Mark Steyn comments on how far we've come in the five years since 9/11.
Nitwit Democrats think anything that can be passed off as a failure in Iraq will somehow diminish only Bush and the neocons. In reality — a concept with which Democrats seem only dimly acquainted — it would diminish the nation, and all but certainly end the American moment. In late September 2001 the administration succeeded in teaching a critical lesson to tough hombres like Musharraf and Putin: In a scary world, America can be scarier. But it's all a long time ago now.
From the time of the Nixon administration, Democrats have been aware of American power and have sought to diminish it. From their position on the ABM treaty, that demanded America refrain from defending herself against Soviet missile attack, to their tradition of voting against defense authorizations, the Democrats have operated on the premise that American power is bad. Democrats would reassure the world that America poses no threat to world peace, and they would do it by making certain that America is incapable of posing a threat. They know, diminishing George Bush diminishes the nation. It's what they've been working at for decades.
yet you speak of the last 5 years as being some raging foreign policy success story when in fact just the complete opposite is true. We are no safer as a country then we were 5 years ago; we are no less dependent on foreign oil/OPEC than we were 5 years ago; we are held in less standing not only by our sworn enemies but, perhaps more importanlty, by our sworn allies; and we are no less likely to be victims of a terrorist attack than we were 5 years ago.
It's true, Democrats may not have the answers to all of these issues/problems that currently plague the world/this country. However, 5 years worth of the Bushies and the Republican-lackeys in Congress have no doubt illustrated to the rest of the country and the rest of the world, that the present policiy paths are completely wrong.
Posted by: ny patriot | August 21, 2006 at 12:14 PM
The last five years have been a foreign policy success in that we have finally chosen to fight our enemies. And as a nation, we are much safer than we were five years ago because -- so far -- we've demonstrated to our enemies that we are willing to fight and that we are willing to take the fight to them.
Democrats are pretend that there is some better way to fight the terrorists. You've heard the line, Iraq is a distraction from war on terror? In reality Iraq is the excuse Democrats have siezed on to stop fighting the war on terror.
The choice that would be forced on us by the Democrats is not whether to fight the war on terror in Iraq or fight it somewhere else. No, the choice they would offer is whether we fight the battle in Iraq or not fight it -- at all. Just name someplace in the world -- anyplace -- where you think the Democrats would actually have agreed to put troops on the ground to defeat terrorism.
The whole Iraq thing is not about American foreign policy. It's about Democrats seeking every opportunity to get back in power.
Posted by: Tom Bowler | August 21, 2006 at 02:51 PM
*Over 50,000 dead Iraqis.
*2,700 American soldiers dead.
*Over 10,000 American soldiers maimed and wounded.
*Countless billions of dollars spent.
*The irreparable damage done to America's
standing in the world as a beacon of Democracy.
And you think this about the Democrats trying to regain power? How naive can you possibly be? Who gives a crap who is in power. We are all going to have to pay this bill someday, sooner probably than later, and you're worried about who wins the next election.
Crawl back under that rock in New Hampshire Tom. The world has passed you by.
Posted by: ny patriot | August 22, 2006 at 11:16 AM
I see you ducked my challenge. Can't name one, can you?
Posted by: Tom Bowler | August 22, 2006 at 12:20 PM
Sorry I missed your challenge. Afghanistan.
Where else do you suggest we place troops in harms way Tom? Because Iraq will ultimately be a completely miscalculated colossal failure, how eager do you think any next administration will be to sending troops to "fight" terrorism? Not very.
So not only has Bush's shortsightedness ruined the fight today, he has also made it political dynamite for the next president to deal with the next legitimate battle. Nice going.
Posted by: ny patriot | August 22, 2006 at 02:15 PM
You do tend to overlook things, Pat. It may have missed your notice, but when the decision was made to invade Iraq, we were already in Afghanistan. Re-invade Afghanistan? Would that be the recommendation?
Posted by: Tom Bowler | August 23, 2006 at 12:21 PM
how about finishing the job 1st. last I heard, we still hadn't caught Osama and the Taliban's presence is increasingly growing in much of the southern region of the country.
oh right we long ago defeated the taliban/captured Osama. why would we have to reinvade afghanistan again?
Posted by: ny patriot | August 24, 2006 at 01:32 PM