Tuesday, May 01, 2007

THE DECIDER GETS IT RIGHT

It’s nice to see the President taking the right steps towards winning the war on terror instead of buckling under to pressure from an opposition dedicated to failure for political gain.


With this veto, and despite demands for surrender coming from the Democrats he sends exactly the right message to those who are causing the trouble in Iraq.

When Democrats were voted a majority in Congress, largely due to the American people’s dissatisfaction with the way the war was being handled, insurgents who expected the president to cut his loses politically must have been dismayed when he instead sent more troops to Iraq.

Now, he has once again shown resolve in the face of stupidity and political posturing.

He deserves credit for rejecting arbitrary timetables which would essentially tell our enemies exactly when we are going to leave the area. With such a roadmap they would simply hold out until we are gone and then massacre the Iraqi people in even greater numbers for the benefit of Al-Queda and Iran.

Speaking of arbitrary, the Democrats who should have been negotiating with the White House to find a way to get our troops the funding they need instead delayed that process for five full days even though their version of the funding bill was DOA.

Why? They did so in order to send their non-starter of an Iraq spending bill to the President on the anniversary of “Mission Accomplished.” Reid and Pelosi have once again chosen the politics of personal destruction over our national interests.

Rudy Giuliani was dead-on when he said that the Nation would be safer under a Republican President. This week we have seen proof of this first hand.

Every Democratic presidential candidate is promising that we will leave Iraq immediately if he (or she)is elected. Even if the job there isn’t finished.

This would of course embolden our enemies, allow Al-Qaeda a base from which to regroup and give a fundamentalist theocracy, hell-bent on obtaining nuclear weapons, control over a huge portion of the world's oil.

That’s the alternative to the President’s actions on Wednesday.

But the Dems want to embarrass the President.

So be sure to take a good hard look at your priorities, before you select a candidate for ’08, because you might just be longing for the good old days of GWB before too long.

Sphere: Related Content

8 comments:

Shannonymous said...

It always shocks me when I agree with G.W., but it happens on occasion. What he said about it being a mistake to let the insurgents know on what date we'll withdraw (because they'll just wait us out and pounce the moment we're gone), was dead on.

Anonymous said...

I used to have a smidgeon of patience for liberals/dhimmicrats, but lately I am coming to the conclusion that liberals and dhimmicrats are nothing but a pack of ex-60s pot-smokers who won't work, can't think, and spend their time ulcerating at the successes of people who think, work and aren't ashamed to be alive and free. It sickens me that morons like Reid and Pelosi are actually in government. That is the flaw in all democracies: if you have enough stupid people and you arm them with a vote, it is a matter of time before you go down the toilet.

Abouna said...

I stand with G.W> 100% with the war on terror. I just wish he would do the RIGHT thing as far as the illegal immigration situation goes and get our borders secure. I cannot go along with his "Comprehensive Immigration" where he claims it is not amnesty, but he wants to give them a fast track to citizenship, but he does nothing about the border and then says we need millions more immigrants each year. NO WAY!

kiss my sass said...

Right on, Panda! Couldn't have said it better myself.

Great blog. Found you by way of stoprosie.com

Keep up the good work :)

rgj21 said...

Although I agree with almost everything else you say, I do not agree with your characterization of our position in Iraq a part of the War on Terror. When Saddam was in power and we hoped to prevent him from deploying WMD it could have been argued that our action against him was part of a war on terrorism. Not anymore in the commonly accepted use of that terminology. For people including GWB to keep characterizing it that way undermines their own position!

bb said...

Panda Man -
If you've got the time, do me a favor - Describe for me what you think "victory in Iraq" will look like.
What will it it be like over there when "the job is done?"

bb said...

And, Anonymous, I'm sorry but -

"liberals and dhimmicrats are nothing but a pack of ex-60s pot-smokers who won't work, can't think, and spend their time ulcerating at the successes of people who think, work and aren't ashamed to be alive and free."

What the HELL does that even mean? So are you saying that all liberals and dhimmicrats (I'm missing the pun here, btw) are over the age of 55, because they would have to be in order to be "ex 60s pot-smokers."

Why won't they work? Why won't they think? ALL of them won't? So what are they doing? Who ARE they, exactly? I'm so confused. And it sounds like you are, too.

Dan said...

"Victory in Iraq" simply means that the Iraqi forces are capable of keeping sectarian vilolence to a minimum on their own and that the central Iraqi government is not in danger of collapsing due to terrorist forces.

As far as "The War on Terror" goes, we are currently fighting the exact same forces in Iraq, whom we are fighting in Afghanistan.This being Al-Queda. In addition to this Terrorist leaders such as Bin Laden are on record having said that Iraq is the central front in the war against the west. Therfore doesn't it only make sense that Iraq would also be the central front in the War on Terror.

Nothing we can do would weaken Al Queda more than U.S sucess in Iraq and nothing would embolden them further than premature withdrawl.