Democrats Stab Soldiers in the Back

Senate OKs Iraq Troop Withdrawal Bill

In a mostly party line 51-47 vote, the Senate signed off on a bill providing $122 billion to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It also orders Bush to begin withdrawing troops within 120 days of passage while setting a nonbinding goal of ending combat operations by March 31, 2008.
Read the Article.

I am disgusted. Sick, even. There is no chance in hell of this bill becoming law, but that isn't the point.

The Democrats were elected because they promised the people a "plan for success in Iraq." They claimed that Bush's policies were a failure, that the Republicans had no plan for victory in Iraq, and that a new direction was needed. They claimed to have a "plan" - the details of which were never particularly clear. The plan would achieve victory and make America safer.

The Democrats didn't tell the American people they planned on cutting and running before the job was done. The Democrats didn't tell the American people they planned on spitting in the face of the US soldier by bringing them home before the job is done.

The Democrats want us to lose in Iraq. They don't realize that this war was waged for the security and safety of ALL AMERICANS. Saddam was a threat to the United States - a threat that in a post 9/11 world could not be allowed to remain. No matter how you want to look at it, the war in Iraq WAS justified. The Democrats, however, refuse to see the war as anything other than "George Bush's" war. They hate George Bush so much that they are willing to put political vendetta above the safety and security of the American people.

The Democrats hatred of Bush is so great that they will disgrace the ultimate sacrifice made by thousands of US soldiers who paid the ultimate price to keep America safe by pulling our soldiers out of Iraq, effectively letting the terrorists win. Despite the sacrifices made by our troops, the democrats place short term goals of scoring political points by ensuring "George Bush's" war fails over VICTORY in Iraq. Victory which is attainable. Victory which is within reach.

Look at the recent Progress in Iraq!

If you are an American. If you are outraged by the Democrats' lies to the American people, their promises for a plan for victory. If you are outraged by "slow bleed" and pulling out. If you are outraged by the Democrats selling out American security and handing the Terrorists a victory in Iraq, then remember this when you head into the voting booth in '08.

If you served in Vietnam, and you supported the war - because you were fighting communism, because you won every battle of the war, because victory was within reach and the communists were going to surrender BUT FOR the DEMOCRATS' "Peace Movement" - if you fought in Vietnam or had a loved one who died there, and you remember what happened AFTER WE PULLED OUT OF A WAR THAT WE WERE WINNING, then you know what will happen in Iraq if we pull out now.

If you think the world hates America now, see what happens if we pull out of Iraq and a real civil war breaks out. See how hated we are if genocide returns to Iraq.

No doubt today Al Qaeda is celebrating their victory in Congress.

Cheney: Update in the War on Terror

This is why I love Cheney... I wish the President had the courage to stand up to the Democrats and tell it like it is:

Cheney: The ones doing the fighting never lose their focus on the mission, or on what is at stake in this war. And neither should the rest of us. Five and a half years have passed since the attacks of September 11th, 2001, and the loss that morning of nearly 3,000 innocent people here in the United States. As we get farther away from 9/11, I believe there's a temptation to forget the urgency of the task that came to us that day, and the comprehensive approach that's required to protect this country against an enemy that moves and acts on multiple fronts. In fact, five and a half years into the struggle, we find ourselves having to confront a series of myths about the war on terror -- myths that are often repeated and deserve to be refuted.

The most common myth is that Iraq has nothing to do with the global war on terror. Opponents of our military action there have called Iraq a diversion from the real conflict, a distraction from the business of fighting and defeating bin Laden and al Qaeda. We hear this over and over again -- not as an argument, but as an assertion meant to close off argument. Yet the critics conveniently disregard the words of bin Laden himself: "The most... serious issue today for the whole world," he said, "is this Third World War...[that is] raging in [Iraq]." He calls it "a war of destiny between infidelity and Islam." He said, "The whole world is watching this war," and that it will end in "victory and glory or misery and humiliation." And in words directed at the American people, Osama bin Laden declares, quote, "The war is for you or for us to win. If we win it, it means your defeat and disgrace forever." This leader of al Qaeda has referred to Baghdad as the capital of the Caliphate. He has also said, and I quote, "Success in Baghdad will be success for the United States. Failure in Iraq is the failure of the United States. Their defeat in Iraq will mean defeat in all their wars." End quote.

Obviously, the terrorists have no illusion about the importance of the struggle in Iraq. They have not called it a distraction or a diversion from their war against the United States. They know it is a central front in that war, and it's where they've chosen to make a stand. Our Marines tonight are fighting al Qaeda terrorists in al Anbar Province. U.S. and Iraqi forces recently killed a number of al Qaeda terrorists in Baghdad, who were responsible for numerous car bomb attacks. Iraq's relevance to the war on terror simply could not be more plain. Here at home, that makes one thing, above all, very clear: If you support the war on terror, then it only makes sense to support it where the terrorists are fighting us.

The second myth is the most transparent -- and that is the notion that one can support the troops without giving them the tools and reinforcements they need to carry out their mission.

Twisted logic is not exactly a new phenomenon in Washington -- but last month it reached new heights. At a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator John McCain put the following question to General Dave Petraeus, who was up for confirmation: "Suppose we send you over to your new job... only we tell you... you can't have any additional troops. Can you get your job done?" General Petraeus replied, "No, sir." Yet within days of his confirmation by a unanimous vote in the Senate -- I repeat, a unanimous vote of confidence in General Petraeus, not one single negative vote -- a large group of senators tried to pass a resolution opposing the reinforcements and support that he believed were necessary to carry out his mission. The House of Representatives, of course, did pass such a resolution. As President Bush said, this may be the first time in history that a Congress "voted to send a new commander into battle and then voted to oppose the plan he said was necessary to win that battle." It was not a proud episode in the history of the United States Congress.

Yesterday, the House Democrats passed the defense appropriations supplemental to fund our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. This will hamper the war effort and interfere with the operational authority of the President with our military commanders. It's counterproductive, it sends exactly the wrong message because of the limitations that are written into the legislation. When members of Congress pursue an anti-war strategy that's been called "slow bleed," they're not supporting the troops, they're undermining them. And when members of Congress speak not of victory but of time limits, deadlines, or other arbitrary measures, they're telling the enemy simply to run out the clock and wait us out.

Congress does, of course, play a critical role in the defense of the nation and the conduct of this war. That role is defined and limited by the Constitution -- after all, the military answers to one commander-in-chief in the White House, not to 535 commanders-in-chief on Capitol Hill. If they really support the troops, then we should take them at their word and expect them to meet the needs of our military on time, in full, and with no strings attached.

There is a third myth about the war on terror, and this is one that is perhaps the most dangerous. Some apparently believe that getting out of Iraq before the job is done will strengthen America's hand in the fight against the terrorists. This myth is dangerous because it represents a complete validation of the al Qaeda strategy. The terrorists do not expect to be able to beat us in a stand-up fight. They never have, and they're not likely to try. The only way they can win is if we lose our nerve and abandon the mission -- and the terrorists do believe that they can force that outcome. Time after time, they have predicted that the American people do not have the stomach for a long-term fight. They've cited the cases of Beirut in the '80s and Somalia in the '90s. These examples, they believe, show that we are weak and decadent, and that if we're hit hard enough, we'll pack it in and retreat. The result would be even greater danger for the United States, because if the terrorists conclude that attacks will change the behavior of a nation, they will attack that nation again and again. And believing they can break our will, they'll become more audacious in their tactics, ever more determined to strike and kill our citizens, and ever more bold in their ambitions of conquest and empire.

That leads me to the fourth, and the cruelest, myth -- and that is the false hope that we can abandon the effort in Iraq without serious consequences to our interests in the broader Middle East. The reality is that, if our coalition withdrew before Iraqis could defend themselves, radical factions would battle for dominance in that country. The violence would spread throughout the country, and be very difficult to contain. Having tasted victory in Iraq, jihadists would look for new missions. Many would head for Afghanistan and fight alongside the Taliban. Others would set out for capitals across the Middle East, spreading more sorrow and discord as they eliminate dissenters and work to undermine moderate governments. Still others would find their targets and victims in other countries on other continents.

We must consider, as well, just what a precipitous withdrawal would mean to our other efforts in the war on terror, to our interests in the broader Middle East, and to Israel. What would it tell the world if we left high and dry those millions of people who have counted on the United States to keep its commitments? What would it say to leaders like President Karzai and President Musharraf, who risk their lives every day as fearless allies in the war on terror? Commentators enjoy pointing out mistakes through 20/20 hindsight. But the biggest mistake of all can be seen in advance: A sudden withdrawal of our coalition would dissipate much of the effort that has gone into fighting the global war on terror, and result in chaos and mounting danger. And for the sake of our own security, we will not stand by and let it happen.

Five and a half years ago, the President told the Congress and the country that we had entered a new kind of war -- one that would require patience and resolve, and that would influence the policies of this government far into the future. The fact that we've succeeded in stopping another attack on our homeland does not mean that we won't be hit in the future. But the record is testimony not to good luck, but to urgent, competent action by a lot of very skilled men and women -- and to a series of tough decisions by a President who never forgets that his first job is to protect the people of this country.

We can be confident in the outcome of this struggle. America is a good and an honorable country. We serve a cause that is right, and a cause that gives hope to the oppressed in every corner of the Earth. We're the kind of country that fights for freedom, and the men and women in the fight are some of the bravest citizens this nation has ever produced. The only way for us to lose is to quit. But that is not an option. We will complete the mission, and we will prevail.
Source.

I was thinking earlier today at how angry the US voter should be with the Democrats, who throughout the 2006 election cycle PROMISED a plan to WIN the war in Iraq. Yet today, several months into Democrat control of Congress, where are the plans for victory?

Where are the discussions of victory?

All they have to offer are plans to end the war. Plans to pull out. Plans to cut and run. How will this achieve victory? The simple answer is that the Democrats have no plan for victory. They lied to the American voter, promised a super secret plan to win, and then took their new found power and dedicated all of their efforts to ensuring we lose the war on terror - that we leave Iraq whether we have won the war or not... consequences be damned.

George Bush made Iraq the central front in the war on Terror. He essentially drew a line in the sand and said "Bring it on!" The result has not been the tragic loss of thousands of US soldiers, the unreported result is the killing of tens of thousands of Islamo-fascists, who would just as happily drive a plane into a building, or blow up as school bus on US soil, as fight the US on a battlefield.

George Bush brought the fight to them, and the fight is still ongoing. He said scores of times that he was bringing the fight to them, so that the battle with terrorists did not play out on American soil. When the violence stops in Iraq it will be a sign that one side was victorious. As long as al Qaeda and other terrorists are willing to wage jihad in Iraq the US involvement in Iraq MUST continue.

Cheney gets it. Cheney understands what is at stake. The President knows what is at stake, but has been too silent in the face of criticism. Has been to weak and ineffective in dealing with the American press, which is hell bent on the US losing in Iraq. Bush has been too weak in dealing with the Democrats, who are hell bent on making the War in Iraq a mistake, even if they have to be the ultimate cause of the disaster by bringing our troops home too soon.

Cheney is 100% right about the Iraq War Mythology, so I think I outta get cracking and write a few more posts for that series.

Democrats Make Enormous Mistake / Send Wrong Message

Just as the troop surge was beginning to show real promise that the tides are turning in Iraq and total victory is within reach (see progress in Iraq posts), the Democrats in the House have taken the first steps towards ensuring defeat in the War on Terror.

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The US House of Representatives Friday voted to impose an August 31, 2008 deadline to pull combat troops out of Iraq, prompting a veto threat and a furious rebuke from President George W. Bush.

In the boldest challenge yet to Bush's war powers, lawmakers voted 218 to 212 to link a 124-billion-dollar war budget to a timeline for withdrawal, significantly raising the stakes in an escalating feud with the president.
More.

In doing so, Congress sends a powerful message to the troops:



The Democrats have claimed a "mandate" since the '06 election when they gained the narrowest of margins against the Republicans. They have taken their new found power and have at every opportunity provided no solutions for victory or for dealing with terrorism. Instead they have put forwards a "slow bleed," cut and run strategy that will only ensure that 9/11 is just a preamble to the what will inevitably come next.

Year of the Pork?

Democrats to load Iraq bill with add-ons
Associated Press

WASHINGTON - While Democrats try to restrict how President Bush can spend the $100 billion he wants for Iraq, they also hope to load his measure up with $10 billion in add-ons — from aid for avocado growers to help for children lacking health insurance.

"The American people told us in the election that they expect us to work together for fiscal responsibility, with the highest ethical standards and civility.

"After years of historic deficits, this new Congress will commit itself to a higher standard: pay as you go, no new deficit spending. Our new America will provide unlimited opportunity for future generations, not burden them with mountains of debt.

"In order to achieve a new America, we must return this House to the American people. So our first order of business is passing the toughest ethics reform in history."

Guess who said it?

That's right, Nancy Pelosi. Good to see the Democrats are serious about "fiscal responsibility, with the highest ethical standards and civility."

And since it was in the quote, "So our first order of business is passing the toughest ethics reform in history."

What did they do with that DEMOCRAT congressman who had $90,000 of bribe money found in his freezer? Impeach him? Nope. What did they do? Oh, that's right, they appointed him to the Homeland Security Panel. Nancy even defended this.

News from Iraq

I'm sure we all heard about the recent chemical attacks in Iraq. The terrorists have taken to detonating bombs attached to chlorine canisters and in some cases trucks full of chlorine to attack civilian targets. The press never fails to be the terrorists' strongest allies, giving front page space to attacks on civilians while the positive news is positively buried.

Well incase you didn't see this soon to be buried news, I'll give you chance to read it before it hits page 28A:

12 suspected Al Qaeda terrorists detained
BAGHDAD, Iraq – Coalition Forces detained 12 suspected terrorists during raids Saturday morning targeting foreign fighter facilitators and the al-Qaeda in Iraq network.

In Fallujah, Coalition Forces detained three suspected terrorists with alleged ties to a foreign fighter facilitation cell. Intelligence reports indicated the suspected terrorists were associated with senior-level foreign fighter facilitators in the local area.

Coalition Forces captured the suspected leader of an al-Qaeda in Iraq cell in Mosul. The al-Qaeda cell in Mosul reportedly facilitates financial transactions in Iraq and neighboring countries. Four others were detained during the raid.

Another raid in Mosul netted a suspected terrorist with financial ties to al-Qaeda in Iraq. During the raid Coalition Forces discovered a large amount of Egyptian and Syrian money and false passports and identification cards.

North of Amiriyah, three suspected terrorists were detained including the alleged leader of a local vehicle-borne improvised explosive device cell.

“Successful Coalition operations continue to disrupt al-Qaida in Iraq operations, restrict the flow of foreign fighters and reduce the terrorist organization’s ability to finance terrorist operations,” said Lt. Col. Christopher Garver, MNF-I spokesperson.

*****


And,

Iraqi Army takes reins in Fallujah
FALLUJAH — The war in Iraq is changing gears and taking a new direction; the battles are now fought by Iraqi forces with Coalition assistance. Coalition forces are working on a daily basis with Iraqi Security Forces on patrols, as well as conducting operations in support of ISF.
The Iraqi Army’s 1st Battalion, 2nd Brigade, 1st Iraqi Army Division, patrolled its area of operation recently to gather intelligence for future operations. The IA was supported by a fire team of Marines from a Military Transition Team during the patrol.

“We did a dismounted patrol and headed south to one of the major roads in Fallujah so the IA could gather intelligence,” said Cpl. Daniel P. Kennedy, a 23-year-old rifleman from Harrison, Mich. “We patrolled down an extremely dangerous street, but I was surprised by how well the (Iraqi) Soldiers patrolled. It is definitely different than patrolling with Marines, but they do a really good job. They are really squared away when they are on patrol.”

The teams charged with assisting the Iraqi Army are Military Transition Teams. A typical patrol for an MiTT team consists of only a fire team of Marines with the rest of the squad comes from the Iraqi Army. The Iraqis lead the patrols and run the show; Marines are only on the patrol to provide additional security and make suggestions for changes during debriefs once the patrol is complete.

“They are much better than I expected. Of course they have things to work on, but they are very good,” said Marine Corps Sgt. James D. Polich, a 37-year-old rifleman from St. Louis. “I think it is very good to get them out there and show their presence.”

The Iraqis are very organized, Kennedy said. One thing that struck Kennedy was the manner in which the Soldiers utilized intelligence from the field to plan and conduct their operations. Such organization is an essential element to decreasing the role Coalition forces play in the security of the region.

“The more they can get out there the better they will get, so when we eventually leave they can do the best of their abilities,” he added.

Iraqi Soldiers have an advantage over the Marines who assist them on patrols; they know the local customs and speak the language. They have the ability to set the people at ease whose home is being used as an over-watch position, or during snap-vehicle check points. They can communicate exactly what they want the driver and passengers to do.

Many of the Soldiers made a point to speak and shake hands with any citizens who ended up getting caught inside of their patrol to let the people know they are in the city to provide security for the citizens of Fallujah.

They continuously show good intentions for the city of Fallujah and its citizens. The Iraqi Army has at times run into trouble in Fallujah, mostly because Fallujah is a Sunni city while most of the 2nd Brigade Soldiers are Shia and have been viewed as a foreign force.

“The people need to see that the IA are the good guys, and they aren’t here to do bad things. They are here for the betterment of Iraq, not only Fallujah,” Kennedy said.

The IA continues to patrol the streets diligently to improve their skills and rid the city of terrorists. They have also begun to work with the Iraqi Police on various operations, either supporting the police or vice versa.

*****

What does that look like to you? Looks like progress to me. I read the progress we are making everyday. Then I turn on the news and read a different narrative altogether.

When your hear two completely different narratives, you have to ask yourself, "why am I hearing such contrasting stories of Iraq?" I look to the motives of the different sides of the issue to determin which is more likely to be the truth.

The US government tells both sides of the story. The government tells the American people that establishing a strong Iraqi government will be long and difficult process, made more difficult by the likes of al Qaeda and Iran. They tell us despite the difficulties we face that this war is winnable and that we make more progress everyday. The motive here is to crush terrorism, liberate an oppressed people, further democracy in the world, and prevent terrorist groups from taking over weak nations. The unintended consequences are the discontent of free peoples in protracted wars, and the further polarization of our country.

The Press/Democrats tell only one side of the story. All we hear from them is that we cannot win, the war is a disaster, updated body counts, etc. They claim to want to bring the troops out of harm's way because they care about and support the troops. Reality cannot be farther from the truth. They care not for the soldier, only for their own power and profit. They talk a good game about caring for the troops, and in the same sentence call them war criminals. They claim you can "support" the troops, but not their mission illegal war.

Their true motives center around exacting political revenge upon a man they believe should have never won the White House. They wish to damage his credibility, and destroy his legacy. They want to impeach Bush in revenge for Clinton. They are also attempting to shift public opinion against the war in what can only be described a disgusting and desperate grab for power.

The unintended consequence of their actions is emboldening, encouraging, and supporting the enemy in Iraq. As Australian Prime Minister John Howard said "If I were running al Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008, and pray, as many times as possible, for a victory not only for Obama, but also for the Democrats." While I think it better that foreign politicians not chime in on US Presidential candidates, I do not at all disagree with what Prime Minister Howard said. He is absolute right. If the Democrats take control of the White House in '08, the Terrorists in Iraq win the war. This is not because the Democrats cannot win, if in power, but because it is their stated position that they wish to leave Iraq as soon as possible, consequences be damned.

Clinton's Iraq Plan: Cut and Run

With victory in sight, Hillary Clinton has a different idea on how to win in the War on Terror - 3 takes on one story:

Hillary Clinton urges phased withdrawal from Iraq
(AFP) - Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton called in an online video for US troop levels to be locked at January levels and urged a phased US withdrawal from Iraq.

"We have to end this war in a smart way, not a Republican or a Democratic way, but a way that makes us safer and gets our troops home as soon as possible," Clinton says in the video. "If (President) George Bush doesn't end this war before he leaves office, when I'm president, I will."

The SMART way to end the war is TO WIN ! Cutting and running, forcing our soldiers to retreat with their tails between their legs, will NOT make us safer. If Democrats think the world has lost respect for the United States now, just wait and see what happens if the Dems force a pull-out and allow the terrorists to take over Iraq.

Clinton dodges arrows on '02 Iraq vote
HOLLY RAMER, Associated Press Writer

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton told New Hampshire voters Saturday that ending the war in Iraq is more important than whether she repudiates her 2002 vote authorizing President Bush to use military force there.

...

Clinton introduced legislation late Friday that would require the Pentagon to begin pulling U.S. forces out of Iraq three months after the bill becomes law — an unlikely scenario with the number of Republicans in Congress and Bush's veto power.

"It's time to say the redeployment should start in 90 days or we will revoke authorization for this war," Clinton said in a statement.

Notice how the AP introduces Hillary's cut and run policy in an article about how she is "dodging arrows" for her 02 vote to authorize the war in Iraq. Whereas the two topics are related, the narrative is that Hillary is facing heat from the left for her centrist like behavior in voting to authorize the war in Iraq. They mention, in passing, that Hillary is demanding that we cut and run in 90 days or else! I speculate that reporting the narrative "Hillary wants to cut and run in 90 days" would not be popular with the majority of Americans, so mentioning it in a related story softens the blow. This, of course, is evidence of bias, but everyone basically accepts the US press is biased.

The foreign press is generally biased too; however, they don't particularly worry about which narrative they use when introducing information that would be damning to an American politician. Which is why the AFP uses the term phased withdrawal instead of "phased redeployment" and Reuters didn't worry about couching the truth in a related narrative:

Clinton urges start of Iraq pullout in 90 days
(Reuters) - U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, the early front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, has called for a 90-day deadline to start pulling American troops from Iraq.

Clinton, the wife of former President Bill Clinton, has been criticized by some Democrats for supporting authorization of the war in 2002 and for not renouncing her vote as she seeks the U.S. presidency in next year's election.

"Now it's time to say the redeployment should start in 90 days or the Congress will revoke authorization for this war," the New York senator said in a video on her campaign Web site, repeating a point included in a bill she introduced on Friday.

See how Reuters gets straight to it. They call it what it is, a pull out, and get right to the point in doing so.

You know we heard time and again that the democrats had a "plan" for Iraq. We heard that it was a "better" plan and that it would win the war and bring our soldiers home. The democrats were able to get elected on this "plan." At the time I often said there was a silver lining in the Republican loss in 06. The silver lining was that it became put up or shut up time for the Democrats. They were an impotent party, the political minority, without representation in the White House and with no real power in the House and Senate. Well now that they have control of both houses of Congress, and what is their plan exactly? Cut and run. Retreat. Run and hide. A vote for Hillary is a vote for defeat in Iraq.

We have all heard the Democrat plan. "Symbolic" resolutions, cutting funds, and forcing a pull-out. Hmmm... Where is their plan to win?

Democrat's War Plan

The infamous "plan" for Iraq the Democrats have been going on and on about since about as far back as late 2003 has yet to be made public; however, the boys at Cox and Forkum give us a good look at what they've come up with so far: