It's Time For Leadership, Not Collapse

Public opinion polls do not a prudent national strategy make, let alone one that deals with fighting a war. The Founding Fathers knew that. If they didn't, we wouldn't have the representative form of government we do. We'd have a pure democracy, instead.

Rasmussen: Fifty-seven percent (57%) of American voters now favor either an immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq (37%) or a firm deadline for their withdrawal (20%). The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that just 35% of voters are opposed to both of these options for ending the war.

What America needs now is leadership, not another opinion poll. As Independent Democrat Senator Joseph Lieberman pointed out today in the Washington Post, there is only one choice in Iraq. Whether the average Joe on the street gets that or not, is irrelevant.

Last week a series of coordinated suicide bombings killed more than 170 people. The victims were not soldiers or government officials but civilians -- innocent men, women and children indiscriminately murdered on their way home from work and school.

If such an atrocity had been perpetrated in the United States, Europe or Israel, our response would surely have been anger at the fanatics responsible and resolve not to surrender to their barbarism.

I don't care if it's an Independent Dem, a sitting Republican President, a Republican presidential contender, or someone else. But someone, hopefully a small collection of anyone resembling a statesmen left in this country who fully understand the consequences of surrender in Iraq must step up.

As Bush is not the lone individual to do that now but the media apparatus is geared to his taking the lead, I would urge him to form ranks with the Liebermans, McCains and like-minded others, using his access and their amassed clout to make the necessary case for staying the course in Iraq.

This is not 1975 and Iraq is not Vietnam. If a combination of Republican incompetence, Democrat partisanship and public lethargy are allowed to keep us from accomplishing our mission in Iraq, the consequences for America will reverberate though out the world and for years. America cannot afford to pay that price.

Comments

[Hard Right]

What's sad is that if the Dems have their way, it will be people who were against cutting and running from Iraq that will also be killed in the next terrorist attack.

[mkultra]

"Victory" in Iraq means handing over Iraq to Shia terrorists and thugs like Sadr and SCIRI, the representatives of the Shia majority. You wingnuts simply do not understand this basic fact.

The Shia thugs and terrorists are in no mood to reconcile with the Sunnis. They want us to stay and kill as many Sunnis as possible. We are fighting their war for them. We are surrogates for the Shia thugs and terrorists, who, in turn, are proxies of the Iranians.

Why are we fighting to protect Sadr and his 30 members of parliament? Why are we fighting to protect the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq? Our troops are protecting these terrorists as their representatives sit in the relative safety of the Green Zone.

We need to get out of Iraq now to give the Sunnis at least a fighting chance against our true enemy, Iran. You remember Iran? Islamic theocrats intent on getting nukes.

Bush and the wingnuts want to hand Iraq over to Sadr, SCIRI, and the rest of the Shia terrorists. We need leadership to prevent this from happening.

[nowinger]

How pathetic that the key to success in Iraq is now allegedly defeating Al Quaeda, who weren't EVEN IN IRAQ until we took over. If this doesn't scream incompetant bumbling to even the wingnuts, nothing will.

[mkultra]

Below is a little story on the thug and terrorist whose interests American troops are giving up their lives to protect:

****

The Associated Press
BAGHDAD - Radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr strongly condemned construction of a wall around a Sunni neighborhood in Baghdad, calling for demonstrations against the plan as a sign of "the evil will" of American "occupiers."

The remarks, in a statement read by an aide, were the first by the anti-American cleric since the U.S. military announced last week that it was building a three-mile long 12-foot high concrete wall in Azamiyah, a Sunni stronghold that has been targeted by mortar and rocket attacks by Shiite militiamen.

****

Bush and the members of his cult are sending in American troops to give up their lives so that this punk can spew his hateful rhetoric against our forces. 30 members of the Iraqi parliament do his bidding. We, in turn, are fighting to protect the Iraqi parliament.

Why should Americans have to die for Sadr? Why don't we ask McCain, Bush, Lieberman, and the rest of the apologists for the Shia terrorists?

Tell the rest of us, wingnuts: Why should American troops have to die to protect Sadr's flunkies in parliament?

[nova]

No it is not like Vietnam in 1975. It is like Vietnam in 1968. Nixon won and then the war was not over until 1975. So lets see that means we will not be out of Iraq until 2012.

[bud]

If I word the questions right, I could get 20% or better of the american public to agree to the concept that rabbit shit is probably tasty. Unless I see the poll questions and the sample size and demographics, I consign these sorts of stories to the "bullshit" file.

[templar knight]

mkultra, you are just the flip side of the Sadr coin. They are Shia terrorists, and you are a Sunni terrorist. I can't stand either one of you. And quit claiming our troops. You are a member of the Ummah, or whatever.

[mkultra]

"mkultra, you are just the flip side of the Sadr coin. They are Shia terrorists, and you are a Sunni terrorist. I can't stand either one of you. And quit claiming our troops. You are a member of the Ummah, or whatever."

I want the troops out now, so they are not fighting for either side. You want them to stay and fight for the Iranians.

That's the difference between me and you.

[Zifnab]

"Nixon won and then the war was not over until 1975. So lets see that means we will not be out of Iraq until 2012."

If Bush is the Republican's LBJ, I suspect Hillary will be the Democrat's Nixon. So, for the love of god, please don't let her win the nomination. Not because she won't win two terms and sweep the nation with pro-active reforms, but because she's a bitch.

[ec1009]

You can fool all of the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time, all of the wingers all of the time, and 30% of the American public for at least five years.

A qustion for you wingers: How often does someone have to be wrong about Iraq before you stop listening to their advise? i.e. Bush, Cheney, Crystal, Lieberman, et al.

[Laura]

If I relied on the MSM for information on how it's going in Iraq, I'd want to get out too. It's car bombs, insurgents, and enemy propaganda most of the time, and the only body counts are from our side, unlike previous wars when the enemy body count was prominently featured in news stories as well.

[templar knight]

Laura, you said it, it's enemy propaganda most of the time. I believe in my heart that there will be a day of reckoning for these people. I really do. I think I'll sit back and enjoy it.

[Tom]

If I relied on the MSM for information on how it's going in Iraq, I'd want to get out too. It's car bombs, insurgents, and enemy propaganda most of the time, and the only body counts are from our side, unlike previous wars when the enemy body count was prominently featured in news stories as well.

Posted by: Laura

Hmmmm. Lets see if I have this straight: We invaded their country and DESTROYED EVERYTHING - homes, schools, businesses, churches, mosques, streets, sewers, power plants, telephones, etc.. But you seem to discount those pesky details such as our brave soldiers dying everyday because we built a school (which we probably destroyed anyway)? Hmmmm. I don't think that is a good comparison, do you?

[templar knight]

...that's the difference between you and me...

No, not really. I'm an American, you're a Muslim. Your primary alligence is to the Ummah, mine to America. You only want American troops out so your side(the Sunni terrorists) can win, and take control of Iraq. Sadr wishes American troops out for the same reason. If I had any say so, I would let your side and Sadr kill each other until none of you were left alive. Then maybe some sense would come to you Muslims.

[Tom]

...that's the difference between you and me...

No, not really. I'm an American, you're a Muslim. Your primary alligence is to the Ummah, mine to America.
Comment by templar knight

Really Templar? Is your loyalty to America, or the Bush Republicans? fair question, no?

[Laura]

Tom, you evidently believe in Michael Moore's kite flying utopia. I suspend disbelief while watching movies too. The difference is that when the movie is over, I know what reality is.

Reality is that we destroyed as little as possible, and you can scroll down this page to see all the work our troops have done: http://www.defendamerica.mil/iraq/rebuilding.html

And the great thing is that Iraqis can enjoy those things now without living under the threat of being killed by their government and buried in a mass grave. Women in Saddam's Iraq could face the following penalties, but now are safe from this kind of government oppression. Is it a kite flying utopia? Not hardly. But it at least stands a chance of becoming one eventually.
---------------------
Beheading. Under the pretext of fighting prostitution, units of "Fedayeen Saddam," the paramilitary organization led by Uday Hussein, Saddam's eldest son, have beheaded in public more than 200 women throughout the country, dumping their severed heads at their families' doorsteps. Many families have been required to display the victim's head on their outside fences for several days. These barbaric acts were carried out in the total absence of any proper judicial procedures and many of the victims were not engaged in prostitution, but were targeted for political reasons. For example, Najat Mohammad Haydar, an obstetrician in Baghdad, was beheaded after criticizing the corruption within health services. (Amnesty International Report, Iraq: Systematic Torture of Political Prisoners, August 2001; Iraqi Women's League in Damascus, Syria)

Rape. The Iraqi Government uses rape and sexual assault of women to achieve the following goals: to extract information and forced confessions from detained family members; to intimidate Iraqi oppositionists by sending videotapes showing the rape of female family members; and to blackmail Iraqi men into future cooperation with the regime. Some Iraqi authorities even carry personnel cards identifying their official "activity" as the "violation of women's honor." (U.S. Department of State, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices-2001, March 2002; Iraq Research and Documentation Project, Harvard University)

Torture. The Iraqi Government routinely tortures and kills female dissidents and the female relatives of Iraqi oppositionists and defectors. Victims include Safiyah Hassan, the mother of two Iraqi defectors, who was killed after publicly criticizing the Iraqi Government for killing her sons after their return to Iraq. Women in Saddam's jails are subjected to the following forms of torture: brutal beatings, systematic rape, electrical shocks, and branding. (U.S. Department of State, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices-2001, March 2002; U.S. Department of State, Iraq: A Population Silenced, December 2002)

Murder. In 1990, Saddam Hussein introduced Article 111 into the Iraqi Penal Code in a calculated effort to strengthen tribal support for his regime. This law exempts men who kill their female relatives in defense of their family's honor from prosecution and punishment. The UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women reported that more than 4,000 women have been victims of so-called "honor killings" since Article 111 went into effect. (UN Commission on Human Rights, Report of the Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women, January 2002)

[Charles Warren]

When you look at the war supporters, you see that they have turned this in their minds into a macho pissing contest. They don't want to be 'losers' or 'quitters'. It's about being 'winners' and having their penis sizes validated.

That is why the country has turned against this war. It smells lots of testosterone but no real thought. No assesment of goals and costs. No questioning on the part of people who have been wrong about everything whether their assumptions are correct. Just pride and machismo and pigheadedness.

Well, the average American isn't as blindly pigheaded as George Bush and isn't as venal as Dick Cheney. The Administration has had four years to make a case for this war and each year the case (the same stock phrases repeated over and over and over) gets weaker and weaker. Leadership ? Leadership is putting the good of the country ahead of your ego. Leadership isn't thinking that blind obstinacy is decisive strength. Leadership is humility in facing and accepting the truth whether it is what you want to hear or not. None of these are qualities that George Bush possesses to any degree.

[daveinboca]

Looks like the moonbats are flitting around preaching defeatism and projecting their loser mentality onto the rest of us. The good of the country is winning the war or not leaving with our tail between our legs. The Democrats were treasonous during the Civil War, the Cold War, the Vietnam War, and now the Iraq War. It's in their DNA.

[Laura]

It's interesting to note that while the majority of the country has supposedly turned against the war, the Democrats had to lard up the bill to get it passed. If it was such a no-brainer that had the full support of the people, why did they have to resort to bribery to get it passed?