|
What I sent (long) - my comments are preceded by ****
Mr Salvato,
****There's so much to talk about in your column, I'm not sure where to begin. Let's take it a paragraph at a time .... simple enough?
There has been an overwhelming amount of unsubstantiated rhetoric coming from the left about the alleged “failed Bush policy” in Iraq . I say “unsubstantiated rhetoric” because whether the liberal left wants to admit it or not the policy being employed in Iraq is U.S. policy, not just Bush policy--just as it was U.S. policy and not Clinton policy to balk at taking custody of Osama bin Laden from the Sudanese. And I say “alleged” because by all first hand accounts the “failed Bush policy” seems to be working.
****Not even two sentences in, and there's that name that all good men shake their fists at in rage ..... CLINTON ..... yes! it's all HIS fault! He's been out of the White House for 5 years now, but it's still ALL HIS DOING!!!! Of course, one might ask what, EXACTLY, does Osama bin Laden have to do with Iraq, but that would require some rational thought - something you've apparently left at the door. But let's not let that get in the way. After all, Saddam Hussein was just Osama bin Laden in disguise, right? And every one of those hijackers on 911 were Iraqi, right? Oh wait .... I'm digressing .... let's get back to those charges of the "alleged failed Bush policy" ......
The liberal leftists in this country and around the world just can’t get enough of their war of words. They argue semantics and innuendo, cherry-picking the facts when pontificating for the media and like-minded crowds. But call on them to provide facts, call on them to defend their slanderous statements, and you can expect, “Well, you know what I mean,” or some other innocuous generalization that allows them to keep a scintilla of credibility at the expense of a much more accurate picture of the truth.
****Ooooh! "cherry-picking the facts" .... I like that. I'll come back to that point a little later down in your missive, but let's not stop here. This is just too damn good! ......
Barack Obama (D-IL), the new darling of the Democratic Party, whom I might add never had an Oreo thrown at him, recently scolded the White House for what he termed “shameful attempts to silence dissent about the war.” He did so while proposing a gradual pull-out of American troops from Iraq throughout 2006. Of course, one has to wonder when the freshman senator attained the stature and ethical superiority to “scold” anyone, but that’s beside the point.
****So, if I throw an Oreo at Obama, does that give him the "stature and ethical superiority" he needs to question our reasons for going to war. Damn! Someone should have told me about this earlier! If I throw the whole package at him (along with a gallon of milk), can he be President? Gotta remember to let Obama know not to open his mouth until he's had at least 30 years Senatorial service. Of course, I'm sure that if he spoke in agreement with this administration, he'd be free to flap his gums endlessly, right? Thanks for clearing that up .....
Much to Senator Obama’s chagrin I would imagine, the facts offer quite a different picture where the truth of the matter is concerned.
****Oboy! Fact time .... let's see those facts!
President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and just about every other voice from the “government-over-politics” contingent in Washington, D.C. have literally held press conferences completely devoted to saying that voicing dissent is good for the country and that they welcome it. What they are calling the bloviators of the liberal left on is their use of non-truths, innuendo, and depictions of “reality” that are incomplete. To put it simply, when the liberal leftists manufactures the truth, as they have become prone to do, those who believe the truth still matters have begun calling them on it.
****WTF?!? The administration has done everything but declare dissenters as traitors up to this point, but when they saw their attempts to smear Murtha were backfiring, suddenly it became "dissent is good for the country". Talk about rewriting history .... Oh wait! That's YOUR "reality". Geez, wouldn't want to wake you up .... sorry .... let's read further .....
As for Obama’s grand plan of decreasing troop strength through 2006, this is where the political opportunism of the left is truly “outed” as outrageous.
It has always been the strategy of the U.S. government (for you leftists out there, read as Bush policy) to remain in Iraq until that country’s own forces are capable of providing adequate security for their fledgling government. That goal, contrary to what Senators Ted “I Couldn’t Let My Fingers Get Pruney” Kennedy and John “That’s Not Heinz Ketchup” Kerry, and those in the liberally biased media would have you believe, is being met.
****Heh, heh, heh ...... that's good! "Always been our strategy" eh? You mean like, we're going to war because:
Iraq has WMD!
Iraqis hate us for our freedom!
We're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here!
We're in Iraq to spread democracy!
Terror! Terror! Terror!
****Why don't you ask George "AWOL" Bush and Dick "5 deferment" Cheney what the reason for going to war in Iraq is this week and then let the rest of us know so we can update our catalog of this Administration's excuses. Oh, and don't worry ....we put OIL in, right at the top .....
Anthony H. Cordesman, who holds the Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, testified on November 9, 2005, before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary that great progress is being made by the Iraqi military. As reported by United Press International:
****Now we're talking! Citing an expert reference. Let's Google "Center for Strategic and International Studies" and see what kind of unbiased source we're dealing with ...... Uh oh! Hmmmm...... a right wing shill citing a neocon think tank .... what a f*cking surprise!! Mr Salvato! Are you "cherry picking" your references after having disparaged the left for allegedly doing the very same thing? I'm shocked I tell you! Shocked! OK ..... let's look at the members of this think tank. Wait a minute! One of them is former Secretary of the Treasury Paul O' Neill! You're kidding! .... Paul "The Price of Loyalty" O'Neill?!? I've got an idea! Why don't we cite Mr. O'Neill's interview with David Suskind ... that might shed some light on this Iraq stuff. After all, he was there, right? How about this?:
......And what happened at President Bush's very first National Security Council meeting is one of O'Neill's most startling revelations.
“From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,” says O’Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11." ......
****Damn ..... there's that "unsubstantiated rhetoric" again. Don't you hate when that happens? No matter, let's continue to look at those "facts":
-There are now 88 Iraqi army and special operations battalions conducting combat operations against the enemy, an increase of nine since July.
- Of the 88 operational units, 36 are assessed as being "in the lead" or fully independent, a 50% increase since July.
- There are 28 Special Police Force battalions capable of combat operations, an increase of 13 since the last report.
- Since July, Iraqi forces have taken responsibility for security in several areas of Iraq and now have the lead in one Iraqi province, roughly 87 square miles of Baghdad and over 450 square miles in other provinces.
- More than 87,000 soldiers, sailors, and airmen have now been trained and equipped, an increase of 10,000 since the last report.
- A total of 68,800 police have been trained and equipped, an increase of 5,500 since the last reporting period. These work alongside 35,500 other Ministry of Interior forces.
Overall, this represents a 12% increase in Ministry of Defense and Ministry of Interior forces trained and equipped for counter-insurgency operations since July 2005.
Add to these impressive gains in military independence and police capability the unarguable facts that:
-Iraq has held two national elections where millions of liberated Iraqis braved hours in unending lines outside polling places, doing so in the face of Abu Musab al Zarqawi’s threat of death to those who participated in the election process.
- The Iraqi government has overcome many of the traditional obstacles to democratic rule in the Middle East and has adopted a Constitution based on democratic principles.
- Of the 18 Iraqi provinces, unrest exists in only three, all of them inhabited by the previously empowered minority Sunni Arab population.
To borrow a line from the movie A Few Good Men , these are the facts and they are indisputable.
When one looks at these facts and disregards all of the opportunistic anti-war, liberal-left gibberish that is being championed by the mainstream, agenda-driven media and their billionaire benefactors it is hard to see where the U.S. policy in Iraq has failed and it is hard to ignore the tremendous amount of progress that has been made in such a short period of time.
****Wow! That think tank sure can pull some numbers out of its butt, can't they? And we won't question those numbers because you've taken the time to declare them "indisputable" - so no need to research those by any means. However, let's look at a few more facts and see if we can make heads or tails of the situation, but let's use the current Administration (and its duly appointed representatives) as the source:
Today there are more than 80 Iraqi army battalions fighting the insurgency alongside our forces.
George W. Bush - Speech to National Endowment for Democracy - October 6, 2005
I'm encouraged by the increasing size and capability of the Iraqi security forces. Today they have more than 100 battalions operating throughout the country.
George W. Bush - Radio Address - October 1, 2005
Until a couple of weeks ago, Petraeus was in charge of the U.S. effort to train and equip Iraqi forces. In perhaps the most detailed public account so far of the state of Iraq's forces he said 115 army combat and special police battalions were rated as being "in the fight."
United Press International - Analysis: Training Iraqi army a slow process - October 6, 2005
We have more than a hundred Iraqi army and special police battalions participating with us in conducting counterinsurgency operations.
Gen George Casey - Testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee - September 29, 2005
I think we have 86 Iraqi army battalions today that are operating with us.
Gen. Richard Myers - Testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee - September 29, 2005
The 115 Iraqi army and special police battalions already declared battle ready . . . are still well short of the 185,000 troops a Pentagon spokesman recently cited for total Iraqi security forces.
Inside the Pentagon - Officers Worry Iraqi Army Will Disintegrate After U.S. Draws Down - September 15, 2005
________________________
But the growing concern about the conflict was on full display on Capitol Hill, where the top brass faced tough questions on US progress in training Iraqis to defend themselves, considered a key measure in whether the United States will be able to begin reducing its own presence. Some of the fiercest criticism came from Republicans.
''It doesn't feel like progress," remarked Senator Susan Collins, a Republican from Maine.
When Casey reported that one Iraqi battalion was prepared to operate without US support, Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, shot back: ''It was three before. . . . Now we're down to one battalion?"
''Right," Casey said, ''and things change in the battalions. I mean, we're making assessments on personnel, on leadership, on training. . . . There are a lot of variables that are involved here, Senator."
Casey did not fully explain why the number of combat-ready units has declined despite continued training efforts.
Casey and Abizaid told lawmakers that training Iraqis to take over for US and allied troops remains a struggle.
''We fully recognize that Iraqi armed forces will not have an independent capability for some time, because they don't have the institutional base to support them," Casey said.
Boston Globe September 30, 2005
________________________
****Hmmmm...... seems like an awful lot of conflicting statements don't you think? I'm not sure I would accept your "facts" as facts just yet. The "doesn't feel like progress" quote, from a Republican Senator no less, says it all, but don't let that sway your opinion. I mean, the Senators know everything the President knows, right? They have all the same information, correct? Let's continue .....
I suppose if the good senators from Massachusetts and their compatriots from the Left Coast wanted to be fair they would listen to what the Iraqi people are saying. Then, the fact that Iraqi citizens can now voice their opinions at all without fearing they’ll have their heads sawn off screams that this isn’t a failed policy in action; this is a full-blown, legitimate liberation.
****What the Iraqi people say?!? Holy shit Frank! What they're saying is for us to GET THE HELL OUT, or did you miss that news item of just a couple days ago? For the first time since this bloody conflict began, the Kurds, Shiite and Sunni representatives ALL AGREED they wanted a timetable for US troop withdrawal. Eighty percent (80) of Iraqis want us out ..... forty-five (45) percent think we're fair game for pot shots! So, yeah, now that the Iraqi citizens can "voice their opinions", we put our fingers in our ears?!? WTF?!? Oh... that's right .... only WE know what's best for the Iraqi ..... they should keep their "opinions" to themselves until we're done with the "liberation".
One has to wonder why the left is so scared to let it happen! Politics perhaps?
****"Why the left is so scared to let it happen" ...... an absolutely priceless quote. Yeah, that's right .... we don't want to succeed in Iraq. We want to continue to be hated and despised by the rest of the world because it just FEELS SO GOOD! And if the Constitution gets trampled on in the process, along with the Bill of Rights, then so much the better, right? It's THE LEFT'S FAULT things aren't going too well in Iraq. Yep, we hid those WMD's, we told Rumsfeld to lowball the troop strength needed in this clusterfuck, we took away the flowers the Iraqi were supposed to throw at our feet during the invasion, we pocketed all the money made through selling the Iraqi oil that was supposed to pay for this war, we ordered the soldiers to torture the prisoners, we OK'd the dropping of white phosphorous on Iraqi civilians and on and on .... Yep, it's all the LEFT WING'S FAULT ..... little Georgie and his friends had nothing to do with it! I guess that's what you folks call "accountability", right?
****Have you thought of a career in fiction - it's obviously what you do best. And, by all means, NEVER QUESTION - just keep sipping that koolaid.
Thanks for the chuckle .....
randomelement
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
