Bush visits Iraq
AL ASAD AIR BASE, Iraq (Reuters) The president flew to Iraq with his security team to meet with U.S. commander General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker for a final review of the war before a showdown in Congress over troop levels.
"General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker tell me if the kind of success we are seeing continues, it will be possible to maintain the same level of security with fewer American forces," Bush said. (Full story here)
Great move by the President here. In all honesty, I don't know why he doesn't head over there more often. This was definitely good timing though with the "pinnacle" point of our campaign in Iraq coming up next week when Patraeus and Crocker present there update to Congress.
Whats interesting is that the Democrats have done everything in their power to prevent the two from testifying, or having the review at all. They have spent their 8 months in power (and even more so this summer) trying to tie the hands of our soldiers, generals, political supporters and Commander in Chief when it comes to Iraq, essentially attempting to wave the white flag for political purposes and gain.
This is not new however, so I'll make my point: Ever since the Democrats have taken office, their approval ratings have gone in the toilet while the Bush Administration has gained approval. Iraq has seen a drop in violence after the President finally gave the country what it needed: More security. Dealing with Iran (in a tough manner) is hopefully the next thing on his "to-do" list. Quick reminder as to why for all you "Rosie O'Donnell's" out there:
Nuclear milestone reached: 3,000 centrifuges
Iranian President mocks U.S., saying we WON'T strike
Victory is close; do not allow these lost liberals strip it from us.
"As you know, today is Labor Day back home -- (hooah!) -- so I thought I'd come by to thank you for all your hard work...We've all come to say thank you. We've come to tell you the American people are standing with you. They're grateful for your sacrifice. As Commander-in-Chief, I'm proud to be in your presence on this Labor Day. I ask for God's blessings on you and your family, and may God continue to bless America. Thank you."
-George W. Bush, President of the United States (September 3, 2007)
posted by Carl Soderberg at
7:48 PM
12 Comments:
Youre right, Bush does need to visit the soldiers more. I think that he doesn't (only when its politically beneficial) shows how much he really cares about this war effort. If he was really committed to the soldiers and the war, he would be over there every month meeting and talking with those on the ground and the politicians who are having a tough time getting the country to actually behave like a country.
Sure, give Bush props for making a visit when he is supposed to. I think the true measure of his actual support and actual belief in the "successes" over there could be shown by how many time he has visited Iraq when he WASNT supposed to.
Bush sucks blah, blah, blah, loosing the war blah, blah, blah, right wing conspiracy blah, blah, blah, troops are baby killers blah, blah, blah, impeach now.
See, i can be a liberal too.
Bush rocks blah, blah, blah, Iraq is all flowers and sunshine blah, blah, blah, liberal media, blah, blah, blah, the terrorists hate our freedoms blah, blah, blah, Jesus hates Arabs.
And I can be a conservative.
Lol, Jesus hates Arabs? I guess I missed that talking point...
But I've never heard Democrats call our troops "baby killers." If they did then why are they calling for more veteran benefits and better troop armor? And why do Republicans not care about that stuff? (Remember Walter Reed Hospital?)
WHo said they never cared about "that stuff?" Bush and his supporters took strict action to take care of any issues, including the issue of Dems trying to cut funding for the soldiers in order to FORCE them to come home.
And while the term "baby killers" was never used, you cannot deny the fact that many liberals have been trying to push the idea that our troops are criminals and committing terrible acts over in Iraq (remember Murtha? Kerry? how about dozens of NYT articles and CNN reports?).
Well, certainly many liberals are concerned about abuse cases like Abu Gharib (or, to a lesser extent, http://youtube.com/watch?v=b1JxOeHLGGk this video). I think it's fair to say that Democrats hold Americans to higher standards than conservatives do, especially when possible wrong-doings give terrorists a moral high ground in the eyes of the Iraqi people. And again, Democrats have called for better troop armor and better veteran protection while Bush neglected Walter Reed Hospital and while Rumsfeld reprimanded a soldier for caring about his own safety. The real problem is that Bush would keep our soldiers in the war even if Democrats did cut funding. Conservatives need look at the bigger picture instead of whining about the Democrats for standing up for our soldiers.
I love how liberals twist the meanings of their actions. You call it "holding Americans to higher standards than conservatives," but what you fail to realize is that allowing terror suspects to go, giving them American rights or holding back what our troops can do in the field is a sign of weakness.
We don't need to prove that we are morally superior (its not like its a first date or social event), this is war and we already know that we are morally superior. Muslim extremists believe that they are morally superior and say their devotion is proven through suicide bombings and showing no mercy. They also use that confidence as a recruiting tool.
How do you fight this? In a very hard, forceful manner. By trying to prove to yourself that you are good in the eyes of some lib eating cheese in France, you are tying the hands of our soldiers and our national security system. You call that standing up for everyone, but I (and our enemies) call it weakness. Believe me, any signs of weakness on our part emboldens our enemies and keeps them pushing for any inch they can muster.
And yes, Bush would continue the fight WITH HIS OWN BUDGET because he believes in the cause and what we fight for.
"Those decisions (about withdrawals) will be based on a calm assessment by our military commanders on the conditions on the ground, not a nervous reaction by Washington politicians to poll results in the media. (Hooah!)" (from the video)
Stand up leader. I think I would trust his decisions more than than these anonymous liberals because he sits in the one place where he can make the best decision.
Sgt. Barrows,
What you haven't yet addressed yet is how poorly Bush has treated you and other soldiers. Why was Walter Reed Hospital so neglected? And when one soldier wondered about troop equipment, why did Rumsfeld so degradingly respond, "You fight a war with the army you have, not the army you want," especially when the war in Iraq was a war of choice (not necessity). The Democrats believe that the war we're fighting should end because 1) it isn't effective at solving the root political problems, and 2) it jeopardizes you the soldier. Conservatives, on the other hand, seem to see you as a political commodity. Shouldn't that anger you? Why won't you stand up as the Democrats stand up for you? Turn on the news; you'll hear Democrats advocate better equipment and conservatives whine and deflect the issue.
And, yes. We do need to prove a moral high ground. We know we have it, but the Iraqi people don't (if they did, then they wouldn't be fighting us). And al-Qaeda doesn't prove their moral high ground through mercilessness; the reason why the Sunnis turned on them was because of their overwhelming cruelty. Therefore, any perceived cruelty from the Americans only comes across to the Iraqis as simply the other extreme. It's possible to be strong and moral at the same time. Last time I checked, it was the thing America's best at. Let's be that again.
Like a typical liberal, you try to twist the issue and throw the blame onto Conservatives. Of course, its Bush's fault that we are in a war we cant win, but while we're there, its also Bush's fault that we don't have the supplies or means to have a fighting chance. Please.
You misconstrue Rumsfeld's statements. We do goto war with the Army we have when a war is needed. We took over an entire nation in 5 weeks without breaking a sweat and toppled the quarter-century regime. We were not aware that over the next 4 years, a vast majority of our casualties would be due to roadside IED's, never before seen on the battlefield. Developments such as the new MRAP vehicles and armor are taking care of the issue. Sucks fighting an enemy who wont show himself and strikes with a cell phone call. But its alright, we stay proactive and go get 'em.
Next you say Bush "neglected" the issues at Walter Reed. "Some of our troops have experienced bureaucratic delays and living conditions that are less than they deserve...It is unacceptable to me, it is unacceptable to you, and it is unacceptable to our country and it is not going to continue." For the record, the "breaking story" was done by the Washington Post (great source) and they targeted "bureaucratic nightmares." Anyone from the military, or any government institution, will say that any process is slow. Welcome to bureaucracy. Aren't you Dems running into that problem over at Capital Hill? Great 9 months you all are running on right now. Talk about whining and not acting.
You also say that the Democrats stand up for us. Bull (with the exception of a key few such as Lieberman). They have done everything in their power to strip whatever resource they can to pull soldiers from the mission and victory.
As far as moral high ground goes, I'd trade it away any day for added safety, security, and the lives of myself and other Americans. We know we are superior, and the Iraqi's see it everyday when the enemy on one side hides in an apartment complex building bombs to kill themselves and their neighbors with, while you sit in front of a computer, eat McDonalds, catch the latest summer movies, goto school, work, etc. They love the idea of that lifestyle, and love our products by the way (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2007-08-02-iraq-week_N.htm)
BTW, more Americans have spilled their blood for other people of other nationalities than any other country in history. A reason why we are superior in the eyes of those we fight for.
Beyond all that, next time any of you liberals say you are standing up for the troops, just save the oxygen. As soon as anyone begins with ending the war, pulling out, surrendering or pointing the finger is only supporting the idea of additional seats politically. Loosing this effort harms the Iraqi people, our allies, our soldiers and the average American people. You act as if they wont come again, but they plan for that moment everyday. The only thing keeping them on their heels is the epic wall we call the US Armed Forces and the brave men and women who uphold it.
We are winning here; last time I checked, THAT is what America is good at. Lets keep THAT going. A win for us is never bad...another reason why we are superior morally in the eyes of those we fight for.
I know I rambled a bit here, but Im tired of liberal spin on this issue. Hold your opinions, by all means, but don't try to cover them up and sell them as something else in order to get another group of people on board.
PS - I have used a different name to hide my true identity (maybe I can learn something from a lib), and congrats to author Soderberg for his recent acceptance into the US Army Officer Candidate School. Keep up the good work on this forum guys.
You said it best when you were being sarcastic: "its Bush's fault that we are in a war we cant win, but while we're there, its also Bush's fault that we don't have the supplies or means to have a fighting chance." If you're going to fight a losing war, you might as well try to make sure that as few of your own men die as possible.
No, I did not misconstrue Rumsfeld's statements. The war in Iraq was a war of choice, not necessity; that makes Rumsfeld's statements all the more degrading and offensive. And the military wasn't aware about how Iraq would be after Saddam because nobody took the time to figure out what to do once he was gone: the war was planned for almost a year, but the aftermath was given only a few weeks of planning. Even some of the staunchest neocons admit that Bush messed that one up.
I agree: bureaucracy sucks. But it's the obligation of the executive office to make sure things get done anyways. If Bush is going to spend so much money and expand the government so much for the sake of war, he might as well be able to do it efficiently. He isn't, and his failure is at the expense of the troops.
Joe Lieberman's not a Democrat. That's all I have to say on that.
I already explained to you how the Iraqi people DON'T think we have the moral high ground, I don't know why you have this delusion. If they thought we did, then they wouldn't be attacking us. The solution to this problem should be pretty obvious: understand the culture, and work to solve the political problem that is at the root of Iraq's problems. It isn't for officers to sit around and let soldiers taunt little thirsty children. Our actions have consequences. And if you're as sure about America's moral high-ground as I am, then why don't you want our soldiers to show it?
I've never heard a Democrat advocate "surrender." That's conservative spin and you know it. Democrats realize that Iraq is a nation with a complex culture and political problems that need to be addressed. Emphasis is being taken away from training Iraqi soldiers, and Bush is hardly paying enough attention to the failing legitimacy of Maliki's government. How is that winning? By wanting to solve those problems, the Democrats want to win.
I haven't displayed my identity in this thread (though I have in comments on other posts) because I didn't think it was necessary. If you really are a soldier, as you claim to be, then God bless despite our differences, and I hope you've been fighting honorably.
blah blah blah blah blah
Post a Comment
<< Home