Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dc_dux
The policy you support has failed at every level.
|
Just read IBD's editorial, timely:
Quote:
War On Terror: Not listening to Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi, Iraqi Sunni and Shiite tribal leaders have formalized an alliance with U.S. forces and against al-Qaida. The Arab street is rising up, and they're on our side.
The cut-and-run Democrats have long argued that our presence in Iraq has merely stirred things up and given al-Qaida an effective recruiting tool. Well, we've certainly stirred things up — and thanks to the success of our surgin' general, David Petraeus, we have a bevy of new Iraqi recruits. Except they've got al-Qaida in their cross hairs.
On Saturday, members of the 1st Cavalry Division based near Taji brokered a formal agreement between Sunni and Shiite tribal leaders to join forces against al-Qaida and other jihadists. The Sunni and Shiite agreed to use members of more than 25 local tribes to protect the area around Taji, just 12 miles north of Baghdad.
The deal is just the latest example of the progress Democrats claim isn't happening in Iraq — a series of deals with various tribes and militia groups that at one point were part of the insurgency. But it's the first involving both Sunni and Shiite sheiks together.
After the agreement, soldiers from the 1st Cav's 7th Regiment could be seen walking calmly through the streets of nearby Falahal. "A month ago, every single one of these people were shooting at us," Sgt. Richard Fisk told the Washington Times as he pointed out places in Falahal were roadside bombs were once planted.
"Anbar was the worst place in Iraq through most of 2006," Jack Keane, a retired four-star general, told IBD recently. Al-Qaida terrorists under the leadership of Abu Ayyub al-Masri ruled with an iron fist. Now violence is down in Ramadi and the rest of the province, and al-Qaida is not welcome.
As recently as Jan. 30, CNN's Michael Ware, in an interview with Anderson Cooper, proclaimed that Ramadi, Anbar's capital, was "the true al-Qaida national headquarters." That was then, and this is now. Marine Maj. Jeff Pool reports that enemy incidents in Ramadi have declined from about 22 per week in April to about two per week now.
|
http://www.investors.com/editorial/e...70082876172616
O.k., let's try to focus. We already know the editorial staff at IBD are far right-wingers who support Bush and the war. They may even be "lackies" for Bush's propaganda machine, but they point to something that may be a positive development. So let's focus on what they comment on and not who or what they are.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
Of course I was. Clinton had no legal right to unilaterally enforce a UN resolution. Even if you disregard the timing of the campaign, it was absolutely wrong. A lot of innocent people died. No where near as many as have died in the 2003-present Iraq war, of course.
You keep looking for double standards, as if that would excuse Bush. Even if I were hypocritical and supported Clinton in Desert Fox, would that make Bush right? Absolutely not. Absolutely not. Absolutely not.
|
I respect your consistency. We disagree on the underlying issue. Your consistency is rare, many simply make their arguments on the basis of their dislike of Bush.
I think there is and was a UN resolution authorizing us to take military action against Iraq. I supported military action after Iraq invaded Kuwait, Desert Fox and our latest invasion of Iraq. I also believe there has been a consistent concern about Saddam and Iraq's potential aggression using WMD and potentially developing nuclear weapons.