May 05 2007
We Want An Iraq Civil War – Duh!
Linda Chavez made the obvious point many have missed in her article out today: The article is about whether or not Dems are anti-war or anti-troop. But the real question is will the Dems become anti-America? Here is the crux of all this – we want a small civil war in Iraq and we want one side to win and we need to make sure that side wins. Sound strange? Only to those in the surrendermedia and liberal far left echo chamnbers. Here is Chavez’s point:
The problem in Iraq is not the performance or the mission of American forces. The biggest problem is that Iraq has become a battleground in an Islamic jihad against not only America and the West, but non-Islamist Muslims. Al Qaeda targets the Shiite population, while Iran and its puppets in Iraq target the Sunnis. This is not civil war as commonly understood but a proxy war between two radical extremes in the Islamic world.
There is not fighting between the radical Islamo Fascists of the Shiia persuasion and the Sunni (al Qaeda) persuasion. The Islamo-Fascists are attacking the moderate Muslims trying to enrage them into sectarian violence. But so far it has not really worked. This is the war between Islamo Facists and ‘mainstream’ Muslims we have needed to take shape. The civil war is the extremists against the Arab/Muslim street.
For most of the Iraqi forces here the areas they patrol are familiar. They know the people, the area, and who does not belong. This is where they grew up.
“This is my home,†said one Iraqi policeman, who asked not to be identified due to concerns about his family’s safety. “We grew up here and know people here. (Terrorists) need to leave or they die here.â€
This is a huge advantage for the U.S. military which has seen its share of conflict spring up in this area.
We cannot change Islam alone. We can ally with those Muslims who are willing to reject and throw off the Islamo Fascists. We see indications ALL OVER Iraq that the brutality of the Islamo Fascists is turning the tide in our direction. Anbar Province is now primarily aligned against al Qaeda and extremists. Diyala Province is following suit. In the broader sense Saudi Arabia is fighting back as is Jordan and Pakistan and Afghanistan. Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and The UAE are solidly against the Islamo Fascists. We have wanted the Muslims to take up this fight and stand for peace and co-existence and they are.
And this is the ‘civil war’ the Dems claim we do not want? This is the quagmire? No wonder they are known only for the most spectacular loss in America’s history. They are so oblivious they cannot see success when it is sprouting up all around them. The Hagel’s and Kerry’s of the world are known for their failure in Vietnam – and now they want company. They want a new generation of admirers who can claim ‘we failed just like you did’. They are not going to get them. This generation is more like my father’s – the WW II generation. They are smart, savvy, fearless – and for them ‘failure’ is still not an option. Watching the boomers fade is turning out to be a lot worse than I thought (I am at the tale end of the boomer generation). There are lots of great boomers – don’t get me wrong. President Bush comes to mind. But the group has some serious issues as we can see in the likes of Hagel and Kerry. They are so desperate to salvage their reputations that they become dedicated to creating another Vietnam no matter what the cost. Thankfully, they will fail at that too.
And, the AG non-scandal continues to fade away. The Senate Judiciary Committee is still struggling to keep the candle lit but to not a whole lot of success. Rove will continue to work through early ’09 unless he leaves on his own.
Bullbleep. Bush 41 declined to take out Saddam Hussein because George H.W. Bush and Colin Powell understood the perceived benefits simply didn’t outweigh the risks, especially to American lives and treasure.
And just what terrorists was Saddam Hussein harboring? The mythical al_Qaeda connexion? Or the camp in the north of Iraq the Kurds allowed because of US aircover and the no-fly zone? This is where the delusional part kicks in.
Interesting enough, AJ says the biggest problem is Islamic fundamentalists and their jihad, and of course, before Saddam Hussein was deposed, Iraq was a secular B’aathist state and Hussein kept Islamic fundamentalists under his iron heel, just as Hafez as-Assad did to the Moslem Brotherhood in Syria.
According to AJ’s logic then, Bush’s ill-advised invasion of Iraq CREATED the biggest problem we now face. More good work from the Chimp in the Oval Office. And, show me the figures that Bush’a average is at 35%.
Thought for the Day
Anyone read this thread along with the responses? It started out with a Machiavelli quote:
–Niccolo Machiavelli, Discourses Book II, Chapter 14.
Not bad for a book written in 1517.
Bush’s number showing the average of 35% with the spread of 22.8 You lose.
Our invasion into Iraq to topple Saddam was the right and necessary thing to do. Congress supported the invasion. The American public supported the invasion. It was NEVER ill-advised.
It was bin Laden that wanted to establish Iraq as the capital of the Islam Caliphate. That’s why it became the biggest problem and that’s exactly the way we wanted to happen. We want the Islamic fundamentalists to fight on their own ground. And we haven’t had another 9/11 attack since 9/11.
Saddam never did keep the Islamic fundamentalists under his iron heel. In fact, he supported, trained, and financed these Islamic fundamentalists to be suicide bombers against the Israeli Jews and Americans.
Anyone watching the live bloggings of the 2007 MILBLOG Conference?
Wizbang has a few great posts.
They were told to show up early this morning because they had a surprise waiting for them. It was a video of President Bush giving a speech, which brought to a very loud applause at the end.
Do read on for what’s happened all day.
From the above post:
Sooth look at the average presidential job approval ratings here
http://tinyurl.com/25nvhe
Poll Date Approve Disapprove Spread
RCP Average 04/18 – 05/03 34.0% 60.2% -26.2%
Newsweek 05/02 – 05/03 28% 64% -36%
Rasmussen 04/30 – 05/02 39% 59% -20%
Quinnipiac 04/25 – 05/01 35% 60% -25%
CBS News/NY Times 04/20 – 04/24 32% 61% -29%
NBC/WSJ 04/20 – 04/23 35% 60% -25%
Pew Research 04/18 – 04/22 35% 57% -22%
Thanks, Merlin!
AJStrata,
How does the performance of the 110th Congress’s 100 days compare to your predictions?
Powerline has this Less is More
“The Washington Post notices that the Democratic Congress hasn’t accomplished anything yet. It observes that “not a single priority on the Democrats” agenda has been enacted.
Readers will recall that during the 2006 campaign, the Dems identified six relatively easy items, the quick of passage of which would ensure them of a flying start. The six were: increase the minimum wage, implement most recommendations of the 9/11 commission, allow federal funding for stem cell research, permit the government to negotiate prescription drug prices under Medicare, cut student loan rates and roll back certain tax breaks for oil and gas companies to finance alternative energy research.
None has been enacted. The Post might also have noted that earmark reform has stalled despite the efforts of Republicans like Senator DeMint to push it into law.
Apparently, leading Democrats like Leon Panetta and Rahm Emmanuel have become concerned about this lack of legislative achievement. Panetta thinks the Dems need to turn things around by the fall. However, Chris Van Hollen, who heads the House Democratic campaign committee, says that his party has until next year, when voters start focusing on the congressional races.
I agree with Van Hollen. In fact, I would go further and question whether the Dems will pay an appreciate price even if they don’t enact much legislation by election day 2008. Parties typically sustain major losses in Congress when they are blamed for what’s considered a major national blunder and/or when the public becomes disgusted by years of bad congressional behavior. In the current environment, one unproductive Congress is unlikely to turn the tide.
But it’s not to early to start building a record against the Democratic Congress. “
Sooth
Go back and read the Bush 41 UN authorizations and our own AUMF.
It was ejection from Kuwait. Show me where he had the authorization to go into Baghdad and take down the country.
History doesn’t change just because you want it to.
Merlin, thought that Saudi Arabia allowed Bush 41 access to its bases as long as Bush 41 would push back the Iraqis from Kuwait and would not take over Baghdad (in addition to the UN resolution)?
That too, but Sooth needs to do his homework. He’s still waiting for Truthout’s frogmarch of Rove.
Also we did not totally wipe out Saddam’s military capability back then , even though we could have picked it apart, because we did not want even back then to weaken him so much that Iran would come strolling in through the door the minute we left.
Even today’s global warming crowd would have wanted Saddam’s head on a pike for the impact of the oil well fires in Kuwait because of the pollution, CO2 generation and waste of oil resources. It took us months to put them all out.
I guess it’s time for remedial math for Straspheristas: the average of the polls you cite is 34%. Or are you arguing that 34 is the new 35???
Too bad – I win.
Plus, you conveniently neglected the WSJ Harris poll of 4/26 of 28%, which further lowers the average to 33%.
As for Bush 41, I didn’t say he had the authorization, I said the reason he didn’t was the very quagmire we are in now; this has been discussed ad nauseam, and you know it. Here’s an article from February of 2001:
Well, DUH! and Double DUH!!
Sooth
One article from a lefty and your quibble over a 1 or 2% math average shows how disingenuous you are. Do you mount goal post on wheels?
There were predictions in the MSM that if we went into Baghdad when we actually did that US casualties would be over 30,000 just to take Baghdad.
I could work down each and every point you made tonight and document why you are wrong step by step.
But quite frankly you are not worth the effort. Each time you open your yap you embarrass yourself and you discredit your sides arguments.
Feel free to continue digging.
Another source:
Brent Scowcroft in 2005:
Res ipsa loquitur.
Geeze, talk about disingenuity! Merlin, do some research so your lies are not so obvious: Steve Sailer is a conservative and a Maggie Thatcher supporter, not a lefty, and if you could read, you’d understand his article was in support of George H.W. Bush and Colin Powell.
Second, you’re goshdarned right I’ll argue over 2%. Any honest person would – or does this depend on what your definition of 35% is?
Sooth
I took a look at Sailers website.
It seems to fit the kind of place you would hang out at.
Yup.
I mistyped lefty, sue me. It is the kind of place you would try to cherrypick for spin.
Rave on McDuff.
Sooth,
For a little history, see:
http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson033107.html
And the same characters that objected to GHWB not going to Baghdad, now call it a wise decision. Anything to detract from GWB.
And as has been pointed out, a “proxy” war is different from a “civil” war.
“quagmire” – I suppose like Vietnam?
Your side needs fresh ideas.
Macker
Yup sooth is to easy, but lets just leave him counting paper clips in the freeway and watch the webcam to see how long it takes for an 18 wheeler to punt him through is mobile goal posts.