Roman Around

combating liberalism and other childish notions

Posts Tagged ‘War in Iraq’

OH YEAH … AND THERE WERE NO TERRORISTS IN IRAQ BEFORE WE GOT THERE

Posted by Andrew Roman on December 29, 2009

CNN's Rick Sanchez

From the “If I Say It Enough, It Will Magically Become True” file …

Perhaps more germane than the age-old question, “How many licks does it take to get to the tootsie-roll center of a tootsie pop?” is the ever-perplexing, “How many times does one have to say something before it becomes true?”

Admittedly, it isn’t easy adding ingredients to the stew of conventional wisdom, but once they hit the pot, it is nearly impossible to flush them out.

These days, a compliant media complex is essential in giving credence to falsehoods, frauds and other fairy tales. (See “Global Warming.”)

Mike Bates at NewsBusters reports on a delicious quote from CNN’s Rick Sanchez illustrating this point. Sanchez was speaking with Octavia Nasr, CNN senior editor for Arab Affairs, about terrorism.

Nasr was commenting on how much of a “hot zone” the border between Yemen and Saudi Arabia is. She talked about how the attempted Christmas Day terrorist attack on Northwest Flight 253 was a response to what terrorists believe is ongoing United States assistance to the Yemeni government in fighting Al Qaeda and the Houthis.

Rich Sanchez, in his most matter-of-fact demeanor, seized the opportunity to reinforce his “article of faith”:

SANCHEZ: And good, good, good, good, good, good. You see, this is a point that I’m trying to make, Octavia.

The terrorists weren’t in Iraq. We know that now. There was really a small band of them along with the mujahedeen which became al Qaeda in Afghanistan, as we know. But we have known for 10 years now that these really bad terrorists, the guys we really should have been going after a long time ago, are in Yemen. We knew that a long time ago.

So, the fact that we are now seemingly or the U.S. government seemingly now is putting an emphasis on there and that some of these folks are mad at us for putting an emphasis there, I can’t help but see that finally as the United States maybe going militarily in the right direction in this war on terror.

NASR: You’re right about al Qaeda being everywhere, Rick. It’s very true.

Let’s think about what Sanchez is saying here. (It is the default position of the vast majority of the mainstream media).

His claim is the nation of Iraq, headed by the murderous dictator, Saddam Hussein, was essentially a terrorist-free zone until the United States came along. Terrorism existed in every corner of the world except Iraq. Hussein was minding his own business, bothering no one, until the war mongers from the West swooped in to turn that nation into a terrorist breeding ground. Iraq was a wonderland of fuzzy bunnies, swaying daisies and frolicking kittens until Uncle Sam’s baby-killing machine came a-callin’. If not for the United States, the nation of Iraq would have been free to pursue a life of peace and religious fulfillment.

The problem with the Sanchez argument is … there is not a stitch of evidence anywhere to suggest that Iraq was not a terrorist state. The evidence is overwhelming that Iraq was a steadfast supporter of terrorist activity and a protector of terrorist groups.

Bates quotes from the Clinton State Department’s Patterns of Global Terrorism 1999 report:

Iraq continued to plan and sponsor international terrorism in 1999. Although Baghdad focused primarily on the anti-regime opposition both at home and abroad, it continued to provide safehaven and support to various terrorist groups. . .

Iraq continued to provide safehaven to a variety of Palestinian rejectionist groups, including the Abu Nidal organization, the Arab Liberation Front(ALF), and the former head of the now defunct 15 May Organization, Abu Ibrahim, who masterminded several bombings of US aircraft. Iraq provided bases, weapons, and protection to the MEK, an Iranian terrorist group that opposes the current Iranian regime. In 1999, MEK cadre based in Iraq assassinated or attempted to assassinate several high-ranking Iranian Government officials, including Brigadier General Ali Sayyad Shirazi, Deputy Chief of Iran’s Joint Staff, who was killed in Tehran on 10 April.

Let’s not forget every Democrat who went on record declaring Hussein’s Iraq as a genuine threat:

“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.” -President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.” – Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.” – Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998.

“There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.” – Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction.” – Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” – Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do.” – Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.” – Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

The invasion happened because following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Iraq was considered, at the time, by almost everyone on both sides of the political aisle, to be the greatest threat to national security as well as to peace in the Middle East and around the world. There is simply no doubt that Saddam Hussein was linked to a host of terrorist organizations. His nation was an undeniable sponsor of terrorism. How could any of that be ignored?

This is not to say that he or Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. No one has ever made such a claim. It was never the position of the Bush administration. But this was a country that violated seventeen UN resolutions. It was a country that had used weapons of mass destruction before. It was a country that repeatedly fired upon American military aircraft. It was a country that had already harbored known terrorists. On those grounds alone, an attack was completely justified.

Think of all things that didn’t work up to that point (the crown jewels of the liberal foreign policy playbook): negotiations, no-fly zones, UN sanctions, pat-a-cake, etc.

The United States no longer had the luxury of simply reacting to Saddam Hussein. Iraq was a nation deemed by both Republicans and Democrats to be a genuine threat – and rightly so. President Bush could not just sit idly by and wait. He warned Hussein. He gave Hussein opportunity after opportunity to comply with the UN resolutions. Hussein scoffed. America took action.

No Commander-In-Chief worth his weight in gold, with his nation at war, presented with the very same intelligence and evidence President Bush was, could do nothing.

President Bush was smart enough to realize that “safe haven” was not just an Afghani phenomenon.

Six years later, our success in Iraq has, indeed, made America safer.

(H/T to Weasel Zippers)

wordpress statistics

Advertisements

Posted in 9/11, Iraq, Media Bias, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

BLAME BUSH, TAKE ONE-MILLION

Posted by Andrew Roman on December 28, 2009

It’s always an adventure of sorts to try and make some semblance of sense out of liberal thinking. Whether one finds himself (or herself) genuinely fascinated at the childlike cognitions that underlie liberal idealism, or aggravated at the disgustingly simplistic – and often destructive – “stage-one” notions that define modern liberal thought, it is often too tedious and far too bumper-stickery to be considered seriously substantive.

Unfortunately for this country and lovers of liberty, Democrats are in power.

Therefore, modern liberal thought must be taken seriously … for now.

Liberals, for instance, were dead wrong about the War in Iraq – on every level. From the moment they decided it was politically expedient for them to be opposed to it, the wrong side of history was theirs for the keeping – a trend for libs. Despite the overwhelming majority of Democrats voting in favor of military action against Iraq, opposition to the war became their “default” position once the invasion began. (Remember, Dems weren’t opposed to Bush because of the war. They were against the war because of Bush).

Indeed, libs still nosh on the dusty nuggets that fill up their ever-stale snack platters, blaming “Bush’s War” on everything from starving children in America’s inner cities to post nasal drip.

The fact is, Democrats don’t want to remember how the post-9/11 climate in America demanded a nation as terrorist-friendly as Iraq – with a ruthless dictator constantly violating Gulf War resolutions and firing on American war planes – be taken down for repeated failures to comply to the terms of those resolutions. To this day, Dems call the Iraqi War pointless, saying Bush should never have gone in. But had a terrorist attack on America been planned from the ever-accomodating confines of Hussein’s Iraq – or if training camps for terrorists had been allowed to thrive there (like under the Taliban in Afghanistan) – given the intelligence at the time, President Bush would have been hung from the village square for doing nothing – and rightfully so.

It’s likely “Bush’s War” will continue to be the beacon of blame for every malady that will befall America in the foreseeable future. One won’t be able to swing a dead mongoose without hitting an Obamacrat finding some way to blame the current state of affairs on “Bush’s War.” From unemployment to terrorist threats, from migraine headaches to anal fissures, it will all be Bush’s fault.

It’s how they think.

It’s their “default” position.

Take, for example, this commentary from Deputy White House Press Secretary, Bill Burton, traveling with the President in Hawaii, as he “recapped” the Sunday talk shows:

Robert Gibbs and Secretary Napolitano made clear that we are pressing ahead with securing our nation against threats and our aggressive posture in the war with al Qaeda. We are winding down a war in Iraq that took our eye off of the terrorists that attacked us, and have dramatically increased our resources in Afghanistan and Pakistan where those terrorists are.

Right on cue – the obligatory Iraq refrence.

So, if I am to understand … it was the Iraq War that led to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s attempted terrorist attack on Christmas Day? America’s eye was “off the ball” because of George W. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq? Conditions were such that if there was no invasion of Iraq, Abdulmutallab would never have been able to board that plane with explosive materials?

Yeah, okay.

But it gets better.

On Sunday morning, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said, “One thing I’d like to point out is that the system worked.” And yet, both she and Gibbs announced that the President has asked for all procedures and policies at the Transportation Security Administration and the Department of Homeland Security be reviewed. Bush-era policies will, in effect, need to be dissected with a fine-tooth comb … but somehow, the system worked?

How could it have worked when it took passengers and members of the flight crew to thwart the attempted attack? And if it really did work, why the need to suddenly “review” everything?

The terrorist Abdulmutallab got on the plane, didn’t he? What worked exactly?

What are these people talking about?

Do they ever pull their heads out long enough to observe the happenings of the real world?

Again, note the instinct to laud themselves and blame everyone else. “It worked” because we are living in the Messianic Age. Whatever went wrong must be the fault of the other guy – the previous guy. Otherwise, all went quite well … even though a review of Bush-era implementations will be necessary … even though it worked … even though it will have to be looked at … even though it went like clockwork … blah, blah, blah..

Napolitano was forced to do an about-face this morning, admitting that after further review of the painfully obvious, the system actually did not work, saying, “”Here, clearly, something went awry. We want to fix that problem.”

Nothing escapes her.

Meanwhile, expect the “Blame Bush” brigades to keep it up. 

As [President Obama] said in West Point, we must put aside petty politics and recapture the unity that we had after 9/11.

Enough with the “unity” blather, okay? It is this administration that, at every turn, finds some way to place the blame for every blight and blemish on George W. Bush. No matter what the issue is, poor poor Obama constantly reminds the American people that he has been saddled with a host of inherited complications, so extensive and so problematic, that he may or may not be able to rectify them.

Convenient.

That’s how you get a B+. (Or an “A,” if you’re Arnold Schwarzenegger looking in).

wordpress statistics

 

Posted in terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

FOLLOW UP – BAM’S PLAN FOR IRAQ

Posted by Andrew Roman on February 27, 2009

obama-speaks

Fielding e-mails about the Obama plan to reduce troop levels in Iraq by the end of August, 2010 to anywhere from 35,000 to 50,000 troops, I am getting roundly attacked on the supposed naivety – or knee-jerk reaction – of my position in the piece I posted earlier today called “QUICK THOUGHTS ON THE BAM PLAN TO SCRAM.”

One close friend wrote: “What do you mean this one is ‘hard to take’? Are you aware that Obama is actually following the Bush plan here?”

I’m missing some of the finer nuances, I’m being told. This really isn’t a withdrawal, I’m being reminded. This is only a political move to make nice with the radical lefties who are starting to gripe a bit about Messianic campaign promises. Obama can’t really get out of Iraq completely, they’re saying to me, because he can’t let that country descend into chaos. If I’d just stop reacting from my ideological perch here on the right, and actually put some thought into these things, I’d be able to understand that.

Fox News even has a story about how some libs are feeling “Left Out” because of Bam’s war strategy.

(Left out? Have they paid any attention to anything Obama has done since taking office? Guanatnamo Bay? $787 billion in Pork? Funding overseas abortions? Trillions in spending?)

First off, the fact that people on the far left are probably going to be upset by The One consenting to leave troops in Iraq after combat operations have been declared over means what? That Obama is now suddenly doing the right thing? That people like me are overreacting and missing the bigger picture? That I should reconsider my contempt for the President’s decision to announce to the entire world the date the United States will stop fighting in a place that terrorist thugs are just chomping at the bit to infiltrate? The idea that wacky Leftocrats are going to be annoyed doesn’t make the President any less liberal or any less wrong for announcing his exit strategy to the world as he did.

Never in the history of this country has the date for the cessation of hostilities been announced by the President while combat with the enemy was ongoing and without unconditional surrender.

Second, if it had been left to Obama in the first place, who adamantly said “The Surge” would never work, Iraq would be a terrorist’s nirvana right about now. Frankly, Obama’s judgment leaves a lot to be desired (from his choice of pastor and associates to his concept of a “spread-the-wealth” society). Forgive me for not jumping up and down with glee at anything he may say regarding national security. Seeing as the man has already turned this nation decidedly toward Marxism, is spending astronomical amounts of money that doesn’t even exist, and has promised the closing of Guantanamo Bay, thus affording incarcerated terrorists the opportunity to go elsewhere – including back to being terrorists – it is not entirely unreasonable to be “down” on Obama after this announcement.

I ask the question again, as I did in my original article, how is America any safer for this?

Whether or not the right thing to do strategically is draw down American troop levels by August of 2010 isn’t the issue. If the “withdrawal” date for the majority of American troops in Iraq were set for next Tuesday, so be it. The decision to publicize it is where the President has shown radically poor judgment – again.

And note the President’s inability (or hard-wired unwillingness) to use the word “victory” today when addressing the U.S. Marines at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina in describing what the men and women of the United States armed forces have accomplished in Iraq. Quite telling. Democrats and “victories” only apply, I suppose, to pushing spending bills through Congress and paving the way for as many abortions as possible. “Getting the job done” certainly sounds nice, but “victory” is what the American military is really all about.

Remember, the only reason to send American troops into harm’s way is to make the United States safer. Period. I am, admittedly, one of those who believed that removing Saddam Hussein from the helm of a nation that openly supported terrorism – one that violated numerous UN resolutions while firing upon our military aircraft – and helping to secure an America-friendly country in the heart of a despotic region of the world would do just that. The war in Iraq – and our impending victory there – has made the United States safer.

Indeed, I supported the measure from jump street.

The majority of those on Capitol Hill did as well. Barack Obama did not.

And while that is no criterion in and of itself as to whether or not one can support victory once troops are deployed, recall Obama’s words on Inauguration Day: “Our security emanates from the justness of our cause.”

This is what the Commander-In-Chief of America’s fighting forces believes.

What do you think would have happened had he made that statement today in front of a gathering of United States Marines?

Mr. President, the security of the United States emanates from a strong military.

It is a shame you don’t believe that, nor understand that.

I wonder if Al Qaeda (and assorted vermin) will believe that Iraq’s security emanates from the justness of their cause beginning September 1, 2010.

Posted in Obama's first 100 days, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »