September 24, 2006
Democrats Don't Want To Fight TerrorDemocrats have jumped on the leaked intelligence assessment that argues that "the Iraq war has increased the terrorist threat," which was expected... but let's talk reality here. According to Democrats' "logic," we shouldn't fight terrorism because doing can upset the terrorists, leading to increased recruitment and such.
How do we win a war that way? Do we turn a blind eye to terrorism? We know that didn't work. We were attacked repeated during the 1990s and our lack of response (thanks to President Clinton) ultimately resulted in 9/11.
Yesterday. U.S. Senate Majority Whip Mitch McConnell made the following statement Sunday regarding the response to reports of the leaked intelligence assessment on Iraq:
I’ve always found it remarkable that, for some, the answer to terror attacks is to turn their heads and hope for the best. But as the 9/11 Commission warned, if we leave Iraq to the terrorists it will only become a breeding ground for attacks here at home.This pretty much explains it. Are we going anger Muslim extremists by attacking them? Absolutely. Does that mean we should sit on our hands and do nothing about the terror threat? McConnell makes a good point, since we've taken the fight to the terrorists, we've not been attacked on U.S. soil since 9/11. That isn't luck or chance.
Terror attacks against the United States didn’t start on 9/11 or the day our troops entered Baghdad. But attacks here at home stopped when we started fighting al Qaeda where they live, rather than responding after they hit.
If Democrats want to ignore the terror threat, that's their problem. I want leaders who will fight the enemy and not be beaten into submission because some people claim that taking the fight to the terrorists makes the threat worse.
Posted by Matt Margolis on September 24, 2006 09:29 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.gopbloggers.org/mt/majority.cgi/4216
Comments
OK. Stop and think.
This report is saying Iraq has made the world more dangerous. So, in order to make the world safe, you are advocating... the policies that are making it more dangerous?
I'm reading a book about Vietnam at the moment, Uncertain Warriors by David Barrett. The best anti-Vietnam argument from 1964 I can identify so far fits with Iraq pretty well, I think. Granted, I'm no foreign policy expert. But keep in mind, neither are you.
Is there a good option in Iraq? Meaning a foreseeable victory? No. Is there any easy way to pull out of Iraq? No. So, instead of just fighting to prolong the time until Iraq falls, we need to face the facts that we aren't going to win and stop getting ourselves killed. If the Iraqis won't fight for themselves, why should we?
Will pulling out of Iraq hurt? Yes. Will it make us look silly internationally? Possibly, though I venture to say no more than we already do.
We need to admit that we made a mistake. And there are two options. A) We commit hundreds of thousands of troops more, instituting a draft to fill the ranks. B) We try to make the state as organized as possible while grandually standing down. As we do that, Iraqis will, hopefully, get their shit together and do it for themselves.
Option A will be at best incredibly bloody, and at worst unconstitutional. Option B will be a bitter pill to swallow, but the hardest thing to do is sometimes the best.
Posted by: NovaNardis at September 25, 2006 12:32 AM
Nova,
Uh, the Iraqis are fighting for themselves - hundreds of thousands of them, of whom thousands have been killed in battle...
As for the NIE - it is a leaked report, which means that it was selectively leaked by people at CIA who disagree with Administration policy and that means its likely not the final or complete word on the subject.
Posted by: Mark Noonan at September 25, 2006 01:21 AM
A lot of killing going on. Just wondering if anyone remembers the old adage "do unto others as you ask that they do unto you." Just wondering...
Posted by: Mark Smith at September 30, 2006 04:22 AM
Post a comment
