Thursday, March 23, 2006

In Defense of the War and George W. Bush--Part 1


"Pleasant words are a honeycomb, Sweet to the soul and healing to the bones."--Proverbs 16:24

As many of you have probably figured out by now I am not a fan of the cynical or the pessimist. I am an optimist and an idealist by nature. I don't live in denial. I live in reality (more so than I would desire) but I don't believe anything is accomplished by being negative.

All that to say I am so sick of the doom and gloom MSM and the liberals. They offer constant negative criticism and defeatism without ever giving hope and/or solutions (you should hear some of Carville's recent advice, pathetic). So in an effort to combat some of that I'm going to tell you what has gone right with the war and what George W. Bush has done well.


Rich Lowry has written an excellent article entitled "Murtha Democrats". He points out how ill-informed and negative they are and responds with what is really happening in Iraq. Here are some excerpts:

"John Murtha is the longtime Pennsylvania congressman and former Marine who fits the Democratic party’s preferred political formula on the war. That formula is to say inane or incoherent things, but have a veteran say them on the theory that, then, no one will notice their inanity or incoherence.

Murtha produced his usual hail of misstatements. He said Bush went to war “against the advice of his father and the whole administration.” But the closest there was to a major dissenter in the administration was then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, who supported the war. Murtha said there was “no connection to terrorism in Iraq itself.” Leaving aside the more controversial arguments about Saddam’s relationship with al Qaeda, it is incontrovertible that Saddam was giving $25,000 to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, a rather stark connection to terrorism. He cited the U.S. military’s goal of giving Iraqi forces control of security in 75 percent of Iraq, and scorned it because “75 percent of it is desert.”

It is impossible to know if Murtha wants to be deliberately misleading or is simply ill-informed — but neither option is flattering. Nearly half of the key Baghdad province has been handed over to Iraqi security forces. According to USA Today, these forces have also been given responsibility for parts of such dangerous areas as Fallujah, Ramadi, and Samarra. This is why U.S. deaths are down to one a day — almost the lowest level since the insurgency began — while Iraqi deaths are increasing. So much for deserts.

The difficulties in Iraq have created an open season for the war’s critics, who get a license to say anything even if it has no connection to reality. A few months ago, The Atlantic Monthly ran a cover story by James Fallows titled, “Why Iraq Has No Army.” It was widely cited, even though it appeared smack in the midst of an extraordinarily successful training effort to build up an Iraqi army. From February 2005 to February 2006, top-rated Iraqi security forces went from 10,000 to 54,000, according to researchers from the liberal Brookings Institution, who report that “Iraqi security forces continue to improve.”

Despite all the hue and cry over Iraq, there is a basic consensus around a common-sense strategy that involves attempting to form a national-unity government and train Iraqi security forces. Whether it ultimately works no one can know, but it is irresponsible to lack the patience to give it a reasonable chance."

His last line there is my exact point. When did everyone become such defeatists? Why are we so willing to throw in the towel so quickly? Isn't victory over terrorists and freedom worth fighting for? Do we not realize what we've already accomplished so far?


Mike did a recent post showing a great comparison between the naysayers today and the ones in Europe after World War II. His post is entitled "Winning is not Easy, Just Absolutely Necessary". Here are some excerpts:
"The mainstream media at the time reported doom and gloom. Where was our plan for victory? History repeats itself today in Iraq where our slow, steady, measurable progress is met with "but, but, but" from the same people who are desperate to escape accountability for never having any practical, effective solutions of their own on how to solve the immense problems we confront in geopolitics.

It took fifty years to clean up the mess after World War II. Would the naysayers say we shouldn't have bothered? Had we followed their lead, everyone in Europe, or at least the few permitted to survive the Holocaust, would either be speaking Russian or German."

This topic is too broad for me to fit everything into one post so stay tuned for part 2.

P.S. I had some great pics to go with this but blogger wouldn't let me post them.

No comments: