Senate Democrats said on Tuesday that they would push forward with
legislation to impose restraints on the Bush administration's policy on the
Iraq war, arguing that the president's military buildup this year "has done
absolutely nothing to lessen the violence in Iraq."
Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, told reporters that since the
military "surge" ordered by President George W. Bush early this year, more than
600 soldiers had been killed in Iraq and over 60 billion U.S. dollars had been
spent on the war.
"The escalation has done nothing to bring the Iraqi government together.
It's done absolutely nothing to lessen the violence in Iraq," he said.
Well excuse me, Harry, but isn’t the idea of the surge to escalate military
activity resulting in more violence, not less? It’s called a “surge” for good
reason, Harry. This is what we get from this lame Congress with no military
experience when they stick their noses into something that they know nothing
about. Of course there are going to be more deaths and violence on both sides,
what did Reid expect? The surge has only just begun but Reid and the Democrats
refuse to wait for Gen. Petreaus’ September report before passing judgments
based only on the first inning.
On July 10 , Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-OH) released a statement
saying in part: "The non-partisan Congressional Research Service is now
reporting that the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are now costing the American
taxpayers $12 Billion a month. That is up from 10 billion since before the surge
began.” Are we supposed to think “oh my God, this war is costing us too
much, we can‘t afford it?” It’s all just money down the drain and the $20
billion they attached to the last emergency war funding bill in pork barrel
bribes means nothing?
If this is such a drain on our economy, then why is the economy doing so well
and the Dow reaching record highs this past week with a low inflation rate and
record low unemployment? This is not money down the drain but rather tax money
being re-circulated from the government back into the private sector through
defense contractors and other support industries who employ millions of
Americans. This is 10 billion dollars a month that is not otherwise available to
Congress to waste on their special interest groups, pet projects, and bribes for
votes. Is this what the Democrats are so upset and concerned about, that they
have less money for pork?
On Tuesday, Harry Reid and Carl Levin (D) of Michigan, chairman of the Senate
Armed Services Committee, introduced an amendment calling on the Secretary of
Defense to begin the reduction of the number of US forces in Iraq not later than
120 days after the enactment of the law, and to complete the transition by April
On Thursday, Nancy Pelosi cheerfully and excitedly announced that the House
had passed their own version of the bill, knowing all along that even if it
could pass the Senate, it would never be signed into law by the president. This
is just another example of this Democrat controlled Congress wasting time and
money to push their antiwar agenda instead of doing the real work of Congress
and the American people. The only significant legislation they have so far
passed this year was to raise the minimum wage.
It appears that the real waste of money in this government is the money we
spend to sustain this Congress. The 1st Congress of the United States
got more done meeting one day annually than this 110th Congress has
done all year.
Congress has no war powers other than to declare war and fund it. They intend
to spend the next two weeks debating more antiwar legislation which will never
pass into law, then go on vacation. Even if enough Republicans compromise just
to “get something done”, it will never become law as long as Bush has the veto
pen and they know it. Managing war is not the job of Congress. That job is
allocated to the Chief Executive by the Constitution which Democrats in Congress
continue to ignore.
Responding to pressure from a handful of Senate Republicans, President Bush
said on Tuesday that the United States would be able to pull back troops "in a
while," but called on Congress to wait until September to debate the future
military presence there. Oh, did I mention that these Republicans who are siding
with the Dems are all running for reelection in 08? George Voinovich (Ohio),
Richard Lugar (Ind.), John Warner (Va.), Pete Domenici (N.M.), Olympia Snowe
(Maine), and Gordon Smith (Ore.) are among those defecting to the other side.
They watch the media polls and know what’s good for their careers, but what
exactly do the polls tell us? Media polls are a reflection of media propaganda.
Most people will respond to polls based on what the liberal media outlets have
been telling them. Add to that the fact that nearly all media polls are
consistently weighted to the left, what you get from polls is the left view of
the world. But in Washington, they have the appearance of showing the popular
view and these candidates are more concerned with being on the apparent popular
side than doing what is right.
What those polls tell us is that 70% of Americans polled want us out of Iraq
and the sooner the better. I submit that those polls are off by 30%. 100% of
Americans want us out of Iraq including the President and the troops fighting
there. But not under conditions of surrender and withdrawal and not before
completing our mission there.
What the media isn’t telling us is that the surge is working. Just ask Michael Yon who is doing regular reports from his embedded
position at the heart of the surge. More and more towns and villages are seeing
an end to the fighting and turning to the Americans for protection. More and
more Clerics and village leaders are abandoning al Qaeda and joining with the
Americans whom they have learned now to trust and respect. Winning the harts and
minds of a people takes years and we are now just starting to see the results of
Democrats have made the Iraq war a political issue and the only way they can
win on that issue is with an American defeat in Iraq. The war has become so
politicized that it is no longer about our national security, it's all about who
wins Congress and the Whitehouse in 08. How much lower can politicians sink?
Many Republicans are still suffering from “Majority Guilt Syndrome” developed
when they had control of both Congress and the Whitehouse. MGS is a disease of
the spine, essentially weakening it to the point to where it’s victims can no
longer stand up. Feelings of guilt cause them to “reach out” to the left and
want to be “nice” and compromise with them so they wouldn‘t feel left out.
Republicans still haven’t recovered from MGS yet even though they are no longer
in the Majority. Democrats have always been immune to MGS and felt it was their
birthright to be the majority in Congress and to have their way.
The minute President Bush agrees to any timetable for withdrawal we will have
lost the war. That will be the signal to the enemy that they have won and we
will be handing them victory on that timetable. Iraq’s Prime Minister, Nouri al
Malaki, is so fed up with the interference from our Congress that he said on
Saturday that the US is welcome to leave anytime they want to. He says the time
limits imposed on him by our Congress are unreasonable and unrealistic.
Bush knows that, but can he hold out against the congressional opposition and
media propaganda? Perhaps he can. New signs of strength have come from the Bush
Whitehouse with his refusal to go along with the endless string of congressional
investigations into his administration. He has now ordered his staff members to
essentially boycott any more appearances and cooperation with these Democrat
It may not be long now before Congress votes to cut off funding for the war
in Iraq as a last resort They can’t afford not to, now that the surge seems to
be working and an American victory may spoil their plans to win the Whitehouse
in 08. The only reason they haven‘t done it yet is because they haven‘t figured
out how to blame the resulting massacre in Iraq on Bush. They must cause defeat
in Iraq at any cost and they must do it before the 08 elections. April 08 would
be a good time for them to get this off the table so the rest of the year can be
spent campaigning on domestic issues without a war getting in their way. They
don’t seem to understand that the war will still be going on whether we choose
to fight it or not.
No matter how much Democrats think they can return to the days of the Clinton
Administration when an attacking enemy was just ignored, it’s just not going to
be possible now, not after 911 and the continuing attempts at terrorism ever
since. Today’s Democrat Party is not capable, and simply doesn’t want to deal
with war. Yet they want to take control of the Whitehouse and run the country at
a time when we are entering what will likely come to be known as World War III
and we are the primary target.
On September 15, 2001, President Bush declared war on terrorists around the
globe and told the world “either you are with us or you are with the enemy”,
essentially declaring war on anyone who engages in, or supports terrorism. Some
Islamic states sided against us and are now supporting terrorism in Iraq and
what have we done about it? Nothing.
If The US is spending 10 to 12 billion dollars a month to sustain our side in
this war, then how much is the enemy spending to sustain their side? Certainly
it’s not nearly as much as we are spending simply because of the logistics. It
could even be as little as 1% of our costs which would still be $100 million a
month. But even if it’s only 1% of $100 million that is still $1 million a
Daily firings of SAM missiles at our helicopters, rockets and mortars at our
bases, IEDs placed along the roads and the resources to build them, guns and
bullets, all these things don’t come cheap. Then there are the living expenses of
the terrorists and insurgents. Someone has to pay for all this and that money
isn’t coming from within Iraq anymore than the weapons are. They come from
outside the country.
If Bush really wants to put his foot down on terrorism and win the war in
Iraq, then he needs to go after the source and all those who are enabling
terrorism in Iraq. Without outside support and re-supply, they will not be able
to fight and won’t have bombs to detonate, rockets to fire, or bullets to shoot.
That means taking on Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah with enough firepower to let
them know that we mean business and will put them out of business. If you cut
off the war supplies to the enemy in Iraq, the war will end in our favor. Come
to think of it, isn’t that just about what the Democrats want to do to our side,
handing victory to the enemy?
One problem we have is that although we are the strongest military power in
the world, much of our military strength lies in our nuclear arsenal, and little
in our ground forces which must be used in Iraq and Afghanistan. We simply don’t
have the troops to “liberate” Iran, Syria, and Lebanon from Hezbollah. Even if
we did, who says they want to be “liberated?”
This is a job for our Navy and Air Force. We’ve had quite enough of fighting
a politically correct war where avoiding civilian casualties is given a higher
priority than defeating the enemy. Our next target must be fought differently
from the start with defeat of the enemy, not political correctness and
protecting civilians, as the objective. We should set an example in Iran of the
cost of promoting terrorism and attacks against the US as Iran has been doing in
Iraq. If we don’t stand up now, we probably never will.
We have been fighting an old style ground war in piecemeal fashion instead of
using modern technology to destroy the enemy. At this point in Iraq, we have no
other choice, but we must consider other choices when it comes to Iran, Syria,
and Hezbollah, all of which are costing us lives in Iraq and are on the verge of
another attack on Israel.
We need to question the wisdom of using surgical strikes with “smart bombs”
which, as we saw in Iraq, destroyed some buildings but did little to destroy the
enemy who was smarter than the bombs and avoided being in those buildings.
Collateral damage is what will break the will of the enemy to fight and bring
about surrender. Enemy surrender must be our objective or the war will never
Politicians on the left think we should practice diplomacy with Iran. The EU
has been trying to do that for years now with no results. Negotiating with Iran
would prove as useful as negotiating with Saddam Hussein was and yield the same
results. The only western diplomats that have any chance of succeeding with the
Iranian leadership are F-16s, FA-22s, F-117s, cruise missiles, and B2B stealth
bombers. Only they can deliver a message that Ahmadinejad and his proxies will
understand and respect.
Al Qaeda is another problem and an even more difficult one because of the
diplomatic issues we have with Pakistan where al Qaeda has assumed sanctuary. Of
course all that will change if President Musharraf is overthrown or assassinated
which could happen at any time. If it happens then all deals with Pakistan are
off and we would certainly invade the country with Special Forces to secure the
nuclear weapons, and take out as much of al Qaeda and the Taliban as we can
while we‘re there. The Navy and Air Force can do the rest in the northern tribal
areas where al Qaeda leaders and training camps have found sanctuary.
I’m tired of this war. We’re all tired of this war but it will only get worse
and last longer if we just pull out of Iraq. We’ve made a lot of friends there
and we need Iraq as an ally. Not so with Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Pakistan.
Although Pakistan is a diplomatic ally, the country is turning more and more to
al Qaeda and Taliban ideology and both groups are growing in power there and
providing terrorists who are now showing up in Britain and Europe. So if the
Musharraf government is lost, Pakistan then becomes an enemy state and fair game
along with Iran and Syria. The US will have no choice but to intervene in the
affairs of Pakistan.
We can no longer afford to use half way measures in war. I thought we had
learned that lesson when we fought the Gulf War but now the lesson seems to have
been lost with the “liberation” of Iraq. Politically correct politicians are
making winning a war impossible. Did we worry about innocent civilians and
offending others the last time we won a real war? That was in 1945 when we won
by destroying cities like Dresden, Berlin, Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki. If
you were in the battle zone with the enemy, you could be killed and no American
soldier would be put on trial for doing his job. The rule was kill the enemy,
not check his id and wait for him to shoot at you before shooting back.
I don’t know how our troops can stand fighting this war with their hands tied
behind their backs by Congress and the antiwar left, the very people who have
absolutely no concept of war. The prevailing view in the Washington beltway is
what they see in the New York Times and network news. They see little progress
and only failure in Iraq. Positive reports of progress and success that do
penetrate the beltway are seen only as Bush Administration propaganda, even
though most of it doesn’t even come from the government.
Do fish really know what is happening on dry land? The world of the Left is a
sea of darkness where they see only other fish.