Tuesday, November 22, 2005

Courageous Murtha demands (our) surrender, slandering the president, and other Iraq foolishness

Insanity began sweeping Congress last week, as Democratic Rep. John Murtha called for a withdrawal from Iraq, Democrats in general continued to make similarly psychotic and irresponsible suggestions (quite obviously for political gain, unless we are to assume widespread mental retardation), and Republicans largely buckled like pathetic little mice under the weight of all that foolishness.

Cal Thomas:
Those who would impose a timetable rather than seek victory have an obligation to say what they believe will follow precipitous withdrawal. If it's disaster for the Iraqis and for us, will they take full responsibility? Quitting before a stable democracy and self-sufficient Iraqi military is in place isn't a strategy. It is surrender.

More Thomas:
This is a world war, the results of which can only end in defeat for one side. There is no "coming home" from this war. We are engaged whether we like it or not. Religious fanatics aren't going to participate in a U.S.S. Missouri moment, signing documents of surrender. They must be crushed and demoralized so that they will have no hope in this life or the next of achieving their dreams of a worldwide caliphate. Those are the stakes. Democrats had better ask themselves whether politics or national survival means more to them and what actions and words help or harm America and our troops.

Dick Cheney: "It is a dangerous illusion to suppose that another retreat by the civilized world would satisfy the appetite of the terrorists and get them to leave us alone." And:
In a post-9/11 world, we couldn't afford to take the word of a dictator who had a history of WMD programs, who had excluded weapons inspectors, who had defied the demands of the international community, who had been designated an official state sponsor of terror, and who had committed mass murder.

And what about the recurring and - coming from top politicians - entirely politically-motivated lie that President Bush lied or misled the nation into Iraq? Norman Podhoretz with the facts on who is lying about Iraq. And Michael Barone explains the Big Lie. Barone:
Exhaustive and authoritative examinations of the prewar intelligence, by the bipartisan report of the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2004, by the Silberman-Robb commission in 2005, and by the British commission headed by Lord Butler, have established that U.S. intelligence agencies, and the intelligence organizations of leading countries like Britain, France, and Germany, believed that Saddam Hussein's regime was in possession of or developing weapons of mass destruction--chemical and biological weapons, which the regime had used before, and nuclear weapons, which it was working on in the 1980s.

To the charges that Bush "cherry-picked" intelligence, the commission cochaired by former Democratic Sen. Charles Robb found that the intelligence available to Bush but not to Congress was even more alarming than the intelligence Congress had. The Silberman-Robb panel also concluded, after a detailed investigation, that in no instance did Bush administration authorities pressure intelligence officials to alter their findings. Much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. But Bush didn't lie about it.

Numerous politicians, on the other hand, are lying about President Bush right now.

And of course, the probable existence of WMD wasn't the only reason for the invasion, which I consider a brilliant decision to defend and extend freedom in a new age. "Rape rooms, prisoners fed into shredders, hundreds of mass graves: Do we really want to forget that the liberation of Iraq has vastly improved the lives of millions of people there?"

Barone continues:
Another goal was to advance freedom and democracy in the Middle East--not just to help the people there but to change the mind-set of the region that produced the attacks of September 11. Before 2003, the dictators and authoritarian rulers of the region focused their peoples' inevitable discontent on the United States and Israel. Now the progress toward democracy in Iraq is leading Middle Easterners to concentrate on the question of how to build decent governments and decent societies. We can see the results--the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon, the first seriously contested elections in Egypt, Libya's giving up WMD s, the Jordanian protests against Abu Musab Zarqawi's recent suicide attacks, and even a bit of reform in Saudi Arabia. In Syria, the Washington Post' s David Ignatius reports, "People talk politics here with a passion I haven't heard since the 1980s in Eastern Europe. They're writing manifestos, dreaming of new political parties, trying to rehabilitate old ones from the 1950s."

Almost surely, none of this would have happened without the liberation of Iraq. And there democracy goes forward: Seventy-eight percent voted for the Constitution last month, and democratic parties are contesting the elections to be held next month. Against this backdrop, mainstream media headlined the call for U.S. withdrawal by Democratic Rep. John Murtha, who has long been skeptical of the war in Iraq. The propagators of the Big Lie against President Bush are trying to delegitimize not only him but also all the progress that has been made as a result of Iraq, progress both toward freedom for Middle Easterners and toward a Middle East that will no longer threaten the United States.

David Limbaugh explains what Democrats would say now if they could speak the truth.

Creative Commons License