posted December 14, 2005 08:28 PM            

Where is their compassion for those oppressed for more than 30 years by the corrupt and murderous regime of Saddam Hussein?

There is more belief in the principles of representative government in the purple stained fingers of these people than in the entire bodies of sycophants in the cut and run Congressional delegations of democrats and the leftist press, not to mention the radical crazies on the fringe left.

posted December 14, 2005 08:51 PM              

DEMOCRATS
SOCRATE(S) DEMO
CREAT(E)
CRATE OF DO(O)M

"In God We Trust"
if we do not start governing with GOD
this world will come to an end
the end!

posted December 14, 2005 09:31 PM            

DEMOCRATS:

posted December 14, 2005 10:19 PM              

LONG GOAL

his first name is

posted December 15, 2005 07:17 PM              

Nevermind...your words would be too harsh to even decipher probably, as they always are.

posted December 16, 2005 09:40 PM            

One would think this would be a time of satisfaction over a nation which barely 3 short years ago was under the grip of a ruthless and barbaric dictatorship and had now freely chosen the path of representative government. Satisfaction also over the role the United States, Britain and the other coalition partners have played to help bring about the freedom of the Iraqi people.

One would be wrong. On the left, these elections were an utter rejection of everything the leftist morons have been predicting, hoping for and praying for, another defeat and black eye for America. God, if there's a more despicable group of people on earth, I don't know where the hell they could be.

So, up theirs...but not with my

Vindication
By Ben Johnson
FrontPageMagazine.com | December 16, 2005

PERHAPS THE MOST STUNNING REVELATION OF THURSDAY’S IRAQI ELECTION IS THIS: SUNNI “INSURGENTS” ARE MORE COMMITTED TO A PEACEFUL, STABLE, DEMOCRATIC IRAQ THAN THE AMERICAN LEFT. As an unprecedented 11 million Iraqis risked their lives yesterday to vote in that nation’s third free election since January, leftists in this country continued to undermine the military operation that permitted those elections to be held and renewed their call for the only measure that could assure their newfound freedom dissolves into an abyss of hopeless violence: immediate U.S. withdrawal.

Sunnis Participate in Democracy

If any event could vindicate the president’s policy and demand Americans stay the course, Iraq’s parliamentary election was that event. Since the nation’s first free election in a generation this January, every segment of society has staked its future on the political process – including the “insurgents.” In one year, the most disaffected segments of Iraqi society have become politicized and decided – through charity or resignation – that only becoming part of a pluralistic, tolerant, democratic Iraq will give them any hope for the future.

How radically has Sunni opinion changed toward participating in Iraqi democracy? The Iraqi Islamic Army, an anti-American milita group, safeguarded the polls in Ramadi. Last January, there was a widespread Sunni boycott; yesterday, militants went into local neighborhoods to encourage Sunnis to vote. As a result, Sunni turnout in that city increased 4,000 percent over the October referendum.

The New York Times captured the mood in Sunni Iraq, where reporters found, “A new willingness to distance themselves from the insurgency, an absence of hostility for Americans, a casual contempt for Saddam Hussein, a yearning for Sunnis to find a place for themselves in the post-Hussein Iraq.”

Polls had to stay open an extra hour due to long lines. Some 80 percent of Saddam’s home province voted. Anbar province ran out of ballots as children danced in its peaceful streets. Four times as many people turned out in Tall Afar this time over last. Even in the former terrorist stronghold of Fallujah – where 70 percent of the populace cast ballots this week – Mayor Dari Abdul Hadi Zubaie said, “Right now, the city is experiencing a democratic celebration.” He compared the municipal euphoria to the Arab world’s most joyful celebration, a wedding. (In fact, a Kurdish couple got married at a polling center.)

Steadily increasing Sunni participation accounts for higher voting rates in each of Iraq’s successive national elections: 58 percent in January, 63 percent in October, and an estimated 71 percent on Thursday.

The higher numbers are fueled by soaring hopes. A 25-year-old Sunni told Western reporters although he felt he lost everything under Saddam, “I'll have all my rights restored through this government.”

Even those who were ineligible to vote wanted to take part in the great national liberation. Former Iraqi General Mustafa Abdul Aziz, who had no right to vote, asked if he could dip his finger in purple ink, in solidarity with his fellow countrymen. “[A]s I dipped my finger in the inkpot, my eyes watered and tears started coming down. That's what we always wanted, a chance to live a free democratic life. I and my family had suffered just to have such a day, and now it has become a reality.”

All this occurred with a minimum of violence, despite jihadist denunciations of voting as “Satanic.” More heartening yet, Iraqi troops “took the lead” in keeping the peace Thursday.

In Washington, President Bush called the election a “major milestone in the march to democracy.” Across the Atlantic, Prime Minister Tony Blair agreed the vote “shows very clearly that, given the choice, the Iraqi people want the same as the rest of us, which is the chance to live under a democratic form of government.”

Blair is right: all segments of Iraqi society have finally decided they want to live in freedom. And that is what the American Left, out of a mix of partisan and ideological reasons, is trying so desperately to deny them.

The Left Committed to Retreat, Defeat, and Surrender

If the leftists had had their way, there would have been no Operation Iraqi Freedom, no toppling of Saddam, no liberation of Baghdad. Iraqis would not be choosing between thousands of candidate to fill the 275 seats of parliament (25 percent of which are reserved for women); Saddam would be the only candidate on the ballot, and he would cap off his inaugural ball by peeping in on his rape rooms and watching his opponents’ children get pushed through plastic shredders.

Now, after the sacrifice of more than 2,000 American soldiers and an estimated 30,000 Iraqi civilians, the American Left wants to cut-and-run as democratic pluralism has captured the hearts of the Iraqi people.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi greeted news of Thursday’s massive democratic triumph by – stepping up calls for an immediate withdrawal. At a press conference, she euphemistically purred, “I think the Iraqi people are ready and willing now to take matters into their own hands.” Sen. Ted Kennedy chimed in, “If America wants a new Iraqi government to succeed, we need to let Iraqis take responsibility for their own future.”

MoveOn.org – the Soros-funded tail currently wagging the Democratic Party dog – plans to respond to this week’s electoral victory by producing a new TV spot calling for complete U.S. withdrawal ASAP, no later than the end of 2006. Like MoveOn, Feingold supports U.S. retreat by the end of ‘06, a position that has won him considerable support from Nation magazine and will likely make him a credible threat to Hillary Clinton’s left-flank in 2008. And ’08 hopeful John Kerry also has big plans, stating, “If we win back the house, I think we have a pretty solid case to bring articles of impeachment against this president” for “misleading” the country into Thursday’s blessed celebration.

All this builds on Rep. John Murtha’s insane resolution for an immediate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq – a “redeployment” – which he voted against when the idea was brought before the House just before Thanksgiving.

Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-NY, in a floor speech recycled as an official press release for all House Democrats, claimed Murtha “spoke for the majority of our country.” Further:

Our forces are drawing fire, not suppressing it. Their presence on foreign soil is serving as a catalyst for all those who wish to do us, and Iraq, harm. Insurgent attacks are on the rise.

She also decried U.S. GI’s “shameful acts of torture” and called all those who dare question the wisdom of unilateral surrender “name-calling, sand throwing bullies.”

Hers was but one of a host of official pronouncements supporting Murtha white flag resolution.

Murtha was led to call for surrender, because he thinks this war “unwinnable,” averring, “We cannot prevail in this war.”

Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean soon joined in the defeatist chorus, telling San Antonio’s WOAI radio the “idea that we’re going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which, unfortunately, is just plain wrong.”

Murtha, Dean, Pelosi, Slaughter, Kennedy, and Kerry do not speak for “the majority of our country.” However, ominously, they do speak for the majority of the Democratic Party. A full 59 percent of Democrats agree with Dean’s statement that the Iraq war cannot be won. Although 46 percent of Democrats agreed Iraq would be “worse off if U.S. troops left Iraq now” – and 69 percent of Democrats don’t believe Iraqis can defeat terrorists without U.S. help – a majority of grassroots leftists want us to withdraw, anyway. (View the poll in PDF format; scroll down to pp. 5-6.)

This suicidal tactic would plunge the stabilizing Iraq government into chaos; sign the death warrants of Iraq’s democratically elected officials; give the terrorists invaluable recruiting propaganda by claiming victory over the Great Satan; and, in Sen. Joseph Lieberman’s phrase, leave 7 million Iraqis at the mercy of 10,000 foreign terrorists hell-bent to make Baghdad its new caliphate. Allah’s avenging angels would be sure to visit his deadly wrath upon all the “infidels” who participated in an “anti-Islamic” election they clearly proscribed.

And this is the fate John Murtha claims the Iraqis want. For more than a month, he has selectively cited poll data that “over 80 percent of Iraqis are strongly opposed to the presence of Coalition forces.” True, those same polls indicate the Iraqis want us to leave as soon as possible – after the democratically elected government is firmly established, its security forces are adequately trained, and its police are capable of defending themselves from jihadists. As recently as Thursday, Sunnis – the “occupation’s” most implacable foes – said they wanted a phased withdrawal. “Let's have stability, and then the Americans can go home,” said one. He said if that is President Bush’s policy, “Then Bush has said it correctly.”

And, thankfully, that is America’s policy – at least for now.

The House passed a resolution late this week calling immediate withdrawal “fundamentally inconsistent with achieving victory.” The measure says American troops will remain in the nation “only until Iraqi forces can stand up so our forces can stand down, and no longer than is required for that purpose.”

A spokesperson for Nancy Pelosi, without a hint of irony, asserted this resolution was “playing politics with the Iraq war.”

This simple plan – peace through victory – has remained the cornerstone of our policy since the beginning of our engagement. Colin Powell famously remarked that America has never demanded more foreign territory than it took to bury our soldiers. President Bush told the Washington Post in January, “The way I would put it is, American troops will be leaving as quickly as possible, but they won't be leaving until we have completed our mission, and part of the mission is to train Iraqis so they can fight the terrorists.” Six months later, he said, “As Iraqis stand up, we will stand down.”

President Bush has answered, defining victory as the establishment of a free and democratic Iraq that can guarantee the freedom, meet the needs and defend the rights of all its citizens…[V]ictory, like democracy itself, will be a steady but definable process that will not be won overnight.

And this week, U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad told Iraqis that our troops “will stand along with you” for as long as it takes for Iraqis to manage their own affairs. “And the sooner, the better.”

In other words, President Bush is committed to victory – not just for the good of the Iraqi people, whom we are now obligated to look after – but because only victory in Iraq will crush the al-Qaeda terrorist assault in its central front.

But just as one can see the light at the end of the tunnel, just as troop reductions might become a possibility, the Left continues to push for an immediate withdrawal that would snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, slaughter innocent Iraqis, and leave Americans more vulnerable than ever to an emboldened worldwide terrorist enemy.

Two thousand Americans did not die for that. Thirty thousand Iraqis did not die for that. And 27 million Iraqis deserve better than to see their hopes of liberty and self-determination – just on the cusp of realization – destroyed by cynical or ideologically crazed partisans so they can bring down a president they despise.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20579

posted December 16, 2005 10:57 PM              

In fairness, our geographic location can account for a bit of that ignorance .. but not so much of it that we shouldn't be ashamed of ourselves at times.

posted December 16, 2005 11:27 PM            

You are aware...by now that reports of what was missing were grossly overstated. In fact, the most valuable items were found locked in a basement vault.

Additionally, the most valuable items which did disappear were stolen by someone with a key/combination and knowledge of the items and their value which would indicate someone from the museum itself. Also quite possible they were stolen before the invasion.

You should also be aware many of those items which were stolen have been recovered and there is a world wide search for those still missing. They're far to radioactive for any but the most foolhardy to attempt to peddle...or buy.

Still, I don't see your connection between the election of a representative government for Iraq and looting of a museum...unless you're suggesting the leftists who were always against deposing Saddam KNEW the looting would be a natural consequence and opposed it for that reason.

posted December 17, 2005 08:45 AM              

But I'll try to maintain my composure and politely reply.

You know how I feel about Iraq ... I don't believe we should have gone. I believe we were lied to. I believe we need to stay and see the fight thru. We have no choice now. We are responsible for cleaning up the mess we made. blah blah blah

I'm aware that there are conflicting reports. At best. It takes a while for the war PR people to get around to spinning the stories about silly things like museums, huh?

quote:

---

unless you're suggesting the leftists who were always against deposing Saddam KNEW the looting would be a natural consequence and opposed it for that reason.

---

Are you trying to be funny?

Am I sorry about the museum? Yes, I'm sorry. Am I sorry the beautiful city of Dresden was bombed into oblivion? Yes. Am I sorry Hitler was removed from power? No. Many precious things are lost or destroyed during war. My mind returns to the same question, the only relevant one I think. Was it worth it? Was it righteous? Was it worth the sacrifice?

posted December 17, 2005 12:30 PM            

You will notice, I linked obtuse to your "comment" and not to you personally.

Your comments are usually pointed, pointed directly to bear on whatever the conversation in the moment happens to be. I like that, BTW.

Obtuse...my definition....lacking well defined corners, i.e., rounded and not pointed or sharp.

Obtuse...dictionary definition...not pointed or acute

I apologize if you took my use of obtuse to mean anything other than I've indicated here.

If, after examining the linked articles, you still believe a cover-up was hatched to cover the theft of Iraqi museum pieces, or you believe I was misstating or exaggerating efforts to find them, well it is a free country, isn't it.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/05/07/sprj.nilaw.iraqi.artifacts/index.html
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/world/12/11IraqArt.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/04/0429_030429_iraqlooting.html
http://www.portaliraq.com/news/United+States+recovers+stolen+antiquities+for+Iraq__755.html

I notice you are sorry about a range of things. I am not the least sorry Saddam Hussein was deposed, confined and is now standing trial for his crimes against the Iraqi people.

posted December 17, 2005 01:02 PM              

quote:

---

I am happy for the Iraqi people who are free of a murderous thug dictator and have formed their own government. I would think that would be cause for happiness among all who value liberty.

---

hmmm makes me think of a dignified Lafeyette sitting ever so quietly in the back of the room while the Colonists formed their own government.

I hope things work out for the Iraqis. I truly do. Babylonia deserves great things and is capable of great things. But I wonder. I think about bad seeds and what fruit grows from them. That which begins in dishonor ...