Iraq

I view Iraq as the main battleground between the US and international terrorists. If we do what many liberals and Democrats want, that is, wave the white flag of surrender (following the French model of never fight when there is an expresso to sip) and leave Iraq prematurely, there will be grave consequences in the Middle East and elsewhere. The fight in Iraq has attracted terrorists from around the world. They come to Iraq to kill American soldiers. I much prefer having our highly trained military fight the terrorists in Iraq than have the terrorists plotting and planning new attacks on civilian target in the US.

The critics of the liberation of Iraq have no plan to offer us. How would they handle international terrorism and fill the vacuum left by the departure of the US military from Iraq. Do these critics think democracy impossible in Iraq? Or in any Arab/Moslem country? Do these critics think Saddam was a better option than a chance at freedom and democracy for the Iraqi people? Iraq may not make it to a Iraqi-styled democracy. Iraq may descend into civil war (not there yet, IMO), but they deserve a chance at democracy as do other suppressed people around the world. Democracy (not necessarily a copy of our systen) is the best option yet devised by man for governance if it includes individual rights, free speech, a free and honest press, economic freedom, the rule of law, and religious freedom.

There were numerous reasons Bush elected to go to war to depose Saddam. Even the Clinton admin wanted regime change, but lacked the resolve to accomplish it. Contrary to the simplistic and inaccurate reports of WMD being THE reason Bush decided to remove Saddam, several other reasons were important. Saddam violated 17 UN Resolutions. Saddam violated the terms of the 1991 Gulf War Cease Fire, which by itself alone justified military action. Saddam used WMD against Iraqis and against his neighbors. Saddam was funding homicide bombers against Israel. Saddam attempted to kill a former US president. Saddam had violated the No Fly Zones in Iraq. And there were more reasons.

Partisan politics is the root cause of much of the criticism of President Bush. If a Democrat president were in office and doing the same thing as Bush, then the same Bush hating critics would be 100 percent behind the Iraq policy. Simple as that.

If the nation had this crop of Democrats in WWII, then we would have lost that war. What would today's Democrats say about Operation Tiger in England before D-Day? This training exercise resulted in the deaths of 749 men. Today's Democrats would have called for the removal of the SecDod, the VP and several high ranking military officers. And what about the military debacles in North Africa, Italy, and the 000s killed on the FIRST day of D-Day. Did you know the Allies lost 12,000 on the first day. And there were 20,000 French civilians killed and injured on the first day! Imagine the screams and cries from today's war critics if they had been around in those days.

Senator Durbin (D, IL, second in charge in today's Senate) compared American soldiers to Nazis, to Stalin's killers, and to Pol Pot's deranged army. He gave a half hearted apology so it was easy to see that he really believed what he said. I now refer to him as Senator Dick, "The Turban" Durban.

The cut and run policy of the Democrats will lead to even more problems for us. Despite voting to autorize Bush to take whatever military action he saw fit, the Democrats now want to retract that vote - not sure that is possible - but they will try anything to subvert Bush. Terrorists around the world must marvel at the stupidity of American politicians.

More to come.