California Conservative

As you know, I’ve been engrossed in the Democrats’ stunts this week. I’ve been most disappointed in John Murtha’s ‘I-won’t-call-it-a- retreat’ retreat, but watching Gen. Wesley Clark on Hannity & Colmes last night was almost as disappointing. For those who couldn’t watch, and I couldn’t for very long, Clark mostly stuck with the early Democratic talking point that most Americans supported going to war because “Bush all but told us that Iraq was linked to 9/11.” (I don’t suppose it might have anything to do with the shoddy reporting being done by the Agenda Media, who mischaracterized what President Bush said from the outset, could it?)

The reason why Clark brought up the 9/11-Iraq link was to say that we should’ve stayed the course in Afghanistan. He said that going into Iraq wasn’t something that we needed to do, calling it a “war of choice.” Shame on him for that. I know he knows better than that. There’s no way a 4 star general doesn’t know that the GWOT could be won by focusing solely on military action in Afghanistan and police and legal action throughout the rest of the world. A lowly private knows better than that. A civilian knows better than that. He’s simply playing politics. Shame on him.

Murtha’s cut-and-run ‘plan’ is veiled only by his creating of a rapid response team stationed in the Middle East. Of course, Mr. Murtha doesn’t tell us where this rapid response team would be stationed or what it’d be responding to but then again, he doesn’t need to. Everyone knows they’d be responding to Iraq’s needs. As I’ve said before, this isn’t a plan, it’s a retreat and a sign of weakness. It’s the Democrats’ way of saying that they won’t live up to the promises this country has made. It’s just the latest Democratic way of saying that they don’t like the notion of the U.S. being the world’s only superpower. (The only time they like it is when we’re using that military to bring relief to victims of natural disasters like the tsunami or the earthquake victims in Pakistan)

As for Murtha’s claim that the U.S. pulling out would be in our best interest, shame on him. Here’s what the the NY Times reports about what leaving early would mean:

He called it “a recipe for disaster” and a breach of faith with American soldiers who have died here:

The officer, Maj. Gen. William G. Webster Jr., commander of the Third Infantry Division, told reporters at a lunch in the Green Zone command compound that setting dates for withdrawal would undermine the morale of American soldiers. He said it would also spread dismay among ordinary Iraqis, who have told American troops they want the Americans to stay until security improves.

“I think setting any sort of date on the calendar is, and I’m trying to think of the right word, a recipe for disaster,” General Webster said.

Gen. Webster adds:

“Look, our troopers are out there trying to get things accomplished every day on the streets of Baghdad because they believe they are doing the right thing,” he said, “and they are getting feedback from the Iraqi people in Baghdad virtually every day that this is good, and they feel safe around Americans, they want Americans to be accompanying Iraqis when their homes are looked into, they will invite us in. You hear that a lot.

“The soldiers believe they are making the lives of the Baghdad people better. When you start to set a date on the wall and say, ‘We’re going to be gone by a certain date,’ the insurgents can start to think, ‘We’re winning,’ and they can just wait until we leave.”

Let’s compare Gen. Webster’s quote to with what Murtha said in his press conference:

“Our military is suffering, the future of our country is at risk. We cannot continue on the present course. It is evident that continued military action in Iraq is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf region.”

Which person’s statement is most likely true? Consider that one is a politician who’d love to be a committee chairman while the other is directly responsible for a military unit operating inside Iraq.

General Webster concludes by saying:

“It gets me fired up. Yes, we ought to have an exit strategy, and we have one, and I think I understand it, and I think it’s working. But setting a date, to say, ‘We’re going to be gone by this date,’ without conditions being met, I think is a loser.”

Why is winning such a difficult concept for Democrats to grasp? Is it because it’s too straight-forward? Or is it because they don’t want the U.S. to be a world superpower? Do Democrats think that capturing bin Laden would end the war on terror? Do they think that the GWOT is contained only in Afghanistan?

I simply ask that you ask those questions when you enter the voting booth next November with the GWOT still raging.

RELATED:
“Hawkish Democrat” Calls for Iraq Pullout

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRing

This entry was posted on Friday, November 18th, 2005 at 6:32 am and is filed under Author: Gary Gross, Iraq, Liberals, Middle East, Military, Patriotism. 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.