California Conservative

AP reports: “Democrats are criticizing President Bush for raising the Sept. 11 attacks while he defends his plan to keep U.S. troops in Iraq as long as it takes to ensure peace in the country.”

Some Democrats accused him of falsely reviving the link that he originally used to help justify launching strikes against Baghdad.

“The president’s frequent references to the terrorist attacks of September 11 show the weakness of his arguments,” House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said. “He is willing to exploit the sacred ground of 9/11, knowing that there is no connection between 9/11 and the war in Iraq.”

“Exploiting the sacred ground?” Give us a break. If only ’twas true that liberals found some things sacred, America might be better off.

Earth to Pelosi: President Bush never said there was a direct “connection between 9/11 and the war in Iraq.” However, the fateful attack on America was a result of terrorists that had proven ties to Saddam, the brutal dictactor who also represented a serious latent threat to the world. Some might wish that America had done the same with Hitler before he became as powerful and commited the infamous atrocities.

Now, the critical task remaining for America is to help establish stability in Iraq, so that the “new” nation may pursue democracy and thereby create an anchor of stability in the Middle East. An ally against terrorism.

Bush said as much:

Our mission in Iraq is clear. We are hunting down the terrorists. We are helping Iraqis build a free nation that is an ally in the war on terror. We are advancing freedom in the broader Middle East. We are removing a source of violence and instability and laying the foundation of peace for our children and our grandchildren.

[Terrorists] know that as freedom takes root in Iraq, it will inspire millions across the Middle East to claim their liberty as well. And when the Middle East grows in democracy, prosperity and hope, the terrorists will lose their sponsors, lose their recruits and lose their hopes for turning that region into a base for attacks on America and our allies around the world.

Exactly.

“The president’s numerous references to September 11 did not provide a way forward in Iraq,” Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid said.

Not true. President Bush was candid:

Rebuilding a country after three decades of tyranny is hard and rebuilding while at war is even harder. Our progress has been uneven but progress is being made. We are improving roads and schools and health clinics and working to improve basic services like sanitation, electricity and water. And together with our allies, we will help the new Iraqi government deliver a better life for its citizens.

In the past year, the international community has stepped forward with vital assistance. Some 30 nations have troops in Iraq, and many others are contributing nonmilitary assistance. The United Nations is in Iraq to help Iraqis write a constitution and conduct their next elections. Thus far, some 40 countries and three international organizations have pledged about 34 billion dollars in assistance for Iraqi reconstruction.

The progress in the past year has been significant and we have a clear path forward.

To complete the mission, we will continue to hunt down the terrorists and insurgents. To complete the mission, we will prevent al-Qaida and other foreign terrorists from turning Iraq into what Afghanistan was under the Taliban — a safe haven from which they could launch attacks on America and our friends. And the best way to complete the mission is to help Iraqis build a free nation that can govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself.

Our strategy can be summed up this way: As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down.

Unlike throwing money at problems (not their own) while never actually getting their hands dirty with work, as is the liberals’ standard course of action, the rebuilding of Iraq into a democratic nation requires dedication and continued heavy-lifting. It’s a mission.

“Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., said it’s because of the lessons of the Sept. 11 attacks that he opposes Bush’s approach to keeping the troops in Iraq without any timetable for withdrawal.

“The U.S. military presence in Iraq has become a powerful recruiting tool for terrorists, and Iraq is now the premier training ground and networking venue for the next generation of jihadists,” Feingold said.

Who is Feingold kidding, besides himself? Training ground and networking venue for terrorists? If so, how would withdrawing the troops make things better?

Just another Democrat offering a negative rhetoric soundbite for a quote in the New York Times. One would hope these elected “leaders” aren’t as stupid as they make themselves sound.

Since the new Iraqi government is learning to walk, the worst thing to do would be to abandon the nation before it’s prepared to defend itself. If Democrats want a timetable for that, they should be asking the Iraqis.

As President Bush suggests, setting a timetable for withdrawal would only encourage terrorists to hang on. Something to set their watches for. Giving them hope towards having success in their efforts to destroy Iraq’s efforts for democracy.

It’s so obvious, it’s ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

Bush presented the case perfectly:

“Setting an artificial timetable would send the wrong message to the Iraqis, who need to know that America will not leave before the job is done.

It would send the wrong message to our troops, who need to know that we are serious about completing the mission they are risking their lives to achieve.

And it would send the wrong message to the enemy, who would know that all they have to do is to wait us out.

We will stay in Iraq as long as we are needed and not a day longer.”

Exactly. We must stand firm. See the job through.

UPDATE: Making the connection: Iraq and 9/11
(6/29) Lorie Byrd has more. Captain Ed, too.
SoCalPundit joins in.

RELATED:
Bush Speech on Iraq: Examined
Bush on Iraq: The Sacrifices Are Worth It

With calls for “bring the troops home” and references to “quagmire,” liberals are evoking (maybe exploiting, Pelosi?) “sacred” images of Vietnam, as a way to misrepresent the situation in Iraq.

The Wall Street Journal weighs in with an excellent essay:
“The Defeatist Caucus — Some on Capitol Hill seem to yearn for a repeat of Vietnam.”

This entry was posted on Wednesday, June 29th, 2005 at 8:06 am and is filed under DNC, Iraq, Liberals, Pelosi, W, Washington, DC. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.