Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Win Smith who wrote (175385)	11/19/2005 6:46:10 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 281500

Iraq is Terri Schiavo by John in DC - 11/19/2005 04:51:00 PM The Republicans' main argument for the US staying in Iraq is that if we leave Iraq it will become an even bigger disaster. To wit, the following remarks from the conservative Weekly Standard about Murtha: REP. JACK MURTHA has had a distinguished congressional career. But his outburst last Thursday was breathtakingly irresponsible. Nowhere in his angry and emotional call for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq did the Pennsylvania Democrat bother to ask, much less answer, the most serious questions his proposal raises. What would be the likely outcome in Iraq if the United States pulled out? Does Murtha actually believe the Iraqi people could fight the al Qaeda terrorists and Saddam Hussein loyalists by themselves once American forces left? He does not say. In fact, he knows perfectly well that the Iraqi people are not yet capable of defending themselves against the monsters in their midst and that, therefore, a U.S. withdrawal would likely lead to carnage on a scale that would dwarf what is now occurring in Iraq. And the Weekly Standard is right. If we leave Iraq, all hell will break loose. But we still should leave, and here's why. 1. Iraq is a mess. 2. If the US leaves, all hell (more hell) WILL break loose, as described by the Weekly Standard, above. 3. But if the US stays, all hell will still break loose. We're not winning the war, 85% of the Iraqi public wants us out, 45% of the Iraqi public wants us dead (these are true poll numbers), US military deaths are increasing rather than decreasing, and our continued presence has been a boon for Al Qaeda recruitment and training. 4. The US military occupation of Iraq is simply prolonging the inevitable. Iraq is going to fall apart at the seams, with us or without us - it's only a question of when. 5. Thus, the debate isn't whether we should or shouldn't let Iraq fall apart. The only question we need to settle is whether it's worth the price - in terms of both US military deaths and the benefit our presence bestows on Al Qaeda - for the US to help prolong Iraq's certain death. Iraq is Terri Schiavo. Already dead, living on borrowed time, but the Republicans refuse to accept the inevitable. Yes, you can prolong the patient's life for decades. But at what cost, and for what real benefit? The day a Republican responds to THIS argument, rather than simply saying "but Iraq will fall apart if we leave," that's the day we start having a REAL debate about Iraq in this country. In the meantime, the Republicans will keep scouring the videos for signs of life in a patient who's long-since checked out. americablog.org

To: Win Smith who wrote (175385)	11/19/2005 8:20:34 PM
From: mistermj	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

403 to 3. The "Sound and Fury, Signifying Nothing" Democrats. by Hugh Hewitt November 19, 2005 05:49 AM PST The Murtha proposal for immediate withdrawal from Iraq was defeated 403 to 3 last night. So much for the idea of cut and run. Many Democrats were emotionally undone by the exercise of having to confront their own rhetoric, and the anti-war left must be stunned this morning: Only three votes? All that work? All those marches? All those posts at the fever swamp bulletin board? For three votes? The Dems have more excuses than a teenager: It wasn't the real Murtha resolution; it's a terrible political trick; I will not participate in the assault on Congressman Murtha etc, etc, etc. But the talk around the turkey this week should review that the elections in 2002, 2004 and the vote on Friday night in the House underscore the county is committed to victory in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and everywhere else the GWOT is being waged. That talk should also dwell on the profound hypocrisy of the left and its Congressional representatives, "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." They only believe what they believe when the country as a whole isn't watching. Supermen on the web, when Congress assmebled they went into their phonebooths/cloakrooms and came out as Clark Kent. The Democrats took their walloping last year and instead of resolving to return to D.C. as an opposition party that would work to craft alternatives to domestic policies while remaining supportive of the GWOT and of the troops, have spent a year digging deeper and deeper into anti-war conspiracy theories and committing themselves to Vietnam Syndrome 2.0. The GOP abetted their descent by failing to do what happened yesterday: Call them on their nonsense and debate it, in full view of the public, and not in MSM-mediated soundbytes. The Chamber was full and the tempers high --as they should be when a great party confronts its opposite over a serious issue. The Democratic Party is committed to retreat, but they hate to be asked to defend that inclination. The Republicans are committed to victory, but seem hesitant because of the high costs of the war, even though the costs of retreat would be much higher still. If the GOP stays the course of clarity, and keeps its purposes front and center, the elections of 2006 will be another milestone in the Democrats road to Whigdom. Win the war. Confirm the judges. Cut the taxes. Control the spending.