| Author |
Message |
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
 Wed Nov 30, 2005 7:23 pm Joe Lieberman: "Our Troops Must Stay" |
|
The following is a piece that Hannity posted on his website, www.hannity.com. In the Washington Post yesterday Democrat Senator and former Vice-Chairman of the Democratic Party posted an op-ed piece on Iraq. He just got back from a trip from Iraq.
Everyone--especially you liberals who think we should pull out now--should read this piece. It's great.
| Quote: | Our Troops Must Stay
America can't abandon 27 million Iraqis to 10,000 terrorists.
BY JOE LIEBERMAN
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
I have just returned from my fourth trip to Iraq in the past 17 months and can report real progress there. More work needs to be done, of course, but the Iraqi people are in reach of a watershed transformation from the primitive, killing tyranny of Saddam to modern, self-governing, self-securing nationhood--unless the great American military that has given them and us this unexpected opportunity is prematurely withdrawn.
Progress is visible and practical. In the Kurdish North, there is continuing security and growing prosperity. The primarily Shiite South remains largely free of terrorism, receives much more electric power and other public services than it did under Saddam, and is experiencing greater economic activity. The Sunni triangle, geographically defined by Baghdad to the east, Tikrit to the north and Ramadi to the west, is where most of the terrorist enemy attacks occur. And yet here, too, there is progress.
There are many more cars on the streets, satellite television dishes on the roofs, and literally millions more cell phones in Iraqi hands than before. All of that says the Iraqi economy is growing. And Sunni candidates are actively campaigning for seats in the National Assembly. People are working their way toward a functioning society and economy in the midst of a very brutal, inhumane, sustained terrorist war against the civilian population and the Iraqi and American military there to protect it.
It is a war between 27 million and 10,000; 27 million Iraqis who want to live lives of freedom, opportunity and prosperity and roughly 10,000 terrorists who are either Saddam revanchists, Iraqi Islamic extremists or al Qaeda foreign fighters who know their wretched causes will be set back if Iraq becomes free and modern. The terrorists are intent on stopping this by instigating a civil war to produce the chaos that will allow Iraq to replace Afghanistan as the base for their fanatical war-making. We are fighting on the side of the 27 million because the outcome of this war is critically important to the security and freedom of America. If the terrorists win, they will be emboldened to strike us directly again and to further undermine the growing stability and progress in the Middle East, which has long been a major American national and economic security priority.
Before going to Iraq last week, I visited Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Israel has been the only genuine democracy in the region, but it is now getting some welcome company from the Iraqis and Palestinians who are in the midst of robust national legislative election campaigns, the Lebanese who have risen up in proud self-determination after the Hariri assassination to eject their Syrian occupiers (the Syrian- and Iranian-backed Hezbollah militias should be next), and the Kuwaitis, Egyptians and Saudis who have taken steps to open up their governments more broadly to their people. In my meeting with the thoughtful prime minister of Iraq, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, he declared with justifiable pride that his country now has the most open, democratic political system in the Arab world. He is right.
In the face of terrorist threats and escalating violence, eight million Iraqis voted for their interim national government in January, almost 10 million participated in the referendum on their new constitution in October, and even more than that are expected to vote in the elections for a full-term government on Dec. 15. Every time the 27 million Iraqis have been given the chance since Saddam was overthrown, they have voted for self-government and hope over the violence and hatred the 10,000 terrorists offer them. Most encouraging has been the behavior of the Sunni community, which, when disappointed by the proposed constitution, registered to vote and went to the polls instead of taking up arms and going to the streets. Last week, I was thrilled to see a vigorous political campaign, and a large number of independent television stations and newspapers covering it.
None of these remarkable changes would have happened without the coalition forces led by the U.S. And, I am convinced, almost all of the progress in Iraq and throughout the Middle East will be lost if those forces are withdrawn faster than the Iraqi military is capable of securing the country.
The leaders of Iraq's duly elected government understand this, and they asked me for reassurance about America's commitment. The question is whether the American people and enough of their representatives in Congress from both parties understand this. I am disappointed by Democrats who are more focused on how President Bush took America into the war in Iraq almost three years ago, and by Republicans who are more worried about whether the war will bring them down in next November's elections, than they are concerned about how we continue the progress in Iraq in the months and years ahead.
Here is an ironic finding I brought back from Iraq. While U.S. public opinion polls show serious declines in support for the war and increasing pessimism about how it will end, polls conducted by Iraqis for Iraqi universities show increasing optimism. Two-thirds say they are better off than they were under Saddam, and a resounding 82% are confident their lives in Iraq will be better a year from now than they are today. What a colossal mistake it would be for America's bipartisan political leadership to choose this moment in history to lose its will and, in the famous phrase, to seize defeat from the jaws of the coming victory.
The leaders of America's military and diplomatic forces in Iraq, Gen. George Casey and Ambassador Zal Khalilzad, have a clear and compelling vision of our mission there. It is to create the environment in which Iraqi democracy, security and prosperity can take hold and the Iraqis themselves can defend their political progress against those 10,000 terrorists who would take it from them.
Does America have a good plan for doing this, a strategy for victory in Iraq? Yes we do. And it is important to make it clear to the American people that the plan has not remained stubbornly still but has changed over the years. Mistakes, some of them big, were made after Saddam was removed, and no one who supports the war should hesitate to admit that; but we have learned from those mistakes and, in characteristic American fashion, from what has worked and not worked on the ground. The administration's recent use of the banner "clear, hold and build" accurately describes the strategy as I saw it being implemented last week.
We are now embedding a core of coalition forces in every Iraqi fighting unit, which makes each unit more effective and acts as a multiplier of our forces. Progress in "clearing" and "holding" is being made. The Sixth Infantry Division of the Iraqi Security Forces now controls and polices more than one-third of Baghdad on its own. Coalition and Iraqi forces have together cleared the previously terrorist-controlled cities of Fallujah, Mosul and Tal Afar, and most of the border with Syria. Those areas are now being "held" secure by the Iraqi military themselves. Iraqi and coalition forces are jointly carrying out a mission to clear Ramadi, now the most dangerous city in Al-Anbar province at the west end of the Sunni Triangle.
Nationwide, American military leaders estimate that about one-third of the approximately 100,000 members of the Iraqi military are able to "lead the fight" themselves with logistical support from the U.S., and that that number should double by next year. If that happens, American military forces could begin a drawdown in numbers proportional to the increasing self-sufficiency of the Iraqi forces in 2006. If all goes well, I believe we can have a much smaller American military presence there by the end of 2006 or in 2007, but it is also likely that our presence will need to be significant in Iraq or nearby for years to come.
The economic reconstruction of Iraq has gone slower than it should have, and too much money has been wasted or stolen. Ambassador Khalilzad is now implementing reform that has worked in Afghanistan--Provincial Reconstruction Teams, composed of American economic and political experts, working in partnership in each of Iraq's 18 provinces with its elected leadership, civil service and the private sector. That is the "build" part of the "clear, hold and build" strategy, and so is the work American and international teams are doing to professionalize national and provincial governmental agencies in Iraq.
These are new ideas that are working and changing the reality on the ground, which is undoubtedly why the Iraqi people are optimistic about their future--and why the American people should be, too.
I cannot say enough about the U.S. Army and Marines who are carrying most of the fight for us in Iraq. They are courageous, smart, effective, innovative, very honorable and very proud. After a Thanksgiving meal with a great group of Marines at Camp Fallujah in western Iraq, I asked their commander whether the morale of his troops had been hurt by the growing public dissent in America over the war in Iraq. His answer was insightful, instructive and inspirational: "I would guess that if the opposition and division at home go on a lot longer and get a lot deeper it might have some effect, but, Senator, my Marines are motivated by their devotion to each other and the cause, not by political debates."
Thank you, General. That is a powerful, needed message for the rest of America and its political leadership at this critical moment in our nation's history. Semper Fi.
Mr. Lieberman is a Democratic senator from Connecticut. |
What's not amazing to me but just proves the disgusting liberal, anti-Iraq bias in the media is how it was almost NOT covered AT ALL by the media. Only talk radio covered this, but who got major coverage by the left-wing media? Congressman Murtha, who hasn't even BEEN to Iraq. And yet Lieberman does, and knowing that it could crucify him and his position in the party, and it gets NO COVERAGE? What is this?
Lieberman knows what he's talking about. He's been there, and went with an open mind. He came out with this piece, and yet go no coverage in the mainstream media. It's disgusting how anti-war people like Murtha get this coverage and yet somebody like Lieberman, who's actually been consistent, who was a former Presidential and VP candidate and VC of the Democratic Party gets squat.
It's good to hear Lieberman standing out and coming out like that.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
borgslayer
Rear Admiral
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Posts: 2646
Location: Las Vegas
|
| Wed Nov 30, 2005 7:33 pm |
|
He certainly does make a good point. You can't leave the Iraqis alone until the U.S. Military beats the insurgency.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Wed Nov 30, 2005 8:07 pm |
|
Exactly. And keep in mind that when we pulled out prematurely from Vietnam, the South Vietnamese military just completely fell apart and N. Vietnam came in. We can't have that happen for us now.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
LightningBoy
Commodore
Joined: 09 Mar 2003
Posts: 1446
Location: Minnesota, U.S.A.
|
| Thu Dec 01, 2005 12:35 am |
|
Interesting Fact;
CBS and ABC haven't given these comments any attention or air-time on either of their nightly news programs. Just, simply, ignored them. NBC gave these comments a short sound-byte.
The New York Times has also neglected to publish anything as of yet, regarding these comments.
Liberalism in media? Simply ignoring a prominant Democrat's controversial comments supporting the War... hmm...
|
|
|
oberon
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
Joined: 26 Sep 2005
Posts: 106
|
| Thu Dec 01, 2005 1:14 pm |
|
Oh be quiet about the media. That's not what this thread is about. 
Anyway, not many people want to pull the troops out immediately. What people are saying is that they need a plan over the next year to leave. The troops in Iraq are what's causing the heightened terrorist activity. Any coherant person can devise that much. Unfortunately, the US is being run by a chimp and his puppeteers.
"America can't abandon 27 million Iraqis to 10,000 terrorists."
And I suppose they've done a terrorist concensus. And the last time I checked, 27,000,000 was a little bit more than 10,000. They won't have a civil war once the US has left. The Iraqis have never and never will probably. And I doubt the terrorists will be active in Iraq once we leave. I mean, the US is an easy target when they're right around the corner. I wish John Kerry had won the election. 
|
|
|
LightningBoy
Commodore
Joined: 09 Mar 2003
Posts: 1446
Location: Minnesota, U.S.A.
|
| Thu Dec 01, 2005 4:41 pm |
|
| oberon wrote: | | Oh be quiet about the media. That's not what this thread is about. |
No, but it is about what Lieberman said, and my comments were clearly about Lieberman.
|
|
|
Leo Wyatt
Sweetest Angel
Joined: 25 Feb 2004
Posts: 19045
Location: Investigating A Crime Scene. What did Quark do this time?
|
| Thu Dec 01, 2005 5:32 pm |
|
No we are not the cause of terrorist attacking the soldiers. Even if we was not over there, they would find some way to come attack America or keep terrorizing their own people.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Dec 01, 2005 6:01 pm |
|
^Exactly. Anyone with coherence can know that if our troops were gone attacks would go UP, but I think that you're rather blinded, Oberon, by your instense dislike of the war that you don't give a damn about what happens to these poor 25 million Iraqis. But that's just my interpretation.
The attacks are NOT happening BECAUSE our troops are there, but cities aren't being held and Iraqis are more protected BECAUSE our troops were there [than if they weren't]. Anyone with a brain can see that we're there HELPING the Iraqis to succeed.
No offense, but I think you're crazy when it comes to Iraq. You REALLY believe that the terrorists won't up their attacks in Iraq if we left? If they had control of a state like Iraq, then the terrorists would make for an even GRAVER threat. Just because there's 10,000 insurgents and 27 million Iraqis doesn't mean that they can handle it themselves. We need to stay there until they are ready to take over. Which IS Bush's plan.
We can't leave the Iraqis at the mercey of the terrorists. Lieberman even says this. And he's right. We need to stay the course. McCain agrees with Lieberman and myself as well. Do we need the president to lay out goals and expectations for how to achieve those goals? Yes, I would like that. But he's getting better and better. The strategy is to SUCCEED and for Iraq to have a stable government and become a safe place. That's our strategy for when we can leave. That's what Bush has said. And he's laying it out more and more and defending himself. You don't want him to defend himself, or to give the plan that he's saying, because you either want him to say "We'll have our troops out in one year" or now or to just not defend himself against the Democrats at all. I'm VERY impressed with what Bush is doing now. No doubt about it.
And by the way. Give me ONE war (other than Vietnam) in which we've had an exit strategy. ONE. Oh, wait, you can't, because there ISN'T one. We still have troops in Japan and Germany after over 50 years, South Korea, Bosnia and Kosovo, and ALL the other wars we've fought. Vietnam was a different situation. So don't you go telling me that we need to have a timetable and full-fledged exit strategy because we've never had one. And we shouldn't have one now. Otherwise, we'd be giving in to the terrorists and emboldening them.
What you want is for us to embolden the terrorists and help them. That's disgusting.
And what's also disgusting is how you would rather fight them HERE, on our own soil, than elsewhere.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Leo Wyatt
Sweetest Angel
Joined: 25 Feb 2004
Posts: 19045
Location: Investigating A Crime Scene. What did Quark do this time?
|
| Thu Dec 01, 2005 6:03 pm |
|
My point exactly, if we was not there, then who would help the Iraqis? Noone.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Dec 01, 2005 6:07 pm |
|
They would be at the mercy of the terrorists. I dare you to read all of Lieberman's piece. It's fantastic and right-on the ball.
He's a man I would love to have replace Salazar as my Democratic Senator. He's a man that I would vote for if I didn't like the Republican and he got the nomination. He's just a good, steadfast, strong-willed Senator. I like him very much. It's a pity he was shunned by the Democrats, and they and the media are still shunning him.
Oh, and btw, my apologies. The piece was in the Wall Street Journal, not the Washington Post.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
