His stand against caca, once again, is supported by the facts
Stretched by frequent troop rotations to Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army has become a “thin green line” that could snap unless relief comes soon, according to a study for the Pentagon.
Andrew Krepinevich, a retired Army officer who wrote the report under a Pentagon contract, concluded that the Army cannot sustain the pace of troop deployments to Iraq long enough to break the back of the insurgency. He also suggested that the Pentagon’s decision, announced in December, to begin reducing the force in Iraq this year was driven in part by a realization that the Army was overextended.
As evidence, Krepinevich points to the Army’s 2005 recruiting slump – missing its recruiting goal for the first time since 1999 – and its decision to offer much bigger enlistment bonuses and other incentives.
I await the next missive from Voldermort’s Bush’s Oz-based crap factory.
stretched thin = broken, worn out, living hand to mouth
Must be the New Math…
From the same article:
Krepinevich said in the interview that he understands why Pentagon officials do not state publicly that they are being forced to reduce troop levels in Iraq because of stress on the Army. “That gives too much encouragement to the enemy,” he said, even if a number of signs, such as a recruiting slump, point in that direction.
Which, of course, is why you’ll never see this report widely broadcast in the media… because giving encouragement to the enemy for partisan gain (”HA! BushCo is wrong YET again!”) would be just plain wrong, wouldn’t it?
You’re right about that Santorum bumper sticker video. Again reality trumps mere satire.
I’m 33, don’t support the war, but I definitely support a draft. We’d never have another Vietnam, er… I mean, Iraq, again.
Although one addendum:
Bush supporters first. ABSOLUTELY no deferments.
I have a feeling Oliver. These war supporters are on the verge of signing up to help win that fight. Why, just last week we had Rick Santorum’s rousing speech where he rallies support for the troops by telling his supporters, “ask not what your country can do for you; ask whether you can sport a santorum bumper sticker for your country!”
I’m not kidding you.
VIDEO: http://santorumexposed.com/serendipity/archives/123-Ask-Not-What-Santorum-Can-Do-For-You.html
Time to bring back the draft. Draft everyone 18-35. No deferments. That is how to win the war on terrorism. There is no way we can win this war with such a small military force. We need millions of troops now to fight in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, N. Korea, and here in the US.
Who’s Jack?
I m 33, don t support the war, but I definitely support a draft. We d never have another Vietnam, er& I mean, Iraq, again.
Although one addendum:
Draft everyone 18-35. No deferments.
Bush supporters first. ABSOLUTELY no deferments.
I’m far from being a full-blown Bush supporter, but I do support the WOT effort. However, I’m 41 and I already did my 4 years in uniform (’82-’86), so I guess you can have my place in line. Where do you want the application forms mailed to?
“… giving encouragement to the enemy for partisan gain ( HA! BushCo is wrong YET again! ) would be just plain wrong, wouldn t it?”
Now wait a second. There is a legitimate reason for the public to know the truth about the situation and there are legitimate grounds for public criticism of the policies that produced it. How does it give the enemy any comfort to know that the Bush administration is being asked to take responsibility for the situation and pressed to fix it?
This situation didn’t just magically appear the minute it was reported in the media. Surely it has been some time coming which forces us to raise the question, why is it still a problem that’s getting worse? Do you think it’s because no one has bothered to put any pressure on this administration to take any action whatsoever? If our silence is exacerbating the problem, how does it advance our national interests in Iraq to remain silent about it further still?
We’ve reached the point where any critcicism of Bush, no matter how backed up by the facts, constitutes aiding the enemy in the minds of the Right. I have to ask: What are we going to call it when and if the Army finally cracks from the strain because everyone was too cowed to put the administration’s feet to the fire?
How does it give the enemy any comfort to know that the Bush administration is being asked to take responsibility for the situation and pressed to fix it?
Geez, can you take off your “I Hate the Imperialistic Dictator Bush” hat for a second? This has nothing to do with Bush taking responsibility for anything. Regardless of who sent them there or why (WMDs, regime change, personal grudge, etc.), the simple fact is that telling the world (and the insurgents) that our troops are stretched to the breaking point and “the Army cannot sustain the pace of troop deployments to Iraq long enough to break the back of the insurgency” just tells these guys “Hold on a while longer, the US is about to break and will be forced to withdraw any day now”. The only way to win this conflict is to either (A) kill every single insurgent (which is not very likely) or (B) convince the majority of them that it’s a hopeless battle, they can’t win and they should just leave the country (in the case of foreign fighters) or go back to their homes and try to regain some power through the political process. Option (B) is tough to do when we’re telling them that it’s US troops that are at the breaking point.
Do you think it s because no one has bothered to put any pressure on this administration to take any action whatsoever? If our silence is exacerbating the problem, how does it advance our national interests in Iraq to remain silent about it further still?
You’re right, there’s been a deafening silence on the subject. No one in the US has made any kind of statements whatsoever about bringing our troops home, nothing about it being a quagmire and another Vietnam, we can’t win, and on and on. Are you getting enough air over in that parallel universe you’re apparently living in? Did you read the title of this post? Who’s Jack Murtha and what did he say again?
We ve reached the point where any critcicism of Bush, no matter how backed up by the facts, constitutes aiding the enemy in the minds of the Right.
There’s no shortage of legitimate criticism of how the Bush admin has conducted the war. And you can criticize Chimpy McSmurkyBurton all you want, I personally could care less. But when you tell our enemies (you know the ones that are actively trying to kill our troops over in Iraq and Afghanistan?) that our troops are near the breaking point and can’t continue on much longer, you ARE aiding the enemy. Deal with it.
What are we going to call it when and if the Army finally cracks from the strain because everyone was too cowed to put the administration s feet to the fire?
Can you tell me what we’re going to call it if the army finally hits the breaking point because partisan idiots in the US repeatedly encouraged the enemy to drag the conflict out longer than it normally would have lasted because they were more concerned with making Emperor Chimpy look bad than in actually winning the war?
“This has nothing to do with Bush taking responsibility for anything.”
Um, tell me again then why we call him the Commander-in-Chief?
I had a nice long reply to you but deleted it. Instead I just want to ask one more thing. You say that there s no shortage of legitimate criticism of how the Bush admin has conducted the war. Okay. Let’s hear what you consider legitimate criticism. Give me an example you actually believe yourself.
But when you tell our enemies (you know the ones that are actively trying to kill our troops over in Iraq and Afghanistan?) that our troops are near the breaking point and can t continue on much longer, you ARE aiding the enemy.
No, VRWC, you’ve got it exactly backward. The crime is not in telling the enemy that our army is stretched thin. The crime is in stretching our army thin in the first place. Bush has had 5 years to expand the army to handle the war on terror but has refused because Rumsfeld would rather have drones and high-tech gadgets than fighting men who can secure a country amidst a failed state. Don’t kill the messenger.
frameone,
see my 2:40am post.
Your turn. How is this not aiding the enemy?
No, VRWC, you ve got it exactly backward. The crime is not in telling the enemy that our army is stretched thin. The crime is in stretching our army thin in the first place.
No, I don’t. They’re both wrong. Bush failing to put policies in place to insure we have realistic and sufficient troop levels is stupid, wrong and a fair criticism of his administration. But providing our enemies with information about the capabilities (or lack of) our troops that helps them with their strategic plans is equally wrong. One does not cancel out the other. Regardless of how you want to spin it, sidestep it or blame it all on Bush, telling the enemy that our army is stretched to the breaking point is giving them useful intelligence and is helping them. Period.
When will the ‘responsibility’ president take responsibility for anything?
Sort it out. The good major is under contract to the Pentagon. They take his input, other inputs, their own knowledge and make a judgement. That judgement does not support the study. And it sure as hell doesn’t support that partisan buffoon Murtha’s conclusion to cut and run.
And there are those who would argue that the military is always stretched thin (they change the war plan commitments). In my time, with a much large armed force, it was a question of ‘could we fight two major wars on two fronts” – maybe not and if not, we were thin.
Dugger
Of course, the reason we’ve had to up the enlistment bonuses is becaue the economy is booming! I wonder why Oliver doesn’t want to admit that very pertinant fact…
frameone,
Before I respond to any more of your questions, why don’t you answer mine?
How is it not aiding the enemy for them to know that our troops are stretched to the breaking point?
Okay. It’s fair to criticize the President for failing to put policies in place to insure we have realistic and sufficient troop levels.
Let me ask you one more thing, VRWC. What are the consequences of failing to put policies in place to insure we have realistic and sufficient troop levels?
“But who knows.”
Dugger says this as if the Pentagon didn’t just get a report saying that the current policy isn’t working. Dugger says this after three year insurgency that continues at pace. Who knows? Please.
Please VRWC. Let s not get into a pissing match. I answered your question now answer mine.
This isn’t a pissing contest. You claimed you answered the question. I asked you to point out where since I didn’t see it.
You also accused me of calling you a traitor. I asked you to point out where I accused you or anyone else of this.
Please VRWC. Let’s not get into a pissing match. I answered your question now answer mine.
Farris,
You’re correct, but there’s a reason behind it that nobody wants to talk about. The biggest dropoff in enlistment is coming from minorities, particularly African Americans. Maybe it’s because blacks are suddenly better off than they were in the Clinton years – though the data doesn’t support that. A better explanation is that black people oppose the Iraq war something like 9 to 1. Whereas the military was always around 24% black, new recruits are down to 12% black. So, to make it up, the military has to find more white people. Since white people are, on average, wealthier than black people, the military has to provide more incentives to join. It also has to dig into lesser desirable elements among the white population – those who fail the intel tests or don’t have a HS degree. Either way, that’s a strain on recruiting.
Dugger,
Yes, people have always complained about the size of the military. But those discussions were usually academic. We could talk about having manpower to fight a hypothetical two-front war and then make long-term plans to raise an army capable of doing it. Today the demands are very different and they are immediate. The objectives of Rumsfeld and the neo-con vision are at complete loggerheads. Rumsfeld wants an even smaller military capable of fighting conventional wars with higher tech weaponry. But neocons (like Bill Kristol) understand that if we are going to take democracy promotion seriously, we need the manpower necessary to establish peace and security following military operations. You need one or the other. Because Rumsfeld has been in charge, the military has followed his directive and refused to increase its size. This is a major neo-con critique of the Bush Administration, and it is dead on. If you want a 1990s-style neo-isolationist posture then Rumsfeld’s vision works just fine. If you want a Wolfowitz-style neo-conservative approach then you need a much larger military. One or the other. Failure to choose between these competing visions is one of the great national security disasters of the Bush Administration and is the reason we are unable to deal credibly with threats in, say, Iran.
VRWC,
You act as if recruitment information were some sort of national secret. It’s not. The only question is how the military spins its manpower rates.
You act as if recruitment information were some sort of national secret. It s not. The only question is how the military spins its manpower rates.
Recruitment info isn’t the issue. The insurgents could read stories about falling recruitment rates and infer (and guess and hope) that this might have an impact on the troops, buut they will never know for sure. But that’s not what’s happening in this story. Again, I’ll quote the article:
“the Army cannot sustain the pace of troop deployments to Iraq long enough to break the back of the insurgency.”
This statement is talking about the current operational status of our forces. There’s no guessing or inferring involved. The person making the above statement even admits that this aids (i.e. gives encouragement) to the enemy. And since the author of the report is doing this study at the request of the Pentagon, the enemy could rightfully assume that the author had access to information that is NOT in the public domain, so a statement that “the Army cannot sustain the pace of troop deployments” can be taken as a fact, not a guess.
Again, I’ll ask a simple question: How is this not aiding the enemy?
And for the record I believe you implied that I was a partisan idiot who was encouraging the enemy to drag the conflict out longer than it normally would have lasted because I’m more concerned with making Emperor Chimpy look bad than in actually winning the war. I suppose that means you think I’m a patriot.
VRWC,
I’m not sure what your argument is. That an officer in the Pentagon should never made that comment? That the Pentagon should never have commissioned that study? That the officer should never have leaked that study (though it was never classified)? OK, I grant you that the insurgents “knowing” the actual state of the military gives them an advantage and that whoever “told” them this has helped the insurgency. But I’m not sure where the actual crime is in reporting that information.
Dugger,
Kristol was just the first name that came to mind. A better example would be Paul Wolfowitz, who was Rumsfeld’s top deputy in the first term. Wolfowitz was the prime intellectual force behind neo-conservatism WITHIN the Administration. Yet his own boss supported a military posture that rendered Wolfowitz’s vision impossible. The Administration never effectively sorted out the differences between the two, which is why we had a grossly undermanned military occupation from the beginning, and why Rumsfeld poo-pooed the looting that foreshadowed a generalized chaos in post-Saddam Iraq. It is also why the Pentagon has been looking for a way out of Iraq and other elements of the Administration have been denying it. BTW, I AM taking my data from the Weekly Standard on this issue because they’ve been intellectually consistent on this point.
“How is it not aiding the enemy for them to know that our troops are stretched to the breaking point?”
I already answered that question and you attacked me as a traitor.
First, you seem to think that the only way our enemy has of knowing the capabilities of our troops is through liberal criticism of the President. As if they don’t have their own intelligence operations and aren’t probing our strengths and weaknesses on a daily basis on the ground in Iraq. As if they haven’t realized that once we drive them out of a city all they have to do is wait for us to leave to reoccupy because we don’t have enough troops on the ground.
Second, if, indeed, our troops are stretched to the breaking point something has to be done about it, right? Can we trust that this admnistration will do something about it without a public outcry? You know that Murtha didn’t just arrive at his conclusions out of the blue. He didn’t just wake up and say “Today I’ll Bash the president out of blind hatred.” He kept his criticism quite and constructive for a very long period waiting for the administration to change its policies to meet the realities, as he saw it, on the ground in Iraq. And all he got was “Stay the course.” Now there’s a report that suggests “stay the course” is a course for disaster. Information that our troops are stretched thin does not, in itself, aid the enemy. The FACT that our troops are stretched thin is what aids the enemy. If we don’t do anything about that fact then we are headed for trouble But clearly this administration, Elrod points out, would rather kill the messenger than fix the problem.
Now answer my question: What are the consequences of failing to put policies in place to insure we have realistic and sufficient troop levels?
Elrod, Not a bad analysis. Though this “Failure to choose between these competing visions is one of the great national security disasters of the Bush Administration and is the reason we are unable to deal credibly with threats in, say, Iran.” is a relapse into ideological posturing. Kristol is on the outside, Rummy inside. If your analysis about competing visions were correct, the placement of Rummy as second most powerful in military is conclusive evidence that a choice has been made. I agree that you could argue, though, that having made that choice, it is the wrong choice and that we need larger conventional forces (I take the technological, highly mobile, special force heavy position). But who knows.
Dugger
VRWC –
See my last post. In my first post I also made it clear — although obviously not clear enough — that pressuring the president to fix a reported problem is not aiding and abetting the enemy because it is intended to get the president to FIX THE PROBLEM. What really aids and abets the enemy is if the president DOES NOT fix the problem. See the difference? The enemy might think that all they have to do is hunker down and wait us out, but that will only work if we continue with the policies we currently have in place, as per the Pentagon’s report.
Now you answered my question with a question. Try to answer it with an answer now. I’ll repeat it: What are the consequences of failing to put policies in place to insure we have realistic and sufficient troop levels?
I already answered that question and you attacked me as a traitor.
Please point to your post which answered this question. And please point to my post that called you (or anyone else) a traitor.
I already answered that question and you attacked me as a traitor.
frameone,
“implying” that you’re a partisan idiot is a long way from accusing you of being a traitor. I’m not sure why you felt the need to inflate my statement. Prefer to feel persecuted? Freudian slip?
And thanks for clearing up your opinion in your 10:47am post. It’s clear that you’ve rationalized it to yourself that as long as you’re pressuring Bush to do something, it’s perfectly OK to give the enemy useful intelligence because the important thing is that you’re putting the heat on Bush to FIX THE PROBLEM. It’s just too bad if this intel causes the conflict to drag on longer, endangering more troops. What’s important that you’re holding the administration’s feet to the fire. Because as you noted in your 10:19am post, Can we trust that this admnistration will do something about it without a public outcry?. I guess that every policy issue, regardless of the sensitivity of any information it might contain, must be debated in the open media. Because as you know, holding the president publicly accountable trumps all.
What really aids and abets the enemy is if the president DOES NOT fix the problem.
No, they BOTH aid and abet the enemy. If we give them useful info, it helps them. If Bush fails to address this problem and the troops have to withdraw prematurely, it aids them. But one does not cancel out the other. You can dance around the issue and justify it all you want, but giving useful information to the enemy (especially if it helps prolong the war) is wrong, regardless of how altruistic your motives are.
Oh, and to answer your question “What are the consequences of failing to put policies in place to insure we have realistic and sufficient troop levels?”, I’d say the consequences are that you stretch your forces to the breaking point, as we are apparently doing now. And which I thoroughly blame Bush’s policies for as noted above. What’s your point? Or did you have one?
Elrod,
From the story, it doesn’t sound like Krepinevich leaked the report. The article states “While not released publicly, a copy of the report was provided in response to an Associated Press inquiry”, which makes it sound like the Pentagon itself may have released it.
I don’t disagree with the Pentagon requesting the study be done, and it’s not classified, so releasing it was not a crime and no one should be punished or held accountable. I’m just disturbed to see this kind of information splashed across the media, since I believe it will help drag out the conflict by giving the insurgents encouragement that if they hold out long enough, our army will fold. I think it’s wrong and a poor decision.
I guess my point is, what on earth is the difference between what you just wrote and what I said in my initial comment?
I wrote:
“There is a legitimate reason for the public to know the truth about the situation and there are legitimate grounds for public criticism of the policies that produced it.”
You wrote:
“Bush failing to put policies in place to insure we have realistic and sufficient troop levels is stupid [because] the consequences are that you stretch your forces to the breaking point, as we are apparently doing now.”
Of course what you wrote is legitimate and constructive criticism of Bush’s policies. What I wrote earned the response:
“Geez, can you take off your I Hate the Imperialistic Dictator Bush hat for a second? This has nothing to do with Bush taking responsibility for anything.”
The only difference I can possible see between what I wrote and what you say is legitimate criticism is that I dared to suggest that the Pentagon now has a study backing up my assertion, which is also, apparently, your assertion too. So please clarify what the difference is.
Oh I left out this bit from you: “And which I thoroughly blame Bush s policies for as noted above. What s your point?”
Geez, man, can you take off your I Hate the Imperialistic Dictator Bush hat for a second? This has nothing to do with Bush taking responsibility for anything. Oh wait …
frameone,
I made the “take off your I Hate Bush hat” comment in response to this statement you made, “How does it give the enemy any comfort to know that the Bush administration is being asked to take responsibility for the situation and pressed to fix it?”, which you conveniently left out of your last post.
You’re missing the point. There are two separate issues here. As noted in the statement above, you’re trying to lump them together to avoid dealing with one of them.
Issue 1: Criticism of Bush and his policies. This is perfectly legitimate and I have no problem with it. I do it myself. And this is what you quote me doing in your 12:25pm post (rather than catching me contradicting myself as you seem to think I’m doing).
Issue 2: Providing information to the enemy (i.e. telling them that our army is stretched to the breaking point and can’t last much longer) that aids or assists them. This is wrong. And doing it in the process of criticizing Bush does not somehow make it OK or justified. The ends do not justify the means.
What you seem to want to avoid doing is agreeing that providing useful information to our enemies is wrong even if it’s done in conjunction with a criticizism of Bush. This is what triggered the “Geez, can you take off your I Hate the Imperialistic Dictator Bush hat for a second” comment.
And before you get your panties in a bunch, I’m not saying that anyone who does this is a traitor. Just partisan. And would be, even if if were President Kerry in the White House.
How does it give the enemy any comfort to know that the Bush administration is being asked to take responsibility for the situation and pressed to fix it?
This is what really pissed you off? You said the exact same thing:
“The consequences are that you stretch your forces to the breaking point, as we are apparently doing now. And which I thoroughly blame Bush s policies for as noted above.”
In your very criticism of the President you are asserting that our troops are at the breaking point. Isn’t that enough to aid the enemy under your definition?
No VR.
You’re separating issues to make a distinction between legitimate criticism and treason (and please don’t play semantic games with me here. You used the phrase “providing information to the enemy.”). But to agree with your second issue I automatically undercut my ability to make any real, substantive claims under the first.
If I criticize the president’s policies about troop levels and then say look, there’s a Pentagon study that suggests our troop levels are insufficient, I am helping the enemy. But if I say the same thing without reference to any facts, I may not be helping the enemy, but my criticisim has no meaning or weight to it, whatsoever.
You yourself asserted that Bush can be legitimately criticized for failing to ensure that we have realistic and sufficient troop levels [because] the consequences are that you stretch your forces to the breaking point, as we are apparently doing now.
But what is the basis for this assertion? What are the facts backing this assertion up? How can you present the facts backing up your assertion without, as you say, giving information to the enemy? You see the kind of Catch-22 you’ve created?
It’s legitimate to criticize the President as long as you don’t reveal any substantive facts in doing so but without presenting any substantive facts you’re criticism has no weight. You’ve effectively stifled any public debate about our policies in the war on terror.
One more thing:
I recognize the meaning of the old admonition “Loose lips sink ships.” But there is a big difference between saying, “Mr. President you have not provided adequately for a sufficient naval presence in the Pacific according to a recent study” and giving away ship movements or saying such and such a flotilla contains these ships which will arrive in port at dawn.
Our enemy in Iraq was the first to know that we didn’t have sufficient troops on the ground. Why? Because they’ve been able to operate with some regularity for three years. They didn’t need me or Murtha or anyone else to see that we’re stretched thin.
elrod,
Not so much saying your anlysis IS wrong, rather that it is unproven and COULD be wrong (could be right). But iIt doesn’t matter if people under the president (Wolf and Rum, say) have different views and maybe if were individual other than Bush, you might think it reflects intellectual rigor. What would matter is IF the position the president and congress are implementing is the right or wrong one (assuming we have a way of knowing). Still say its a roll of the dice and I would opt for high tech, high mobility forces with lower gross numbers. Get in fast (fussest with the mostest ) strike a blow and get out.
Dugger
Dugger,
The problem is that the Administration has been implementing both strategies at the same time, and they work at cross purposes with one another. The reason we had too few troops in Iraq was that Rumsfeld opposed the whole Powell Doctrine and thought he could showcase his lightning war and get out on the quick. He was totally unprepared for the insurgency, the looting, the chaos, the broken infrastructure, etc. because preparing for such exigencies would have rendered his ideological vision impotent. A good leader would have sensed Rumsfeld’s ideological commitment to a nimble military and decided, “You know what, your vision might have made sense in a pre-Iraq world. But now we see the shortcomings of it and we’re going to replace you with somebody committed to higher manpower.” That would have been real leadership from the President. Or, he could have chosen the alternative and simply pulled out of Iraq in 2003, let the country fall to whatever strong man could take it over, and declare victory.
You may be right that this is just ideological posturing from the neo-cons (that I am channelling). But my guess is that they are on the mark here.
It has not been establishedf that we have or have had too few troops in Iraq. Our military commanders on the ground – the guys with the most knowledge and the ones in charge- do not say we need more troops. They have in fact expressed concern about too big a footprint. I don’t truly don’t see any conflict in implementation here.
Bush would not have to sense anything from Rumsfeld. Right or wrong he says what he believes. The military force structure and war plans (broad scale) are briefed to Congress.
Dugger
The US Armed Forces are far and away the strongest force in the history of warfare, nuclear or with conventional weapons. And now a few pencil-pushing analysts are saying that a 5 million strong standing Army is better than 1 million? Yeah, 5 is better than 1, 10 better than 5, I get it. Who are we going to fight that would stretch us to our limits?…Iran, North Korea, China??? Open conflict with the Chinese would certainly go nuclear, so that’s but…who’s left? Iran??? But I digress.
Let’s get back to the real issue of what we are doing in Iraq. We are delivering the Iraqi people out of tyranny into democracy. That’s our motive…kinda. What we are really doing is protecting the interests of the US by bringing governmental stability to the rest of the world…especially that part of the world that delivers over half of our oil. By letting Saddam stay in power, you would have been permitting him to “dictate” to us if we are going to drive a car to work or a bicycle, if you even would still have a job at all. He invaded one country and razed it…would you give him the opportunity to remain in a position of power over us to try to bring us to submission, or even allegiance to him?
You may think lightly of it now, not seeing the true impact of $10/gallon gas, “Oh, I guess I’ll have to carpool today.” But it is much more than that. What of a $5 loaf of bread, $8 for a gallon of milk, and so on. Stop thinking so short-sighted.
But how many Iraqs and Afghanistans left are there? I think many would agree that we cannot leave until we make sure their newly formed fragile governments can hold their own and defend themselves from insurgents, but consider the alternative. If we just leave and let those nations revert to tyranny and overzealous fanatics, we will soon have those fanatics coming here bombing our cities, with suicide attacks against our people. Ohhh, that’s right…we’ve tasted that reality already. We will stay in Iraq, we will stay in Afghanistan until they can support and defend their newly won right to Freedom on their own. That’s the best way to defeat terrorism, by giving the people of these former training grounds for terror a way to defeat their oppressive regimes. If you defeat the ideology of terror, it becomes less attractive to those people who would otherwise be susceptible to blindly joining terrorist groups and fanatics. The greatest tool we have to defeat terrorism is our ideology of freedom and democracy.
And simply because Bush has taken up this task and happens to be a Republican, we tear him apart for it. I wonder if Clinton/Kerry would have received the same response…that is, if they chose to do anything at all?