« Is Bush a neo-liberal? | Home | Giuliani in the hood »
July 16, 2007
The Reid-Pelosi Massacres
Ralph Peters:
I hate the long-mismanaged mess in Iraq. I wish there were a sensible, decent way to get out that wouldn't undercut our security and produce massive innocent casualties. But there isn't. Not now. And, like it or not, we have a moral responsibility as well as practical interests in refusing to surrender to the butchers in Iraq.This has been the Bush-Cheney War. But it will only be fair to call the carnage after we run away the "Reid-Pelosi Massacres."
Senator John Cornyn (who was also clear about the Fairness Doctrine) wants to hold Senators accountable for their votes:
U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said today that in the midst of the current debate in the Senate on Iraq, the critical element missing is a serious review of the potential consequences resulting from a failed state in Iraq. . . .Sen. Cornyn announced that he has filed an amendment to the bill in the form of a Sense of the Senate resolution which would put every Senator on record in acknowledging the consequences of their vote for or against a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq. [emphasis mine - JSW]
Sen. Cornyn continued, “Those advocating retreat will not, or cannot, answer critical questions on the consequences of a precipitous withdrawal. For example, if we leave Iraq before the Iraqis can defend themselves, will this strengthen or weaken Al-Qaeda and other foreign jihadists in Iraq, and across the region? Will Al-Qaeda and other terrorists then follow us here to the United States? How will we address Iran’s continued support of Iraqi insurgents and terrorists now that we have definitive evidence of their involvement? Will Sunni majority nations outside of Iraq stand by and let Shiites massacre Sunnis in Iraq, or will this turn into a regional war? What is the scope of the humanitarian and refugee crisis that will ensue when the U.S. suddenly withdraws from Iraq? And perhaps the most important question that must be answered by those advocating withdrawal is — what is your plan for the ‘Way Ahead’ in Iraq and the Region? These are but a few of the many important questions that every Senator must ask of themselves during this important debate.”
Judith | 07/16/07 at 06:41 PM | Categories: - Iraq
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.keshertalk.com/cgi-bin/mtb.cgi/6543
Comments
I see Cornyn has adopted the "precipitous withdrawal" talking point, proving yet again that he has little to nothing to offer in regards to a substantive debate on Iraq. As always for Cornyn and like-minded Republicans, the war is merely an opportunity to score points against Democrats.
And to be blunt, Peters is an idiot. He wants us to "refuse to surrender", but what does that mean? The situation in Iraq degrades steadily despite the presence of our soldiers, despite the surge, and despite all our best intentions and wishful thinking. To Peters I would ask, what if we stay only to watch Iraqis die in greater numbers? What then is the justification for the continued death of our soldiers? But alas, I suppose consideration of that question puts one in line with the "pro-massacre" crowd.
Xanthippas ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.keshertalk.com/nav-commenters.gif)
| July 17, 2007 04:30 PM
"The situation in Iraq degrades steadily despite the presence of our soldiers, despite the surge..."
By what metric, Xanthippas? At best (worst?) one can claim "hasn't improved fast enough to justify the effort?, but "degrades steadily"? Quality of Life, per capita income, even passenger and parcel air transport are all up (DHL now has regular service to Bagdad and will deliver via their own trucks material up to 300kg, within Bagdad and suburbs- hardly a sign of a civil war) Anbar has turned the corner, despite the best efforts of the media to reassure Al Queda that victory will be theirs if they can only hang on long enough. Ramadi is taken, Baqubah as well- you never hear a word about Hit and Fallujah anymore, they were supposed to be unconquerable insurgent strongholds.
I would say you are quite correct, but from the enemy point of view. For Al Queda, the situation really is degrading. Winning for them is becoming more impossible by the day. They control no major cities, hardly any significant towns, have lost yet another key leader, and their abilities have collapsed to the point where the best they can manage is parading a handful of terrorists in front of a video camera, while committing random acts of murder against the civilian populace. And yet they still throw everything they've got into this fight, leaving just the left overs and amateur squads to fight in the West. They have one last hope: convince their allies in the US and UK to withdraw from Iraq.
I wonder, considering their cost in blood- many times ours- and their complete inability to achieve their stated objective of ejecting US and UK troops by force, why there are no voices urging Al Queda to withdraw from Iraq? Do they know something we don't?
Ben
Ben | July 18, 2007 05:23 PM
