I do not quote CNN often, for personal reasons, but for the purpose of this post I am going to make an exception to my own rule here to show our presidents words. (The President's full news conference can be found here.)
President Bush said Wednesday he did not know if Iranian leaders sent weapons used to kill U.S. troops in Iraq but Iranian-made bombs were having a deadly effect and the United States had to respond.
"We know [the bombs are] there, we know they're provided by the Quds force. We know the Quds force is a part of the Iranian government," he told a news conference.
"I don't think we know who picked up the phone and said 'the Quds force, go do this,' but we know it's a vital part of the Iranian government. What matters is, is that we're responding."
The president rejected suggestions that the U.S. was creating a basis for conflict with Iran as "preposterous."
"My job is to protect our troops, and when we find devices that are in that country that are hurting our troops, we're going to do something about it, pure and simple. ... Does this mean you're trying to have a pretext for war? No. It means I'm trying to protect our troops. That's what that means," Bush said.
He also points out General David Petraeus, his new commander on the ground in Iraq, and his comments this morning:
Bush said Petraeus told him that "the commander who Prime Minister Maliki picked to operate the Baghdad security plan is in place. They're setting up a headquarters. And they're in the process of being in a position to be able to coordinate all forces."
Bush said his plan to add U.S. combat troops to Iraq was on course.
"We talked about the fact that our coalition troops that are heading into Baghdad will be arriving on time," Bush said of his conversation with Petraeus. (Watch House members face off over Iraq resolution Video)
Bush has proposed the deployment of another 21,000 troops. (Full story)
Bush cautioned the Democrat-majority Congress that they don't undermine the troops in Iraq -- whether they agree with his strategy or not.
"I am going to make it very clear to the members of Congress starting now that ... they need to fund our troops, and they need to make sure we have the flexibility necessary to get the job done," he said.
Bush said there was progress on the civilian side in Iraq as well.
"The Iraqi government's making progress on reforms that will allow more of its citizens to re-enter political life," he said, adding that he will keep up pressure on al-Maliki "to keep making the hard decisions he's making."
Now, lets take a look at how our liberal leaders and media view our troops and their sacrifices.
Text of what he said:
OBAMA: We ended up launching a war that should have never been authorized and should have never been waged and to which we have now spent $400 billion and has seen over 3,000 lives of the bravest young Americans wasted.
Wasted.
From an article on Real Clear Politics, written by Michelle Malkin we have a father of one of our fallen soldiers and words from another fallen soldier:
Listen to the father of Marine Sgt. Joshua J. Frazier, who was killed by a sniper in Iraq last week on his third tour of duty: "He believed in the United States and believed what he was doing was right. He gave his life for what he thought was the right thing to do," Rick Frazier said.
Remember the words of Marine Cpl. Jeffrey B. Starr, who died in a 2005 firefight in Ramadi: "Obviously if you are reading this then I have died in Iraq . . . I don't regret going, everybody dies but few get to do it for something as important as freedom. It may seem confusing why we are in Iraq, it's not to me. I'm here helping these people, so that they can live the way we live. Not have to worry about tyrants or vicious dictators. To do what they want with their lives. To me that is why I died. Others have died for my freedom, now this is my mark."
Doesn't sound like the soldiers that volunteered to go to Iraq thought their mission was a "waste" nor do they think their death was wasted.
Of course, after realizing exactly how badly Obama stuck his foot in his mouth, he of course tried to backtrack, AFTER THE FACT.
Going back a little further, we have Charlie Rangel telling the world that our troops are "uneducated" and that is why they joined the service.
The Heritage Foundation clearly debunked that lie.
Further back we have John Kerry in yet another supposed "accidental" statement, or botched joke as he likes to refer to it.
“You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.”
This is just a small sampling of how our liberal politicians show their "support" for our troops.
How about our liberal mainstream media?
We have William Arkin showing his clear disdain for our troops with his little "mercenary" comment, because he did not like the fact that a couple of our fighting men managed to get their words out to the American people.
But it is the United States and instead this NBC report is just an ugly reminder of the price we pay for a mercenary - oops sorry, volunteer - force that thinks it is doing the dirty work.
As you can tell from this video the soldiers certainly do not "feel the love" nor the claimed support.
In yet another example we have the New York Times that decided it was fine and dandy to show a video of a falling soldier and his death, BEFORE his family had even been notified... oops?
Now THAT is respect huh?
I can understand why our troops do not feel that congress, the media or the senate are trying to protect them, but are instead trying to undermine the job they are doing and doing well.
Protecting their political careers is more imporant than protecting and supporting our troops.
The liberal left has shown nothing but disdain for our troops and the mission they volunteer to fight in the name of freedom and liberty and their desire to help the Iraqi people achieve both.
Is it any wonder our fine military has such disdain for the liberal left now?
More from the President at his press conference:
When General Petraeus' nomination was considered three weeks ago, the United States Senate voted unanimously to confirm him, and I appreciated that vote by the senators. And now members of the House of Representatives are debating a resolution that would express disapproval of the plan that General Petraeus is carrying out. You know, in recent months, I've discussed our strategy in Iraq with members of Congress from both political parties. Many have told me that they're dissatisfied with the situation in Iraq. I told them I was dissatisfied with the situation in Iraq. And that's why I ordered a comprehensive review of our strategy.
I've listened to a lot of voices; people in my administration heard a lot of voices. We weighed every option. I concluded that to step back from the fight in Baghdad would have disastrous consequences for people in America. That's the conclusion I came to. It's the conclusion members of my staff came to. It's the conclusion that a lot in the military came to.
And the reason why I say "disastrous consequences," the Iraqi government could collapse, chaos would spread, there would be a vacuum, into the vacuum would flow more extremists, more radicals, people who have stated intent to hurt our people. I believe that success in Baghdad will have success in helping us secure the homeland.
What's different about this conflict than some others is that if we fail there, the enemy will follow us here. I firmly believe that. And that's one of the main reasons why I made the decision I made. And so we will help this Iraqi government succeed. And the first step for success is to do something about the sectarian violence in Baghdad so they can have breathing space in order to do the political work necessary to assure the different factions in Baghdad, factions that are recovering from years of tyranny, that there is a hopeful future for them and their families. I would call that political breathing space.
And by providing this political breathing space, in other words, giving the Maliki government a chance to reconcile and do the work necessary to achieve reconciliation, it'll hasten the day in which we can change our force posture in Iraq. A successful strategy obviously -- a successful security strategy in Bagdad requires more than just military action. I mean, people have to see tangible results in their lives. They have to see something better. They not only have to feel secure where they live, but they've got to see positive things taking place.
The other day, the Iraqi government passed a $41 billion budget, $10 billion of which is for reconstruction and capital investment. There's a lot of talk in Washington about benchmarks. I agree -- "benchmarks" meaning that the Iraqi government said they're going to do this; for example, have an oil law as a benchmark. But one of the benchmarks they laid out, besides committing troops to the Iraqi security plan, was that they'll pass a budget in which there's $10 billion of their own money available for reconstruction and help. And they met the benchmark. And now, obviously, it's important they spend the money wisely.
The Iraqi's are meeting the benchmarks that have been set for them. al-Qaeda has retreated and al-Sadr might or might not have ran and hid in Iran, either way his militia is being captured and killed.
As we see more and more success coming out of Iraq, now on a daily basis, I have a warning for congress.... we will remember, we will document and we will constantly remind you of how you tried to stop success in its tracks.
Your next election may be your last if you continue down the same path you have started on.
To end this, let me say... the troops are not asking for our protection, they are asking for our support.
.