Thank you Congressman Murtha

Well, well, well...everyone send a big thank you out to Congressman Murtha for the President's speech. He is the reason the President has decided to become responsive to the American people. Congressman Murtha is the reason the President has decided to level--somewhat--with the American people. It is about friggin' time. Oh, don't get me wrong, it was a great speech. He bought himself 6 more months from a political standpoint--maybe.

The President just confirmed that most of the fighting being done in Iraq is being done by "rejectionists." and that Foreign Terrorists comprise the smallest group.

This is interesting. It is interesting because I thought we went to war because we were attacked on 9/11 and that Iraq was supposed to be the place where the terrorists decided to make their stand.

Although the President and his administration continue to insist that the war in Iraq is part of the bigger War on Terror, it just isn't. Prior to the US going into Iraq, the big terrorist haven was Afghanistan. I know, I know--Saddam gave money to Palestinian suicide bombers and there are always the examples of Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas, but there was no link between Saddam and al-Qaeda. NONE--except a discredited rumor of a meeting that didn't happen. In fact, Saddam didn't want al-Qaeda anywhere near Iraq.

So, just for a second imagine that we had done Afghanistan right and not gotten distracted with Iraq. Saddam would still be there--without his WMD--but the terrorists wouldn't be and we could have focused fighting them in Afghanistan.

The President told us during his speech that the terrorists, this small number, want us to leave Iraq so it will dissolve into civil war so they can use the vacuum created by an American retreat to take over and have a place from which to wreak their havoc. So, basically the President is confirming that none of this would be an issue if we hadn't gone to Iraq in the first place.

The other interesting thing from the President's speech is that, although he didn't actually use these words, he admitted to making mistakes. He said that at first we didn't realize that there was going to be an insurgency--(Seems to me I remember lots of people talking about it in the run up to the war) so we didn't train the police the right way. So, now we are--training them the right way, that is. Same thing with the military we messed up and didn't do it right, but now we are. Of course, there were lots of people who pointed out that we were doing all of these things wrong and said what we should be doing, but the important thing is that after 29 months and over 2100 killed and 17,000 wounded--now, we are finally getting it right.

Bottom line is that this was a good political speech. The President did a nice job of showcasing the good things we are doing and he did the whole when they stand up we'll sit down thing and all of that, but for me, this speech is about a year too late.

Here is why. The mistakes they made, for the most part, were avoidable. If they had taken a realistic look at Iraq, it's history and it's culture, they would have known to expect an insurgency. If they had admitted earlier that we were experiencing an insurgency we could have been way more effective. If they had sent in enough troops to secure the borders and instill law and order we could have been way more effective. If Donald Rumsfeld had focused more on this war instead of his ideas of what the military should be, if he had been more concerned with what was actually going on instead of what he hoped we could accomplish by assuming more risk and using fewer troops--Iraq would be much different today.

And while it is true, that the Dems and Reps are saying basically the same thing now. I want the group of guys who screwed up every step of the way so far to do at least what was demanded by the Senate and report back on our progress, because they have demonstrated time and time again that left to their own devices that they can't be trusted to make the smart choice.

Chris

Others on this: Stop the ACLU, The Political Teen

Comments

[HC]

Talk is cheap, I wait to see the action.

[Lisa]

Chris:

So, just for a second imagine that we had done Afghanistan right and not gotten distracted with Iraq. Saddam would still be there--without his WMD--but the terrorists wouldn't be and we could have focused fighting them in Afghanistan.

Me:

Yes, Saddam would still be there. And Iraqi citizens would continue to be tortured, raped, tossed off the tops of buildings and murdered.

Gee... I wonder how they would feel about your statement?

[HC]

Lisa

It is much better with us there and having Iraqi citizens tortured, raped, and murdered.

[Chris]

Lisa--and had the President said let's go invade Iraq because Saddam is a bad guy and he treats his people badly you would have said...ah...no thanks. I know this because I don't hear you advocating invading anywhere else where the people are being tortured, raped, murdered and all of that. Maybe, we should start a list of places we are going to invade because their leaders are bad guys--how about all those African countries where there is active genocide? That isn't why we went there and it didn't help us or our interests.

[Chris]

P.S. Did I mention I don't care what the Iraqi people think about my statement? Freedom from Tyranny doesn't get handed to you and when it does, it doesn't work.

[Matt Hurley]

I do happen to have a laundry list of places I think we should go next because the people are being tortured, raped, and murdered. Places like Darfur have been ignored by the international community for far too long. The UN has coddled dictators since the beginning of that pathetic organization.

But let's examine Iraq, because after all, that is the point of this discussion, isn't it? The point in choosing to attack Iraq has more to do with the strategy of eliminating Islamofascism than has ever been articulated by POTUS or anyone in his administration.

For all intents and purposes, Iraq is the "heart" of the middle east. When one thinks of Islamofascism, eveyone thinks Middle East...that's not to say that Islamofascism is contained there (Southeast Asia comes to mind) or is "just" an Arab thing. But if you want to attack Islamofascism at the heart, you take the fight to Iraq.

Were there other choices? Sure, we could have picked Saudi Arabia or Iran or Syria or Libya...but none of those (with the possible exception of Saudi Arabia) would have near the effect on the Middle East as Iraq. Iraq has plenty of neighbors...most of whom are now greatly influenced by events unfolding in Iraq...(and for those who think like Chris, the influence being asserted in the region is one that is to our benefit in the long run)

Sure...you can continue to complain about the situation in Iraq if you are short-sighted. But if you, like me and POTUS, are taking the long-term view of Iraq, the Middle East and the death of Islamofascism...Iraq is progressing. Nobody should be thinking that this is going to be over next week...it would be nice, but that isn't realistic...there are two ways we go about ending this thing next week: 1) we could quit (which, near as I can tell, is the Democcrats plan) or 2) we could disband the Iraqi government and set up an American colony (which, near as I can tell, is what far lefties think is already happening because they can't tell the difference between imperialism and intervention). Me, I prefer the third option: take the long-term view. Actually read the document (I know, it's 35 pages long...I got through about half of it yesterday) and you'll see what I'm talking about.

Do I expect any of this to break through the Bush hating fog? Not really, but I thought I'd give it the ole college try...

[Matt Hurley]

Chris: "Freedom from Tyranny doesn't get handed to you and when it does, it doesn't work."

ME: This is about the most absurd thing I think I've heard you say.

If I understand you right, the meek shall inherit the Earth by doing what exactly? And aren't the weak who we are supposed to help out?

I don't want to make this a religious thing, so let's secularize the conversation... Are you actually saying that we should tolerate brutal thugs subjugating people becuase the people aren't strong enough to fight them off? Is that really what you mean?

[Chris]

We do it all the time. We choose who we help based on our interests. In a moral debate, the answer would be no, but yes that is what I really mean.

[Bombtruck]

Hey HC:

Does Saddam pay you by the word or are you clearly that clueless about the world?? By the way, since you have your head down in it, is the sand warm?

Figures you'd be the first to run with that take Chris. I predicted on Wednesday at ABP that liberals would be claiming Bush 'stole' their Iraq ideas...like they actually had any outside of surrender, but I digress. Murtha's not dictating a damn thing outside of an ill-informed opinion. Someone needs to ask him why Joe Liberman comes back from Iraq with a much different take on the situation than he does, or are we just supposed to take his word at face value because he's a vet???

[Matt Hurley]

Chris: "In a moral debate, the answer would be no, but yes that is what I really mean."

ME: What a cold-hearted liberal you are...and I mean that in the least offensive of ways...

I just find it difficult to accept that someone of your liberal leanings would think it is okay for people to suffer...

Hmm...I learned something here today.....

[Chris]

Matt--here let me make you feel better about my liberalness...all of this concern for Iraqis and so little for the downtrodden here in our own country---feel better? :0)

[Bombtruck]

So little for the downtrodden here??? Well, let's see, democrats created the great society and funded it, so if the downtrodden are still....downtrodden, whose fault is that???

I’ll just point out one little matter (out of so many; I had to pick and choose.) It is well documented that Al-Zarquawi was in Iraq before the war. Supposedly for medical treatment, but there have been other documented instances where he escaped into Iraq when wanted in Jordan. In other words he had free access. He could come and go as he pleased. Now Al-Zarquawi was already part of al-Qaeda.

Yes, it is true, al-Qaeda was backing Kurdish groups fighting Saddam, but then something happened. Bellow is an excerpt from page 128 (146 in pdf file) of the 9/11 Commission Report

“Though intelligence gave no clear indication of what might be afoot, some
intelligence reports mentioned chemical weapons, pointing toward work at a
camp in southern Afghanistan called Derunta.On November 4, 1998, the U.S.
Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York unsealed its indictment
of Bin Ladin, charging him with conspiracy to attack U.S. defense installations.
The indictment also charged that al Qaeda had allied itself with Sudan,
Iran, and Hezbollah.The original sealed indictment had added that al Qaeda
had “reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda
would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively
with the Government of Iraq.”109 This passage led Clarke, who for years had
read intelligence reports on Iraqi-Sudanese cooperation on chemical weapons,
to speculate to Berger that a large Iraqi presence at chemical facilities in Khartoum was “probably a direct result of the Iraq–Al Qida agreement.” Clarke
added that VX precursor traces found near al Shifa were the “exact formula
used by Iraq.”110This language about al Qaeda’s “understanding” with Iraq had
been dropped, however, when a superseding indictment was filed in November
1998.111 “

Another interesting snippet from the report is on page 134 (152 of the pdf file.

“In February 1999,Allen proposed flying a U-2 mission over Afghanistan to
build a baseline of intelligence outside the areas where the tribals had coverage.
Clarke was nervous about such a mission because he continued to fear that
Bin Ladin might leave for someplace less accessible.He wrote Deputy National
Security Advisor Donald Kerrick that one reliable source reported Bin Ladin’s
having met with Iraqi officials, who “may have offered him asylum.” Other
intelligence sources said that some Taliban leaders, though not Mullah Omar,
had urged Bin Ladin to go to Iraq. If Bin Ladin actually moved to Iraq, wrote
Clarke, his network would be at Saddam Hussein’s service, and it would be “virtually impossible” to find him. Better to get Bin Ladin in Afghanistan, Clarke
declared.134 Berger suggested sending one U-2 flight,but Clarke opposed even
this. It would require Pakistani approval, he wrote; and “Pak[istan’s]
intel[ligence service] is in bed with” Bin Ladin and would warn him that the
United States was getting ready for a bombing campaign: “Armed with that
knowledge, old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad.”135Though told also
by Bruce Riedel of the NSC staff that Saddam Hussein wanted Bin Ladin in
Baghdad,Berger conditionally authorized a single U-2 flight.Allen meanwhile
had found other ways of getting the information he wanted. So the U-2 flight
never occurred.136“

OK, see if you can wrap your so-called brain around this concept: al-Qaeda thought Saddam an infidel that needed to be destroyed, but they also felt he might be useful to them. Saddam, doesn’t trust al-Qaeda, but he hates the US so much for the 1st Gulf War he thinks they might be useful to him in his vendetta against the US.

Saddam knows that having al-Qaeda operatives running around freely in his country is dangerous as they might turn on him. But he also knows he might be able to use them as a means of delivery for weapon systems (i.e. carrier pigeons.) He doesn’t want a big stockpile of weapons, which they might be able to use against him… Try actually thinking this time…

Do you think Saddam allowed al-Zarquawi free access to his country and Medical treatment out of the generosity of his heart? Have you read all that is available on the al-Qaeda/Iraq connection, including the entire 9/11 Commission report? Arrogance and Ignorance is a deadly combination!

[Matt Hurley]

Actually, I am concerned about the downtrodden here...turns out more people have been murdered in Cincinnati this year than Americans have been killed in Baghdad the ENTIRE WAR...

It's defitiely time to pull out...

...of Cincinnati...

[USMC Steve]

Al-Zarquawi and his people were one of at least three terrorist groups we knew were operating with the tacit approval of and quite probably the logistical support of Saddam.

People can continue to argue back and forth, but I knew then and know now that they were there. And unlike the "professional" spooks in the CIA, the military intelligence types rarely get it wrong, as we have no political agenda to contend with.

As for Chris, HC and the other libs, it is amazing that any of them can be so silly as to point out that there are people here in the US who need help and that we should do that first. Libs always ignore them, because it is not sufficiently fashionable to bother with them. Now, some barely civilized mob in Africa, they cannot bust out the cash fast enough. Because THAT IS TRENDY, AND LIBS ARE ALL ABOUT THAT.

[catastrophile]

Look, there's absolutely no reason why we couldn't have toppled the government, held elections within 90 days (which Jay Garner was fired for advocating), and withdrawn to a respectable distance so that Iraq could develop a new government without interference from us.

Well, okay, there's one reason: If we'd done it that way, we wouldn't have been able to vanish all these billions and billions of tax dollars into profiteering and theft.

By the same token, when Zarqawi was running his camp near the Iranian border, well outside Saddam's sphere of influence, the Pentagon set up plans to go in on three different occasions to go take him out, but the administration decided that the talking point was more useful than actually capturing terrorists.

And I guess they were right, since people are still spouting the same old talking points to defend the administration.

[Matt Hurley]

Jay Garner was not fired for advocating any such thing.....he had other problems that caused his early exit as I recall it...

[Matt Hurley]

...the rest is just nonsense lefty talking points...

[Capitalist Infidel]

Now Mad Murtha is trashing our soldiers. Nothing like intentionally trying to bring down morale. He calls our soldiers "worn out" and "broken."

By the way, do we know which side he fought for in Viet Nam?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051201/ap_on_go_co/congress_iraq_murtha

[catastrophile]

Let me take a moment out from boggling at your lengthy and eloquent refutation, Matt, to give you some links:

Zarqawi:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/

Garner:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1171880,00.html

Lemme guess: NBC and Garner are pinko commie terrorists who hate America, right?

How many former administration officials does it take to discredit the administration in your eyes?

[Capitalist Infidel]

Bwahahahahaha!!!!

Now America hater cat is relying on the "intelligence" that said we knew where Zarqawi was. But there aren't any WMD's that the intelligence agencies said were there.

The utter hypocrisy of the left is stunning! Not to mention the intellectual dishonesty. But then again to those who have a seething hatred for the country like cat history started this morning.

[Matt Hurley]

My point about Garner was that he was about to face some sort of legal trouble and that is why he was let go. Garner isn't a good guy as I recall it...something about a lawsuit...I don't have time to research it now. But I'm sure that if he had stayed on, you'd have known all about it and exploited it for whatever "good" you think you are doing...

Interesting thing about the Zarqawi piece is this: "In June 2002, U.S. officials say intelligence had revealed that Zarqawi and members of al-Qaida had set up a weapons lab at Kirma, in northern Iraq, producing deadly ricin and cyanide." Say, isn't ricin and cyanide classified as WMDs??? We know Zarqawi ws there as Saddam's guest, so...

[catastrophile]

Nicely dodged, Matt, but you know nothing of the sort. If Zarqawi was there mixing up WMDs as Saddam's guest, mightn't the Iraqi government have placed him somewhere NOT visible from orbit?

Zarqawi's camp was well outside the area Saddam had any real control over -- in an area which was basically ungoverned, thanks to the no-fly zones, and the US had the option of taking him out, but chose not to.

And, predictably, once ground troops finally reached the site -- long-abandoned by then -- Focks and the White House trumpeted it as "proof" they were right! Because there were terrorists operating in a part of Iraq that the US had more control over than Saddam!

Talk about talking point nonsense, my God you people are gullible. The administration left Zarqawi free for the propaganda value. And you still play apologist for these people. Utterly ridiculous.

Ooh, and I can just feel the Clinton-Osama whine coming. Just keep in mind that every time somebody compares Clinton to Gee-Dub, your Reep messiah gets a little bit closer to beking impeached.

[catastrophile]

All right, I poked around and found this on Garner:

http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20030428&s=gray

Which indicates that he was accused of granting a noncompetitive contract, and filed a countersuit for defamation, which was settled and sealed.

Now, we already know that granting noncompetitive contracts is not enough to get you fired in this administration, so I'm skeptical, to say the least.

But why is it that all of these folks are turning around and accusing the administration?

It's one thing to call Dick Clarke a Clinton loyalist, kept on by the Gee-Dub administration out of -- uh, pity? I can see how you could dismiss the claims of people like Karen Kwiatkowski, and Bunny Greenhouse, and the diplomats who resigned over Iraq, and the intelligence professionals who've accused the administration . . . jeebus, it seems like the list goes on and on.

But why would the administration have hired Garner in the first place, if he's such a self-serving, bad man? Why hire Mike Brown? Why is Wilkerson turning on the "cabal" in the White House? How come everybody who resigns from the administration winds up either writing a book about how awful it is, or getting indicted for things they did in office?

Are you not seeing a pattern here? Is this all some vast left-wing conspiracy? At what point do you acknowledge that the administration is the problem?

[Shari]

Matt: But let's examine Iraq, because after all, that is the point of this discussion, isn't it?

Me: Great post!

Cap: Bwahahahahaha!!!!

Now America hater cat is relying on the "intelligence" that said we knew where Zarqawi was. But there aren't any WMD's that the intelligence agencies said were there.

Me: Nice catch, Cap! ^5!!!