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 : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (18074)	2/28/2007 8:32:52 AM
From: PROLIFE	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Ending Democrats' Free Ride on Iraq David Limbaugh Tuesday, Feb. 27, 2007 For liberals like Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne, it is far worse for Vice President Dick Cheney to accuse congressional Democrats of playing into al-Qaida's hands on Iraq than for Democrats actually to play into al-Qaida's hands on Iraq. It's perfectly fine for liberals to liken Bush and Cheney to Adolf Hitler or falsely accuse them of lying us into war in Iraq to steal its oil. It's perfectly fine for liberals to attribute failures in the federal response to Hurricane Katrina to alleged Republican racism. But don't you dare question the wisdom of the Democrats' proposals on Iraq in such a way as to cause the hypersensitive to infer you were challenging their patriotism. Apparently to Dionne and other like-minded liberals, the potential dire consequences of the Democrats' policies on Iraq are not appropriate for discussion and debate because they might make Democrats look bad, or even feel bad - and those are far worse evils than throwing our national security in the toilet. Precisely what did Dick Cheney - the public servant who Democrats may, with impunity, stoop to any depths to slander - say to make House Speaker Nancy Pelosi so indignant? Well, he issued his assessment of the Democrats' legislative proposals to emasculate our current offensive in Iraq. Cheney said, "Al-Qaida functions on the basis that they think they can break our will ... " and cause us to "quit and go home. ... That's their fundamental underlying strategy ... If we adopt the Pelosi policy ... we will validate the strategy of al-Qaida. I said it, and I meant it." What's wrong with that statement? If Cheney believes the Democrats' cut and run policies will benefit al-Qaida, doesn't he have an obligation to warn us? Not according to Pelosi, who said Cheney was questioning her patriotism. Not once did Cheney suggest the Democrats were unpatriotic. He said, "I didn't question her patriotism. I questioned her judgment." Likewise, President Bush recently made clear that he didn't view the Democrats' proposals to withdraw from Iraq unpatriotic. But if accusing your political opponents of playing into the enemy's hands constitutes an attack on their patriotism, the Democrats' hands are hardly clean either. How many times have we heard Democrats say that President Bush's policies in Iraq are the best terrorist recruitment tool we could have possibly given to Osama bin Laden? Have you ever heard President Bush whine that Democrats were questioning his patriotism? No, perhaps because Bush is quite secure about his own patriotism. What is the administration supposed to do in the face of the Democrats' relentless campaign to undermine any possible chance of our victory in Iraq? Should it simply remain silent as congressional Democrats, more concerned with mollifying their militant antiwar base and kicking a beleaguered president in the teeth than with assuming the sober responsibility their office requires, try to engineer America's surrender and defeat? Until very recently the Democrats have had a free ride, slamming President Bush's policy, even parts of it they approved and authorized, without offering any alternative solutions. Now that they control Congress and are presenting actual legislative proposals, they can't stand the scrutiny their plans invite. In the midst of these partisan skirmishes, we best not lose sight of the momentousness of the issues before us. Questions about the Democrats' patriotism pale in comparison to real issues at stake in the war on terror. What is absolutely scandalous is that we are seriously considering unilateral surrender in a war without so much as contemplating the consequences to the Middle East or to our national security. Democrats (and some Republicans) are advocating that we leave Iraq now, refusing even to consider what might happen if we withdraw prematurely. Presidential candidate John Edwards openly admitted as much. Surely, they recognize the strong possibility that a bloodbath will ensue, that the constitutional republic our soldiers died to make possible will implode and that America-hating Islamists could seize control of Iraq and its oil and convert it to a launching pad for international terrorism. It is imperative we begin to have a discussion about Iraq that involves more than dwelling on the problems if we stay, but also weighs those against the even greater problems that will accompany our precipitous departure. We must have a debate whose sobriety matches the gravity of the national security issues involved. The administration and congressional Republicans must not be intimidated by false charges of name-calling from proceeding with a public debate that will force Democrats to emerge from their hiding places to explain and justify the inevitable, devastating consequences of their reckless policies. Haven't they had a free ride long enough? newsmax.com

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (18074)	3/2/2007 10:31:29 AM
From: E. T.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

I saw the documentary Baghdad ER last night. Worth watching. Anyways, the movie shows how desperate the situation is in Iraq. Everyday people arrive in the ER injured from a car bomb. They all say the same thing, they can't believe Iraqis are doing this to each other. And they all agree that the situation would become much worse were America to pull out. But I put this to you Peter. It was Bush and Rumsfeld's mismanagement of the invasion and the aftermath that led to this mess. You invade, take control the country, and don't let it fall into mayhem... Sorry Peter, I don't mean to emasculate the USA, only the war planners. They've screwed up, and frankly, it appears no one has a solution. I'm hoping the boost in troop numbers will improve the situation. But it is this administration's fault that the situation has become as dire as it is.... Bush Jr. and the people he's been taking sdvise from clearly did not understand what they were getting into... Powell warned Bush more than once, "Don't invade Iraq unless you want to own it."