Much has been made of the so-called "National Intelligence Estimate," a report prepared by several intelligence agencies in the federal government. The New York Times, always on the lookout for opportunities to leak classified information, recently selectively excerpted this secret document. In it was the explosive statement that the war in Iraq was causing more terrorism.
In response to this, President Bush ordered the report declassified. But there are a few things about this report that the Democrats and the media don't want you to know. For one, the report is outdated. It's based on data collected through only February... before two 500-pound bombs sent Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi to his meeting with Allah. Second, the report is based on a lot of ifs. It's written by analysts...people who get paid to sit around and think about these things. If you read what's been released, there's a lot of if this and if that and not many concrete recommendations.
There was, for instance, one "if" in the report that the Democrats and the Times don't seem to want to share with you. The report said that IF the United States prevails in Iraq, it will discourage Islamic terrorists and reduce the threat they present. Don't you think that's a pretty important part of this document?
But Democrats are having a field day with this. Wishing as they do for America's failure in Iraq, they welcome any confirmation of their strategy of surrender. But their premise is flawed. What they are essentially saying is that attacking and fighting back against the terrorists only makes them mad and creates more terrorists. Therefore, goes their reasoning, we simply should not fight back. We should just let Saddam Hussein go right on his merry way...creating biological and nuclear weapons and selling them to the highest bidder.
And then there's always the issue of what they would do differently. What is the Democrats' strategy? Aside from total surrender to Al-Qaeda, they don't have one. They didn't have one for 8 years during the Clinton Administration and they don't have one now. The only thing the American Left can offer as a solution to terrorism is appeasement.
--Neal Boortz
September 27, 2006
I'm completed sick and tired of Democrats. They, as a party, are completely clueless, disengenuous, and flat our dishonest... To say nothing of morally corrupt.
17 Comments:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Next comes the question of what to do to fix the mess Bush has left us with. Some want to withdraw from Iraq. I am not one of those. We broke it, we own it.
But don't expect any real ideas from this president as to how to improve the situation. He still doesn't even understand who the enemy is.
Now, want to get beyond this tit-for-tat crap? Read a hard-hitting and timely essay on what our enemy wants and what their strategy is.
It is a terrific and insightful analysis of the jihadis, their goals, and their strategies. Print it out, read it carefully, and tell me it doesn't give you new insights into the problem.
All that article says is that Bin Ladin thought he could win a war against us because he new THE LEFTISTS AND THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY would play right into his hands. He counted on the very reaction of DEMOCRATS AND LEFTISTS! He counted on a treacherous left to put politics and power over getting the job done.
If Bush made any big mistake, it was counting on the rest of the world for support and the opposition in his OWN nation for loyalty!
My plan for victory has NOT changed! Kick their @sses anywhere and by any means!
Here's a quote to back up mine: The American occupation of Iraq, [Suri] declares, inaugurated a “historical new period” that almost single-handedly rescued the jihadi movement just when many of its critics thought it was finished.
And this one:
Although American and European intelligence communities are aware of the jihadi texts, the work of these ideologues often reads like a playbook that U.S. policymakers have been slavishly, if inadvertently, following.
In other words: Bin Laden needed GW, and GW fell right into his trap.
It was surely almost finished...in the shadow of the dust cloud that used to be the World Trade Center. Yep--them boys--they's goose wuz jest about cooked, tweren't it"
Bin Laden knew he could count on the capitulatory left! What I and those who agree with me are counting on is a leader who recognizes the REAL threat and ignores the obviously insane notions from an opposition whose lust for political revenge has clouded its view of reality!
We already KNOW we CAN'T depend on the left!
"Thank you for the link; the article is a real eye-opener. I'm developing a post on its merits, not to counter the article but to lay out what I see in it. It's truly a very instructive read."
How about this one: Saddam was personally bankrolling al-Queada operations, and recruiting and giving money to families of Palestinian homicide bombers?
How about this: Taking out a despot who was torturing his own people en masse and plotting/attempting genocide was a necessity, and also puts us in a physical position to flank Iran?
Bad, I agree. But not worth the death of thousands of our troops, three thousand Iraqi deaths a month, and the creation of terrorist paradise in a destabilized Iraq.
How about this one: Saddam was personally bankrolling al-Queada operations, and recruiting and giving money to families of Palestinian homicide bombers?
Saddam was unfriendly to al Queda. Yes, he did bankroll families of Palestinian suicide bombers, but again, not worth the cost or jeapoardizing our interests throughout the region.
How about this: Taking out a despot who was torturing his own people en masse and plotting/attempting genocide was a necessity, and also puts us in a physical position to flank Iran?
Saddam was a murderous thug (funny how conservatives didn't care about that until he invaded Kuwait). But there are many murderous thugs in the world. And Saddam was contained. Now the security/torture situation there has been made worse, and our interests are at greater risk than before. And we have replaced a regime antagonistic to Iran with what is a much more Iran-friendly Shiite-dominated government. At the same time, we are now tied down in Iraq, leaving us fewer resources with which to deal with Iran and Afghanistan.
I wanted to kick Saddam's ass too, but how many innocent deaths, how many hundreds of billions of dollars, and how many squandered opportunities for real progress in the war on terror was it worth to do it?
And let's not forget it was a democratic house and senate that propped up Saddam against Iran. You're entering pot and kettle territory with this one.
As Iran was an obvious threat, Saddam provided a convenient foil-- or pawn, if you will --especially since Saddam's Baath Party was and still is primarily secular. Secular Muslims attaining dominance in the region was obviously deemed preferrable to religious dominance.
This is not to defend the Dems who went along with Reagan in his support for Saddam. They were wrong, too. Everyone of them should have been voted out for that embarassing chapter in our history.
And everyone - Dem or Republican - who was guilty of crimes should have gone to jail.
But thank you for reminding us all of Iran/Contra. Of course, I had already done that, but thanks nonetheless.
Dr. Homa Darabi Foundation
I can say, truthfully, with my hand up:
I'm complete(ly) sick and tired of Republicans. They, as a party, are completely clueless, disengenuous, and flat our dishonest... To say nothing of morally corrupt.
Honestly.
But then, where'd be the fun in that? :-) Plus, we do differ mightily on some fundamentals.
The *trick* is to find ways to compromise for the sake of the country -- and that's what both parties seem to have forgotten. I swear, it really *is* like 1848, befoe the Great Compromise, or '53 or so, after the newness had worn off. ...