why didn’t we think of that?

4. sactodan Says:
   November 13th, 2006 at 3:10 pm

   They wanted it, they got it. Now they have to do something with it.

   If they don’t, they can wear it like jewelry around their necks at Rudy Giuliani’s inaugural ball.

5. Stop Bush! Says:
   November 13th, 2006 at 4:23 pm

   Funny, the republiCONs have been in control for 12 years and can’t seem to get much done; the democrats haven’t even take office yet and they’re being criticized for… what again?

   Oh yeah, Wes Clark, who is not in office, nor been elected to serve in office, nor even a candidate for office, not saying the brightest thing. And he’s who Fox gets for the “Big Story” with some “reporter” of whom nobody’s ever heard? Well, of course! This is Fox news!

   Not having a plan? Well, why don’t you ask Congressman Murtha, or Madam Speaker-elect Pelosi, or… do I need to name any one of the hundreds of democrats currently in office or elected to office, for their plan? Becuase that would show that the Democrats do have a plan for cleaning up the Bush fiasco in Iraq. And that, of course, would make the democrats look good and Bush look like the failure that he is, which Fox news could never, ever show.

   On the other hand, we could ask Bush what to do, but he’d have to run it past Poppy or Jim Baker, now that the truth about the administration is known, specifically, that: there was no contingency plan, no adequate planning for protecting the troops, no exit strategy, and, frankly, not much thought about anything besides bashing the democrats. Oh well, it’s just the lives of (so far) 2,800+ Americans, tens of thousands of life-altering/debilitating injuries, and God knows how many hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi deaths that have been sacrificed for oil.

   And now that the midterms are over, the price of oil can go back up so that ExxonMobil can gouge record profits for the year.

   Now that you all have so much time on your hands, do something useful. Call your representatives and senators and tell them that if they expect the democratically controlled Congress to work in a bipartisan manner for the next couple of years, they could start the ball rolling by working in a bipartisan manner for the next couple of weeks.

6. John Konop Says:
   November 13th, 2006 at 5:34 pm

   A Conservative Plan for Iraq

   Anyone who questions the lack of a realistic and comprehensive Iraq strategy is labeled a friend of fascism by the Republican leadership. House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) recently said, “I wonder if [Democrats] are more interested in protecting the terrorists than protecting the American people.” Republicans are paralyzed with the fear of being thought ineffective on national security and the war.

   Meanwhile, the Democratic leadership cannot seem to accept that—regardless of how we got there—we are in Iraq. They have not made a convincing case that an arbitrary phased or date-certain troop withdrawal is in the best long-term interest of the United States. Rather, they seem to think that withdrawal will undo the decision to have gone to war. Rubbing President Bush’s nose in Iraq’s difficulties is also a priority.

   This political food fight is stifling the desperately needed public discussion about a meaningful resolution to the fire fight. Most Americans know Iraq is going badly. And they know the best path lies somewhere between “stay the course” and “get out now”.

   Some Truths

   1) Iraq is having a civil war between the Sunnis and Shiites. The Kurds will certainly join, if attacked. It may not look like a civil war, because they don’t have tanks, helicopters, and infantry; but they are fighting with what they have.

   2) Vast oil revenues are a significant factor behind the fighting. Yes, there are religious and cultural differences—but concerns about how the oil revenue will be split among the three groups make the problem worse.

   3) Most Iraqis support partitioning Iraq into Shiite, Sunni, and Kurdish regions. (Their current arrangement resulted from a pen stroke during the British occupation, not some organic alignment.)

   4) Most citizens of the Middle East who support groups that kill and terrorize civilians—such as Hezbollah, Hamas, or al Qaeda—in part because of their aggressive stance against Israel and the United States, but also because they provide much needed social services, such as building schools.

   5) Both Republican and Democratic administrations have spent decades doing business with the tyrants who run the Middle East in exchange for oil and cheap labor. This has been the one of the rallying calls of Bin Laden and Hezbollah—that we support tyrants who abuse people for profits. In fact, our latest trade deals with Oman and Jordan actually promote child and slave labor; it’s so bad the State Department had to issue warnings about rampant child trafficking in those countries.

   6) Iran is using the instability in Iraq to enhance its political stature in the region. Leaving Iraq without a government that can stand up to Iran would be very destabilizing to the region and the world.

   From the U.S. perspective, this is all mostly about energy. As things stand, a serious oil supply disruption would devastate our economy, threaten our security, and jeopardize our ability to provide for our children.

   New Directions

   Success in Iraq and the Middle East in general requires us to work in three areas simultaneously: (1) fostering a more stable Middle East region, including Iraq, (2) pursuing alternative sources of oil, and (3) developing alternatives to oil. To these ends we must:

   1) Insure that the oil revenues are fairly and transparently split among all three groups: Shiite, Sunni, and Kurds based on population.

   2) Allow each group to have a much stronger role in self government by creating three virtually-autonomous regions. Forcing a united Iraq down their throats is not working. Our military would then be there in support a solution that people want, rather than one they are resisting.

   3) Become a genuine force for positive change, thus denying extremist groups much of their leverage. Driving a fair two-state solution to the Israeli/Palestinian problem should be our first priority. We should also engage in projects that both help the average Middle Easterner and Americans, such as supporting schools that are an alternative to the ones that teach hate and recruit terrorists. We should also stop participating in trade deals that promote child and slave labor by insisting on deals that include livable wages and basic labor rights.

   4) Declare a Marshal Plan to end our Middle Eastern energy dependency with a compromise between exploring for new sources, reducing consumption, and developing of alternative energies. For example, we should re-establish normal relations with Cuba so we can beat China to Cuba’s off-shore oil. We should also redirect existing tax breaks for Big Oil into loan guarantees for alternative energy companies.

   Once we no longer need so much oil from the Middle East, we can begin winning over its people by using our oil purchases to reward positive and peaceful behavior from their leaders. This would ultimately reduce tensions and encourage prosperity in the region.

   We will have to live with the threat of Islamic radical terrorism forever; but these solutions are a start to reducing the threat. Both parties have to put politics aside and put together an honest and reasonable plan that the American understand.

7. Nahanni Says:
   November 13th, 2006 at 11:39 pm

   Stop Bush!

   You know your LLL Democrat heroes have been spouting off for years that they are so much more “intelligent” then the rest of us. They have been spouting off for years that know so much better what should be done. They have been spouting off for years that they “have a plan” and want to go in “a new direction”.

   Well, here is their chance to prove it.

   I guess this is where we find out just how smart they, and you, really are.

8. Afghan LORD Says:
   November 14th, 2006 at 6:58 am

   http://afghanlord.blogspot.com/2006/11/poppy-legalization-banned-in_13.html

9. Carlos Says:
   November 14th, 2006 at 10:35 am

   Just a couple of comments:

   1) Benn obviously doesn’t know it is GENERAL Wesley Clark (ret.)

   2) SB! obviously doesn’t pay a whole bunch of attention to the news. Gen. Clark made a sporting run at becoming the donkey prez. candidate for the 2004 election cycle, but withdrew when it became obvious he was a single issue candidate and not far enough to the left for the powers of the donkey party.

   3) With the obvious lack of real knowledge on the part of the commenters mentioned in 1 & 2 above, I wonder how they can be as omniscient as they would like to seem? I think the phrase is, “Legends in their own minds.”

   4) Last, with their rapid withdrawal of support from one of their own former vice presidential candidates, is it any wonder they will demand withdrawal of support from Iraq? Loyalty to a donkey is as their morality is: transient at best, situational always and never to be trusted.

10. Amy Proctor Says:
    November 14th, 2006 at 10:50 am

    Carlos,

    I’m not sure but I think Benn was being sacrastic. At any rate, Wesley Clark served under the Clinton admin and is about as liberal as you can get on this issue.

    Here are his commercials regarding Iraq:
    http://securingamerica.com/taxonomy/term/23

    “Because of Iraq”

    Anthony Flores, Iraq War Veteran: “Because of Iraq, Osama bin Ladin is still a threat.”

    Robert Loria, Iraq War Veteran: “Because of Iraq, our military is spread too thin.”

    Joseph Kramer, Iraq War Veteran: “Because of Iraq, there are more terrorists in the world.”

    General Wes Clark (ret.): “Because of Iraq, America is less secure.

    So if you see commercials telling you to be afraid of terrorism….

    Remember, it’s because of Iraq.”

    America is LESS secure?

    There may indeed be more terrorists in the world, but there are also more American patriots signing up for the military than ever before, which is why every active duty branch of the military has exceeded its goal for recruitement and re-enlistment by 100% or more.

    Clark’s position on Iraq is political and highly irresponsible.

    And it doesn’t matter if Clark is an elected official or not; if he’s going to criticize the war on terror, he’s putting himself in the line of fire.

11. BillyJoeJimBob Says:
    November 14th, 2006 at 10:50 am

    It’s funny blaming the Democrats for something that hasn’t happened yet. I tend to blame Bush and Rumsfeld who prosecuted the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq so poorly that it ultimately led to people voting Democratic. Besides, if you don’t force the Iraqis to stand on their own two feet, do you honestly think they ever will? Giving them a time-table and say ‘We’re leaving so you’d better get your s**t together’ might be just what they need. Before you criticize it, just ask yourself ‘How much experience with nation building do I actually have?’

12. Carlos Says:
    November 14th, 2006 at 1:10 pm

    Amy,

    If Benn was being sarcastic it got lost somewhere in the rhetoric. And I wasn’t defending Clark at all. He is one of the airheads pushing “normal” people further to the left than “average mainstream” people in this country (he apparently spent too much time at his NATO offices wining and dining Europee-on leaders and got infected with their brand of communism.) I have no respect for the man at all.

    And BJJB, when one looks to project a probable future action from someone, one has to look at history. My read of the donkeys’ history is that they will not only sell the country down the river for their own political purposes, they’ll make it a bargain basement deal to boot and try to tell us it’s in our best interests. And the same goes for GW selling out to big bizz and Vicente about the criminal illegals.

    It’s kinda like some “Christians” I know: they read the parts of the Bible they like and discard the rest. Only with politicians, it’s the Constitution they pick and choose from.

13. Amy Proctor Says:
    November 14th, 2006 at 1:27 pm

    Carlos, I gotcha. I know you weren’t defending Clark and I apologize for not making that clear.

    I think benn’s sense of humor is perhaps as mistakable as John Kerry’s. Perhaps that’s the problem.

14. Carlos Says:
    November 14th, 2006 at 5:15 pm

    Amy,

    Common problem with donkeys. Reality (as they’ve been taught in public schools) is whatever you want it to be. Kerry’s “joke” could only be mistrued by the drive-by media, not by anyone who knows the English language. Same with Benn. The only way to misconstrue what Benn says would be to see what he says through concrete glasses. The MSM made sure back when Clark was trying to run for prez that everyone knew he was qualified to be a war protester because he was a retired GENERAL, always with an emphasis on “general”, not protester.

    And Clark’s social beliefs tend toward the Pelosi/Reid wing of the donkeys, not toward middle America’s. That’s where my comment about sipping with the Euroweenies came from.

15. California Home Lender Loan Mortgage Rate Broker California Says:
    December 5th, 2006 at 4:08 pm

    California Home Lender Loan Mortgage Rate Broker California…

    California Home Lender Loan Mortgage Rate Broker California…

Leave a Reply