Kivus
Archive for war on terror
June 13, 2007 at 6:53 pm · Filed under conservative, political, war on terror
I recently posted the 1992 Speech from Al Gore, where he describes the threat Iraq and Saddam Hussein posed to America and the World at large. I got a response from an Al Gore fan, that rehashed some of the arguments the Democrat Party uses to explain how they could say that Saddam was a threat in 2000, 2001 but still say the war was a mistake. Since it was pretty standard stuff, I won’t repost it here, I’ll simply repost my reply:
I’m going to focus my reply to Gore’s statements about how the war should be waged at this current juncture compared to his statements in 1992 instead of going into an in depth analysis of how his statements in ‘92, and those of other Clinton Administration officials in the period leading up to the Iraq part of the War on Terror ,provided strong justification for the policy of regime change when it comes to Saddam Hussein and Iraq.
I agree with you that there is a big difference between Iraq in 1992 and 2002. Sadam had 10 more years with which to foster his terrorist ties, to allow Al Qaeda to move freely throughout his borders and to work on potential weapons of mass destruction programs. There were 10 years, 8 of which had Al Gore in power, in which America stood idle as the terror threat amassed around the world and Saddam projected his capabilities to produce weapons of mass destruction (whether full of false bravado or not). There is no possibility of Saddam Hussein harboring terrorists in Iraq, providing training grounds for them, or providing them with weapons of mass destruction, at this time and that is to some degree due to our actions against him. As for your arguments of international allies and how a war would impact our moral authority in the world, unfortunately, we live in an era where America is the “last, best hope” of free people the world wide. Though I am not as Wilsonian as the current President Bush in my philosophy of spreading democracy, removing Saddam from power helped make America, and the world as a whole, a safer place, if only for the reason that it took a safe zone for terrorists to train and made it an area where they were forced to actively engage us (if you can use the term “engage” for people who’s primary methods of engagement are to set road side bombs, kidnap civilians and destroy holy sites.) The whole twist that “we went there for WMDs and there were none so we should leave” or the “Bush said Saddam had ties to 9-11″ are straw man arguments that have no real impact on the fact that it is in America’s best interest to help the Iraqi people fight against the Al Qaeda terrorists who are trying to break down the Iraq’s fledgling democracy before it has a chance to succeed, while Iran stands on the sidelines and routes for a new area they can spread their brand of Islamo-Fascism.
For Gore to say he was against the Iraq War from the start might be factually accurate, however, it would be hugely misleading for someone who was part of an administration that repeatedly stated the threat of Saddam Hussein to America and the greater world, especially given this video footage, to say he’s always been against military intervention in Iraq. Ultimately, though people who are fans of Al Gore can find ways to explain how his statements in ‘92 do not contradict his statements currently, the American people as a whole will view his current view as largely hypocritical and an ad campaign that prominently featured excerpts from this footage would be hugely damning to Gore in the popular election.
April 30, 2007 at 4:38 pm · Filed under political, war on terror
Some of the more disturbing aspects of the American Left are certain behaviors that appear almost anti-American, and if not Anti-American, than definitely opposed to American’s position as a the world’s dominate super power. Two recent examples seem to illustrate this point: (1) the reaction to the military’s actions regarding Pat Tilman’s death and (2) the full court press currently being executed over the issue of alleged man-made global warming.
Let’s start off with a closer look at the coverage of Pat Tilman’s Death. The following paragraph from the Seattle Post Intelligencer (as first reported on Bill O’Reilly’s radio program) give a glimpse into the American Left’s thoughts on military issues:
Whatever paper-thin shred of credibility the Bush administration had regarding the Iraq war is fast disappearing. It’s not just the mistakes and mishandling of vital matters (say, national security). It’s the lies it smears upon other lies, laying it on so thick it’s practically choking itself.
All this because the American military decided to continue to allowing a family to believe its child died in a more story-book style heroic act instead of due to friendly fire? In an incident that occurred in Afghanistan, not even Iraq? As Mr. O’Reilly pointed out, the Left seizes on these types of incidents to try and say “see, the military is not noble” and to say “see, America is not the beacon of freedom that people think it is.” (my words not Mr. O’Reilly’s).
Another example of the American Left and Anti-Americanism comes in the form of the environmentalist movement. As Rush Limbaugh has pointed out on numerous occasions, the environmentalist movement has become the repository for displaced socialists. A number of their key policies aim to greatly restrict the United States ability to continue to thrive in the global economy. Their demand for restriction of carbon output and their opposition to measures that would allow America to achieve energy independence (namely, (1) drilling for oil in areas like ANWAR or off the coast of California and (2) the building of more nuclear power facilities) have worked to create a situation where America is more dependent on other nations for the energy sources we need to fuel our economy. Though they claim they desire energy independence, they stand in the way of measures that would allow the United States to achieve it.
Though I used the above two examples as a way to illustrate a class of behavior from the American Left, they are clearly not a comprehensive enumeration of actions that the Left employs. Further examples such a moral relativism between America and terrorist elements, demanding withdrawal from Iraq (where America has a clear interest) while demanding action be taken in Darfur (where America has no clear interest (outside of preventing genocide, something which should not be dismissed)), and using America’s possession of nuclear weapons as justification for rogue nations like North Korea and Iran also having said weapons. All of these examples show a disturbing trend of anti-Americanism found within the American Left, and are prime examples of why the Left cannot be trusted with our foreign policy or our national security.
April 28, 2007 at 10:27 am · Filed under political, war on terror
One of Jim Rome’s takes is a little monologue on “quitting when you’re behind.” One particularly solid part of this take is his listing off various phrases and changing them to fit the “quitting when you’re behind” theme, the best phrase being “when life gives you lemons…quit.” Well, though we’re not “behind” in the War on Terror, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has decided that the “lemons” we are getting are too much, and it’s time to quit. At least, that’s what his declaration that the Iraq War is “lost” seems to indicate.
I’ve led a number of teams: in the workplace, in the gym, on the field, etc… and at no point when I was trying to motivate people, did I tell them to pack it in, to go home, that we’d lost. How do you accomplish something, how do you win, if you’ve already decided that you’ve got no chance? Even if we were going to ignore all the positive reports coming out of Iraq as a result of General Petraeus’ counter-insurgency “strategery”, why would you ever admit to the opposition that you’ve given up? Or that that you plan on giving up in the near future?
On matters of the military, I normally turn to Victor Davis Hanson as my number one source of information. He addresses the reality of the situation on NRO’s _The Corner_:
Why does the enemy’s reaction to all this defeatism go unmentioned here at home? “Al Qaeda” in Iraq announces its demands to have its own terrorists in the government as it now names a “shadow cabinet”, even as it releases grisly tapes of mass executions, following recent
attempts to kill hundreds with chlorine gas. These are the evil forces that Gen. Petraeus is trying to protect millions of Iraqis from, and which will win if Sen. Reid’s defeatism spreads further.
I pray for the men and women stationed in Iraq, and fighting over the world to keep us save at home. I hope that they don’t look to people like Harry Reid for their motivation. These great men and women deserve better.
