Like it or not, Congressman Shuler will have to defend this vote in light of the success of the surge of troops into Iraq, and has posted on his Asheville Citizen-Times Blog an explanation.
Of course, the House, nor Senate have a two-thirds majority to over-rule a Presidential Veto.
The US House has just given GREAT AID & COMFORT to our enemies, and as another blogger put it:
Al Qaeda is celebrating in their caves and huts (and Saudi palaces) today; all they have to do is hang on for another year and a half. That’s nothing, compared to 14 centuries of jihad.
And then there is an Iraqi Blogger, who has posted the following: [The link is now fixed]
Al-Qaeda and its supporters are using most of the capabilities of their propaganda machine to cover their effort in Iraq, and so is the case with financial resources. All evidences indicate that most of the money is used to support the terror activity in Iraq.
Let's not forget recruiting networks that are discovered constantly in many European and Arab countries; we rarely, if ever, hear that those networks were sending recruits to Afghanistan because recruits are being sent to Iraq all the time. Even more telling, some of the prominent lieutenants of al-Qaeda left Afghanistan to fight in Iraq. One example I remember was Omar al-Farouk who escaped from Bagram to be later captured in Basra!
Al-Qaeda itself boasts about the great "sacrifices" of more than 4,000 "martyrs" to emphasize the importance of the war here. And the hundreds of suicide bombers preferred to blow themselves up in Iraq than anywhere else should remind us that if al-Qaeda considers this the main war then why talk about redeployment?
Walking away from the main war is not redeployment, it's quitting.
But why Iraq became the main front?
Iraq can simply not be equated with Afghanistan which the bulk of al-Qaeda largely abandoned after few weeks of battles—that doesn't sound like al-Qaeda!
Iraq, weak after a war that toppled the regime but rich-relatively-with resources and scientific base is a greater temptation than Afghanistan, and at the same time the possibility of a democracy arising in Iraq posed a great threat to the ideology of caliph state. Therefore al-Qaeda and whoever is backing it directly or indirectly felt they had to move the front to Iraq instead of staying in Afghanistan.
Let's imagine that the world left Iraq alone before the country is able to defend itself and let it fall in the hands of extremists, what would happen then?
Can we compare the opium fields with the massive oilfields of Mesopotamia? Can we afford to leave these resources in the service of the terrorists?
The other point is scientific infrastructure, especially when it comes to military technology such infrastructure almost doesn't exist in Afghanistan while Saddam celebrated 17 years ago in launching a rocket to space. The same "accomplishment' Iran claimed to have made just days ago.
This infrastructure, while still humble compared to advanced countries, could be very dangerous if captured by terrorists.
For the other side of the coin, check out Drama Queen's post at Scrutiny Hooligans.
 | |
| Bush Slams Democrats Over Iraq Timetable | |
Posts
1 comments :
Thanks for the link.
I was doing some research, and I can't find anyone estimating more than about a thousand AQers in the whole country. They're most likely there to target our troops.
This vote is a vote for common sense and a rejection of the Bush doctrine of "When You're In A Hole, Dig Faster."
It's also a vote for our troops and a recognition that U.S. citizens called for change in November.
Post a Comment