Hey senator! WE'RE AT WAR! GET A CLUE!
Senator Obama, while respecting the General and Ambassador's efforts, he insists that the surge and continuing ops in Iraq are not worth the cost. By cherry picking the idea the improvement in Anbar and the standdown by the Sadr militia happened prior to the surge and therefore was not related to a military effort but to political efforts, he states that the surge is not worth the cost and has had only a moderate effect.
Why do the Democrats refuse to see that the military effort and the political effort are inextricably intertwined? And just as important, if not more so, is a COMMITMENT to see a conflict through to the end, WITH OUR ALLIES. If the enemy and allies do not see that we are steadfast in the military effort, then they will not respond to any political efforts. If the senate is confused as to why the Iraqi gov't does not immediately make the "hard" decisions that "benefit" us, they have to remember that THEY have to stay there! If we are not going to stay there, then why SHOULDN'T they make accommodations with the terrorists, including Iran and Syria.
Why does victory have to be "cost effective" but domestic spending does not? When was the last time you saw a liberal figure the cost effectiveness of medicare, social security, welfare, etc?
In fact, every freaking democrat senator (small case on purpose, I have no more respect for these asses) insists on asking, in one form or another, "What's the time line to leave?" When can we arbitrarily leave? If the democrats are going to continue to criticise the time it takes to train the Iraqi army, they must educate themselves on what that entails. What does it take to create a modern army from scratch? What does it take to create an NCO corps?
One idiot senator could not understand why the "statistics" of the Iraqi force improvements had not shown "improvement." He had to be REMINDED THAT THOSE FORCES WERE BEING KILLED AND NEW REPLACEMENTS WERE BEING PUT INTO THE UNIT!
Senator Webb, harped on his idea of changing the rotation of the troops, to provide them with more time home, continuously asking Gen'l Patraeus if he agrees with the present troop rotation, trying to get him to commit himself, inappropriately, to actual numbers. The general repeated that he did ask for raised troop levels. That is the responsibility of the Congress. Long rotations are troublesome, but its been proven that, if you use many short rotations, MORE troops die! Because there are more green troops in country. It takes time to get familiar with the combat theater.
Senator Joe Biden, just stated that if we level with the American people, he sees, according to the evidence presented, that we will have troops in country at least for a few more years. Pre- surge levels next summer and then "about two more years after that." He "just doesn't see how we can bring this to an early and honorable end." In other words, he got his freaking timeline and disagrees with it. Reality is hitting the appeasers right in the face.
The democrat senators continue to wonder why its been so hard to accomplish things politically in Iraq. I can't figure that one out. Maybe its because every other word out of the senate collective mouth is " When to we leave? Its not worth it." Why don't the Iraqis do such and such? Well, hell, why doesn't the CONGRESS cooperate with each other in all things? Nobody is KILLING THEM over "POLICY DIFFERENCES!"
Senator Cardin of Maryland thinks that we need more "diplomatic" strength; that the "international community" is refusing to help in Iraq because they don't like our military policy. Who the hell are we supposed to talk to that we're not talking to now? We're not stopping any "international" groups from helping? Why don't the senators listen to the UN when they said they were leaving because they found out that AQI will KILL THEM TOO. They WANT our forces to provide security. While badmouthing our policies. Oh and senator? Its the MULTINATIONAL FORCE! STOP LYING TO THE CAMERAS AND IMPLYING THAT WE HAVE NO OTHER COUNTRIES ASSISTING US!
Oh, and last time I looked, the military is having to do most of the diplomatic work, too, because the State department has not stepped up. Where are they? Where's all of those kind people that wanted to protect Saddam from the US? Why don't they come and help the Iraqis now?
Lets get this clear. Yet again.
THERE IS A FREAKING WAR ON!
GET WITH IT! SUPPORT THE MISSION AND THE TROOPS 100% AND WE LEAVE EARLIER!
There is no leaving without victory. We do not leave without Iraq being able to stand up for itself and not be a haven for terrorists. Leaving Iraq prior to victory is called surrender.
Why do the Democrats refuse to see that the military effort and the political effort are inextricably intertwined? And just as important, if not more so, is a COMMITMENT to see a conflict through to the end, WITH OUR ALLIES. If the enemy and allies do not see that we are steadfast in the military effort, then they will not respond to any political efforts. If the senate is confused as to why the Iraqi gov't does not immediately make the "hard" decisions that "benefit" us, they have to remember that THEY have to stay there! If we are not going to stay there, then why SHOULDN'T they make accommodations with the terrorists, including Iran and Syria.
Why does victory have to be "cost effective" but domestic spending does not? When was the last time you saw a liberal figure the cost effectiveness of medicare, social security, welfare, etc?
In fact, every freaking democrat senator (small case on purpose, I have no more respect for these asses) insists on asking, in one form or another, "What's the time line to leave?" When can we arbitrarily leave? If the democrats are going to continue to criticise the time it takes to train the Iraqi army, they must educate themselves on what that entails. What does it take to create a modern army from scratch? What does it take to create an NCO corps?
One idiot senator could not understand why the "statistics" of the Iraqi force improvements had not shown "improvement." He had to be REMINDED THAT THOSE FORCES WERE BEING KILLED AND NEW REPLACEMENTS WERE BEING PUT INTO THE UNIT!
Senator Webb, harped on his idea of changing the rotation of the troops, to provide them with more time home, continuously asking Gen'l Patraeus if he agrees with the present troop rotation, trying to get him to commit himself, inappropriately, to actual numbers. The general repeated that he did ask for raised troop levels. That is the responsibility of the Congress. Long rotations are troublesome, but its been proven that, if you use many short rotations, MORE troops die! Because there are more green troops in country. It takes time to get familiar with the combat theater.
Senator Joe Biden, just stated that if we level with the American people, he sees, according to the evidence presented, that we will have troops in country at least for a few more years. Pre- surge levels next summer and then "about two more years after that." He "just doesn't see how we can bring this to an early and honorable end." In other words, he got his freaking timeline and disagrees with it. Reality is hitting the appeasers right in the face.
The democrat senators continue to wonder why its been so hard to accomplish things politically in Iraq. I can't figure that one out. Maybe its because every other word out of the senate collective mouth is " When to we leave? Its not worth it." Why don't the Iraqis do such and such? Well, hell, why doesn't the CONGRESS cooperate with each other in all things? Nobody is KILLING THEM over "POLICY DIFFERENCES!"
Senator Cardin of Maryland thinks that we need more "diplomatic" strength; that the "international community" is refusing to help in Iraq because they don't like our military policy. Who the hell are we supposed to talk to that we're not talking to now? We're not stopping any "international" groups from helping? Why don't the senators listen to the UN when they said they were leaving because they found out that AQI will KILL THEM TOO. They WANT our forces to provide security. While badmouthing our policies. Oh and senator? Its the MULTINATIONAL FORCE! STOP LYING TO THE CAMERAS AND IMPLYING THAT WE HAVE NO OTHER COUNTRIES ASSISTING US!
Oh, and last time I looked, the military is having to do most of the diplomatic work, too, because the State department has not stepped up. Where are they? Where's all of those kind people that wanted to protect Saddam from the US? Why don't they come and help the Iraqis now?
Lets get this clear. Yet again.
THERE IS A FREAKING WAR ON!
GET WITH IT! SUPPORT THE MISSION AND THE TROOPS 100% AND WE LEAVE EARLIER!
There is no leaving without victory. We do not leave without Iraq being able to stand up for itself and not be a haven for terrorists. Leaving Iraq prior to victory is called surrender.
Labels: clueless democrats, defeatist losers
posted by Cargosquid at 12:54 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home