Yes, Bill Richardson- the surge is working!
Bill Richardson, who was once my favorite Democratic presidential candidate, has been peddling the fib that our alleged need to cut and run in Iraq is "the one thing the Iraqis agree about" in his TV ads here in Iowa for months. The other night he made himself ridiculous by arguing that "the surge isn't working."
When even Newsweek and the New York Times know you're blowing hot air, Bill, you gotta realize that you ain't foolin' nobody.
Yes, the surge is working. And despite the clear partisan advantage the Democrats get from continuing to promote the view that our cause in Iraq is hopeless, all it may take to succeed is a little intestinal fortitude from the American people.
The troops are doing quite nicely, thank you.
HT: Real Clear Politics
When even Newsweek and the New York Times know you're blowing hot air, Bill, you gotta realize that you ain't foolin' nobody.
Yes, the surge is working. And despite the clear partisan advantage the Democrats get from continuing to promote the view that our cause in Iraq is hopeless, all it may take to succeed is a little intestinal fortitude from the American people.
The troops are doing quite nicely, thank you.
HT: Real Clear Politics
Comments
What does that mean? If the surge is working, that means it is helping to make progress to some goal. What is that goal? Before the war, I understood the goals to have something to do with
a) Removing WMDs from Iraq and
b) Removing Saddam from power
Those goals are done. What goal would have to be accomplished that would turn "it is working" into "it has worked"? I'm serious.
In the comments of an earlier post you said, "Not the least of our role in Iraq is holding the potentially genocidal parties apart."
Is that the goal? How long will we be holding these parties apart? The second coming or whenever the US can't borrow any more money to pay for the war, whichever comes first?
How long will we do it? However long it takes. We have no choice. Those of us who "do" reality have to reckon with the utterly unacceptable consequences of failure- failure which, fortunately, we are showing signs of being able to avoid at the very moment when Ron Paul and his friends on the Left are trying to undercut us.
I know you're serious, Jeff. That's the scary part.
Those are the goals of the Iraq war??? I wish someone would have told me back then we were invading Iraq to prevent a bloodbath of biblical proportions and to prevent Iraq from becoming a failed state and permanent playground for al Queda.
No wait. I'm glad no one told me. I was better off not knowing. It was a happier time. Things made more sense back then.
By the way, Mr. Waters, somebody really has you wound up with fear. I just thought you ought to know. You would do well to step back and take a reality check. What kind of threat would al Queda really be to the USA in their little desert playground halfway around the world (that, BTW, contains no WMDs and never did)?
Biblical proportions indeed.
At the end of the First Gulf War, Saddam Hussein had huge stockpiles of nerve and other chemical agents. He acknowledged having them. He used them against his own citizens. He signed a treaty specifying how much he had of each type of WMD, and agreed as part of the peace settlement to destroy that massive stockpile under UN supervision within 90 days.
He never did.
Seventeen seperate resolutions by the United Nations over a period of twelve years demanded that he comply with the terms of the peace agreement. Not only did he fail to do so, but he led the UN inspectors on a merry chase during all that time, refusing to admit them to suspicious sights and for an extended period even throwing them out of the country (the inspectors, BTW, were never tasked with conducting a scavenger hunt. Their job was to destroy weapons there was no question of Saddam not having- that he had admitted having.
His minister of defense says that at the time Saddam was within a year of having nuclear weapons. He played the same game of hide and seek with the materials from this program he did with his other WMD.
Large numbers of such weapons have been used against our troops in Iraq. Every time it happens, the newspapers dismiss them as being pre-1991 weapons. But although we had every reason to believe that his efforts to develop more and deadlier WMD, it was those weapons he never denied having that was the main focus of the UN search and American fears all along.
Were some moved to Syria? MOSSAD thinks so. But plenty were left behind to be used against our troops. That the liberal media has moved the goalposts by deciding that only new WMD's count doesn't change the undeniable fact that Saddam had them, that he used them against his own people,and that the resistance has used them against our own troops.
Your question about al Quaeda is an equally silly one. Jeffery...
we weren't in Iraq when 9/11 happened. It might be true that stepping back and abdicating our position as the most powerful nation on earth might pacify al Quaeda. But it might not. The track record of appeasement is not a happy one in achieving such results.
It's not that I'm wound up, Jeff; it's that you- and your candidate- are wholly unwound. You're adherents of a bizarre and extreme
view of the world which leads you to positions which, if implemented, would place the nation and the world at grave risk.
I'm not going to categorize either you or Rep. Paul personally. Suffice it to say, though, that your common worldview is a few tacos short of a combination platter.
They're simply our reasons for not copping out on our responsibilities now.