« Where’s The Duke? | Home | Come Out, Come Out Wherever You Are »
The War on Terror is The Wrong War?
By Matt Margolis | September 8, 2004
Yesterday, John Kerry made a heartfelt statement in the wake of the news that more than 1,000 of our brave men and women have lost their lives serving in Iraq:
”Today marks a tragic milestone in the war in Iraq; more than 1,000 of America’s sons and daughters have now given their lives on behalf of their country, on behalf of freedom, the war on terror,” Kerry said as he arrived in Cincinnati on a campaign stop.
Here, we see John Kerry too can see that the war in Iraq is part of the war on terror.
But wait a minute, remember what he said the day before?
“It’s the wrong war, in the wrong place at the wrong time.”
So what is he saying? Is the war on terror the wrong war, in the wrong place at the wrong time? That appears to be the message he’s sending. One day Kerry is saying the war in Iraq is “the wrong war” and the next day is telling us that very same war is part of the war on terror.
While I’m glad John Kerry can see that the war in Iraq is part of the war on terror, I just can’t explain how he can simultaneously feel that it is the wrong war, in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Thank God we have a President who not only understands that the war in Iraq is part of the war on terror, but who also believes the war on terror is the right war to fight.
Topics: John Kerry Watch |
Related Posts:
September 8th, 2004 at 1:22 pm
We are losing that war if Iraq is part of the war on terror.
September 8th, 2004 at 5:05 pm
It’s easy if you’re Kerry. I mean, it’s not like the it’s first war he was for before he was against it …
September 8th, 2004 at 5:29 pm
do your research people! kerry was never for the war!
September 8th, 2004 at 7:20 pm
Marshal you ignorant slut (friendly old SNL reference). You can’t have it both ways, he voted to authorize force and he said one year ago that the only exit strategy was victory. Too bad he didn’t bother to read the intelligence reports before he cast his vote. I wonder what he was basing his vote on?
And, I see that despite both the president and the VP and nearly every major person in the party saying they applaude Kerry’s service and patriotism and ask him to join them in decrying ALL 527’s - instead we see blood cries from ALL the Dems and more viscous personal attacks. You are truely the party of hatred. And you do not deserve to be our representative government.
September 8th, 2004 at 7:21 pm
Matt,
NJo wonder the “world” wants Kerry as the US president. They see him as a pushover. I wonder how many Marines and soldiers will be willing to fight where HE says.
September 8th, 2004 at 8:48 pm
If the war continues the way it is we will lose. Afghanistan is pretty much gone, and Iraq is slipping away to.
September 8th, 2004 at 9:02 pm
Jay - What? What planet are you on? Afghanistan is moving towards elections in October. OCTOBER. Still rough in the wild northeastern mountains? You bet. No country controls its mountain region - Afghanistan, India, even China!
Is Iraq having trouble adjusting? Yes - definately. So much freed, plus the survivors who miss power, plus envious neighbors - yes its rough. But I think we will “win” there. We already won the war there. Now, its a matter of staying the fight long enough to ensure stable government. God - haven’t ANY of you Democrats ever done anything that took a long term commitment?
September 8th, 2004 at 9:04 pm
The fact that you can’t see that and neither can Kerry is why you can’t be allowed to govern. You are myopic and self centered.
September 8th, 2004 at 10:26 pm
God - haven’t ANY of you Democrats ever done anything that took a long term commitment?
Well, we like to engage in this little thing called “post-war planning” so that we don’t have to. Watch out, Kahn, you might confuse those bullets from the guns of Iraqis’ for rose petals.
September 9th, 2004 at 9:56 am
Jay and Dale,
Not sure what you are looking at…CNN coverage? Dale why do you classify the several thousand disaffected Iraqis and FOREIGN insurgents as representative of all 25 million Iraqi’s? That doesn’t make sense, the VAST majority of Iraq is stable and invites our soldiers in for dinner. My son is in the Army and I have NEVER heard one of the men or women returning from Iraq make the claim that all the Iraqi’s hate them…it is completely the opposite.
‘Post-war planning’ is only good until the first bomb drops, after that you have to shift the plan based on what is encountered. Everyone believed the Iraqi ‘elite guards’ actually had a backbone and would fight to defend their glorious leader. Remember the predictions we would be fighting in the streets of Baghdad against the embedded elite forces? Well all that did not happen, they took off their uniforms and blended into the general populace. Such bravery! That changed what needed to be done in the aftermath and that is what the military is doing successfully even though it has made the post war effort more drawn out and dangerous for our troops.
Again, some people just don’t seem to have the stomach for hard work and that is unfortunate, but it doesn’t change the need to do it.
September 9th, 2004 at 6:54 pm
History will show that Iraq not only had weapons of mass destruction, they most probably were moven into Syria shortly before the war, but that Saddam’s regime was directly involved in 9/11. When this come out the Democrats will go the way of the Federalist Party after the War of 1812.
September 9th, 2004 at 9:15 pm
Kjo I don’t know what pill you have taken but it sure must be comforting to be so blissfully unaware about this.
Iraq was not involved in 9/11, thats straight forward and generally accepted as fact. If we as a nation want to eliminate terrorism why did we invade that country which does not produce terrorists, does not have the WMD stockpiles, and lacks collaborative connections with terrorists to ever give them such weapons? Its a very simple question that if asked to a rational person disconnected from our passions would have to answer “Apparently we don’t want to eliminate terrorism.”
Most “insurgents” in Iraq are Iraqi, those militias are ripe for recruiting by actual terrorists. The prime way to recruit new members is by making US policies look wrong, thats all Osama ever blabbers about. Having over 90% of Arabs in most Mideast countries look at us unfavorably is not going to help us win the war.
I’ll also point out that during the occupations of Germany and Japan we didn’t have large insurgency movements or fought for control of cities in bloody fights. We also had started planning and training for those occupations several years before the end of the war.
Lastly the fact elections will be taking place in a few months in both countries by no means indicates long term peace, stability, and viability or present success. Elections won’t erase the insurgency and they won’t guarrantee an efficient government with moderate elements, but they are a step in the right direction.
September 10th, 2004 at 6:41 am
Well, Miles…your post is so wrong on so many levels. Iraq has been proven to harbor and support terrorism, and that fact is well established…hence the capture of Abu Nidal (Achille Lauro mastermind) and Saddam’s practice of paying the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Lacking collaborative connections with terrorists? What planet have you been living on? Or don’t those terrorists count?
No…we didn’t have a big insurgency problem in Japan after WWII. We had nuked them. I’d say that pretty much helped insure there wouldn’t be a big insurgency problem. We might not be having much of an insurgency problem now if we had nuked Baghdad…not that I’m advocating that we should have…just pointing out how silly your comparison is. Granted, we did have a problem with Iraqi soldiers filtering back into the population during and immediately after the major offensive, and that has caused some problems.
I never was interested in “stockpiles”…the Israelis in the early 80s certainly didn’t wait until Iraq had “stockpiles”, and good for them. Iraq clearly did have a continuing weapons development program, and those roadside bombs which were found wiht sarin had to come from somewhere. But as I said, I don’t care about stockpiles and never did. I’ve always said that we should have taken out Saddam the first time one of his AA guns targeted a coalition plane enforcing the no-fly zone.
September 10th, 2004 at 7:16 pm
Iran and Saudi Arabia have much more serious financial and supportive relationships with Al Queda itself that the distant and weak connections your mentioning. Abu Nidal had the honor of dying in Iraq, if you have any other information on how Iraq supported him be my guest. Giving money to Palestinian families of terrorists is certainly a bad practice but its not a collaborative relationship, it seems more like a sadistic prize.
The emperor of Japan had told the people to surrender, and being godlike to many, the Japanese people obeyed and accepted defeat. But our troops were also prepared to fight an insurgency, in Germany our troops purposely invaded Bavaria to prevent guerilla troops from fighting in the mountains. And in Japan our canceled invasion had trained troops to prepare for fighting against civilian militias. Our military and government had extensively prepared and trained for the problems of those occupations, to contrast them to Iraq is a silly, I only mention it because the Bush administration has foolishly used it to try to make the Iraq occupation look more peachy and successful than it actually is.
Unfortunately Robert your not the Bush administration, so your personal weighing of importance of WMDs and the proper time to invade Iraq are not representative of what I am criticizing. Its fine that your not particularly concerned about stockpiles of WMD because they have not been found, but the Bush administration repeatedly claimed that they existed. Heres one quote among the many to remind you and anyone else deprived of Bush’s assurances, “Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons. We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons — the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.”
September 10th, 2004 at 10:57 pm
How many years were we fighting agianst Germany and Japan? How many years were we fighting agianst Iraq? It seems to me that we actually had a lot of time to formulate a postwar plan for Japan and Germany and little time to formulate a plan for the postwar Iraq.
September 12th, 2004 at 2:19 am
Keith
WW2 was a war of necessity in which planning was done because it had to be done. Iraq could have been construed to be a “threat” in the long term but there was no evidence of imminency to the “threat” Iraq may or may not have posed. No one can say something like “Iraq was ready to invade Jordon in 4 months” or “Iraq had given WMD to terrorists who were determined to strike the US ASAP.” This war was one of choice and Bush administration had all the time in the world to plan. They had invaded Afghanistan out of necessity and they already had to plan for an occupation which they could learn from and build upon. The Bush administration downplayed the seriousness of the Iraq war by talking about it as if it would be some cakewalk. They chose speed and convienence over hard analysis and the weighing of importance of the many factors that an occupation would involve. They could look at the other past American occupations to compare and contrast to decide what was successful and what would need to be adjusted because of different variables. Now they admit that they did not expect Iraq to be like this at this time and its ultimately the Bush administration’s personal responsibility for what has happened in Iraq.
September 13th, 2004 at 3:24 am
Touche’ Mr. Davis. Does that mean the Bush Administration gets all the credit for putting an end to the brutial dictatorship?
Well we definately have a difference of opinion concerning the timing of the war in Iraq, but I’ll let the history books be writen before we decide who is correct or not.