Thursday, December 15, 2005

Here comes Nancy

Nancy Pelosi has released a statement to counter President Bush’s speech on Iraq. In reading her response I jaw dropped ever closer to the floor. I’m not sure why, nothing should surprise me these days when it comes to the Democrats

While Nancy is technically correct on many points, I’d like to respond to her statement. The entire statement is below the fold in italics followed by my response.

“I am pleased that Iraq appears to be moving towards democracy, as indicated by tomorrow's upcoming election. However, democracy is not the reason that President Bush gave for invading Iraq more than 1,000 days ago.”

In a nutshell, the five primary reasons for the Iraq War given by Bush were the war on terror, prevention of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, lack of weapons inspections, removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime and Saddam Hussein is evil.

While Democracy is not mentioned anywhere in there, did Nancy and the Democrats expect us to install a Stalinist regime after Saddam was removed from power? This is as intellectually dishonest as anything I’ve seen from the Democrats on this.

“President Bush asserted that Saddam Hussein presented an imminent threat to the security of the United States, a threat that could only be reduced by going to war. The president was wrong.”

She’s right and wrong on this. The intelligence about WMD does appear to have been incorrect. Her main point doesn’t seem to address the daily shots at American and British fighters enforcing the no fly zone, nor does it seem to take into account the reward that Saddam offered to the surviving family members of suicide bombers.

"How much further would we be in the effort to defeat Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda, who perpetrated the attacks in the United States, Africa, and the Middle East, if President Bush had not allowed the focus of the war on terrorism to be diverted by invading Iraq?”

Right, because not invading Iraq would have allowed us to ignore Pakistani sovereignty more easily and just invade our ally in the effort to find Saddam.

“How much progress could we make in keeping the world's most dangerous weapons out of dangerous hands if we were not spending $5 billion a month in Iraq?”

So now we need to invade Iran or North Korea? Suddenly the UN is not good enough to reign in Iran and the multi-lateral talks with North Korea are a waste of time. It’s a good thing that I expect consistency from the Democrats these days, it helps explain these things. Whatever Bush does, we support the opposite – even if it requires us to take a contradictory view of our previous rhetoric.

“The president claims that there are more than 200,000 trained and equipped Iraqi security personnel. Although many political and stability challenges remain, those are challenges for the Iraqi people to address. There are ways for the United States to make Iraq more stable that do not require 160,000 U. S. troops in Iraq and which would make the American people safer and the Middle East more secure. The president should recognize that fact and send that message to the American people and the Iraqis."

I can’t find a lot to comment about with this one. I really like the claim of “There are ways for the United States to make Iraq more stable that do not require 160,000 U. S. troops in Iraq” – I’d like to know what we could do to make Iraq more stable without a troop presence to assist with security in the country.

Maybe we could bring the Germans in to train the security forces in Iraq as they are in Afghanistan. They’ve done such a wonderful job there.


No comments: