Thursday, June 14, 2007

Give "Em Surrender Harry's War - On The Surge & General Petraeus

Could there be a more odious individual then Harry Reid, supreme Surrendocrat in the Senate. Reid and Pelosi both led their party's charge against the surge before it even began in February. On the two occaisions of notable terrorist acts since February, Harry Reid immediately tried to capitalize by declaring the surge a "failure." But Harry Reid does not end there in his effort to undermine the war. He and his fellow Surrendocrats have started a campaign to preempt anything General Petraeus might say about Iraq by claiming that General Petraeus cannot be trusted to tell the truth. And now, just as all troops are on the ground and the surge is beginning in earnest, Reid goes over the top yet again in his effort to undermine the war in Iraq by calling General Petraeus and General Pace "incompetent:"

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called Marine Gen. Peter Pace, the outgoing chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, "incompetent" during an interview Tuesday with a group of liberal bloggers, a comment that was never reported.

Reid made similar disparaging remarks about Army Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said several sources familiar with the interview.

This is but the latest example of how Reid, under pressure from liberal activists to do more to stop the war, is going on the attack against President Bush and his military leaders in anticipation of a September showdown to end U.S. involvement in Iraq, according to Democratic senators and aides.

Reid, who was bashed by Republicans for suggesting earlier this year that the Iraq war was "lost," is lashing out at top commanders while putting the finishing touches on a plan to force a series of votes on Iraq designed exclusively to make Republicans up for reelection in 2008 go on record in favor of continuing an unpopular war.

Reid, the senators and aides said, does not expect any of the Iraq measures to pass but hopes the effort will drive a deep enough wedge between wavering Republicans and Bush that, by September, Republican senators will break with the president and help end the war.
Read the entire story here. Make no mistake, our own far left led by Pelosi and Reid, al Qaeda and Iran, are all leading the war against the surge. Yet moderates and conservatives are all but silent. It is mindboggling in its insanity. Moderate and Conservative leaders, please find a broadcast microphone and repeat after me:

Its obvious at this point that the terrorists of al Qaeda, the terror supporting state of Iran and our own Democratic Congressional leaders Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi all share precisely the same motivation. They all want to portray the surge as a failure and have America surrender in Iraq. Al Qaeda in Iraq wants to destroy America. Iran wants America weakened and out of the Middle East so that they can exapand their theocracy. As to Hary Reid and Nancy Pelosi, they want the surge to fail so that they can get political power. Reid and Pelosi are quite willing to sacrifice our long term national interests for their own short term political gain.

Harry Reid has criticized President Bush, claiming that our President is asking America for a blank check to finish the war in Iraq and leave behind a stable democracy in the Middle East. But Harry Reid is also asking for a blank check - a much larger one, in fact. Harry Reid is asking America for a blank check to pay the costs that will ensue to our nation, our national security and our foreign policy if we surrender and retreat from Iraq in the face of attacks by al Qaeda and Iran. Every act has costs. But Harry Reid never addresses the costs of his surrender plan. He doesn't because the only upside is Harry Reid and the Democrats getting political power in 2008. As to the cost of the blank check for his surender plan, that cost will most assuredly make the cost of stabilizing Iraq look like chump change. Harry Reid is fine with that, just so long as no one realizes that truth until after the 2008 elections.


2 comments:

ChairmanMao said...

I had an interesting idea just now. If we withdraw from Iraq to let the Iranians and Al Qaeda take over we can strike Al Qaeda while they are out in the open and have the Iraq government ask for our assistance against the Iranians. That way we can take out Al Qaeda and we wont be the aggressors in a war against Iran. Plus not having to hold any territory and just striking target with a mobile force will limit US casualties

scott said...

If we pull out, for all intents and purposes, Iran will be the government of Iraq, at least but for the Kurd and Sunni areas. I cannot see Turkey - or Iran - allowing the Kurds the autonomy they have now. And as to the Sunni sectors, Iraqi Shias and Iran would both be on the attack there. But I agree with Bernard Lewsis, the simple act of pulling out of Iraq and allowing this to happen will work untold deep and lasting changes in the radical Islamic dynamic - none of which are in any sense positive for America.

Oh well, your thoughts are pleasent ones to contemplate, however.

 

View My Stats