"Bravado Is Not A Defense Against Terrorism"

Hey folks,

Betty sent me this article from The Huffington Post for me to ponder. OK I pondered.
The basic concept of the article is "bravado is not a defense against terrorism". Also it seems that they took offense to the Vice President, and Defense Secretary’s comments as of late, that there ARE appeasers and apologists for the enemy. As I said, truth hurts. There are. But according to the article,

"Bush suggested last week that Democrats are promising voters to block additional money for continuing the war. Vice President Cheney this week said critics "claim retreat from Iraq would satisfy the appetite of the terrorists and get them to leave us alone." And Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, citing passivity toward Nazi Germany before World War II, said that "many have still not learned history's lessons" and "believe that somehow vicious extremists can be appeased."

Pressed to support these allegations, the White House yesterday could cite no major Democrat who has proposed cutting off funds or suggested that withdrawing from Iraq would persuade terrorists to leave Americans alone."

This is the absolute truth. I do not understand what the problem is. U.S. Rep. Jim MCGovern introduced a bill ending funding for Iraq, Harry Reid is saying we are spending to much. Pelosi is saying we need to get out. Kerry voted for, before he voted against it, or vise versa. Are you kidding me? The LWL and those anti-war folks, have been fighting for us to get out, and to cut spending, {Which would mean we need to leave} for years. Noone, including Tim Russert apparently, can find any of these people. Did they all take a trip out of the country, not that this would be bad thing. {Smile}

(AP) Key Democratic leaders in the House and Senate have united to call on President Bush to begin pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq by the end of the year, citing an overtaxed military, billions of dollars spent and ongoing sectarian violence.

In a letter to Bush released Monday, the Democrats backed a plan for the "phased redeployment" of troops.

"U.S. forces in Iraq should transition to a more limited mission focused on counter terrorism, training and logistical support of Iraqi security forces and force protection of U.S. personnel," the Democrats wrote." Whole story here

Back to the Huffy Post,

"Military force is ineffective against insurgencies. The U.S., U.S.S.R. and Great Britain were able to defeat the Nazis on the battlefield because the Nazis were on the battlefield. Yet despite the administration's acknowledgement that the terrorist threat is "a different kind of enemy," they still believe terrorism can be defeated militarily."

So their answer to this is?? The do not give one. They say the cold war was won "as the result of armed conflict or 'appeasement', but by tough-minded negotiation based on rock-solid intelligence, all backed by a credible threat of force."

Thanks to President Reagan. But we are not, nor can we, compare this to the Cold War. This is what they keep talking about. What I keep saying. Those who seem to be the loudest in this whole "get Bush" at any cost, has NO idea of history. This "Little Hitler" cannot be negotiated with. It is not possible. All he understands is force. He is afraid of Bush, because he knows that Bush could at anytime wipe him out. Those that attempt to cut funding, and appease this guy, are HELPING him. He has attacked Israel, said he would give up half his country to wipe them off the face of the map. Said he will have nuclear power. Thumbs his nose at the UN, who backs off immediately, who wants us dead.

What do you offer someone who simply wants you dead? There is nothing you can offer them. They want you dead.

This writer Coleen Rowely, {No relation that I’m aware of to Chief Rowley} is clearly a card carrying member of the Bushwhackers club. Seemingly has no concept of actually history. All this article seems to be is LWL talking points. Strictly an attempt to convince the LWL followers that they need another leader in this war. OK, what is THEIR plan? It doesn’t say. Bush is so bad, how would they do things differently? They don’t say. "Tough negotiations"? OK, what would they say, offer, compromise? What is it they feel will lessen the threat against us? They don’t say.

She also, I love this, blames Ronald Reagan and Bush Sr. {But of course NOT Clinton, who helped Hussein, could have had Osama bin Laden handed to him, which would have prevented all of this, and gave North Korea Nuclear capabilities, complete with fuel} for Iraq. LOL. Like I said, I got it, I pondered it, and find this article nothing more than more Hate Bush rhetoric not based in any kind of actual facts.
Peter