Custom Search

Sunday, July 29, 2007

When winning a vote means more than winning a war

When Undersecretary of Defense Eric Edelman told Hillary Clinton and I quote:

"Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq, much as we are perceived to have done in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia

He was doing more than giving his personal opinion, he was telling it like it is. Whether it was liked or not by Hillary or other politicians that do not seem to understand that words said publicly are seen by our troops as well as our enemies, is besides the point.

The point is that the Democrats are so invested in defeat that as soon as they start seeing the MSM report some good news from Iraq, not only do they deny those reports, they purposely make statements, knowing they will be seen by our forces and our enemies, to create whatever damage they can to our U.S. and Coalition forces in the field.

Make no mistake here. They do this knowing full well what damage and death can follow for our troops. They do not care because they cannot afford for our troops to be perceived as making progress.

(Continued below the advertisement)

(Continued from above)

Edelman is not the only one saying this, but he was the first, from the Pentagon to finally say politics be damned, common sense is needed, but even that was ignored while she feigned indignation and went whining to Robert Gates because she did not like being told that kind of truth as publicly as her own words of retreat and defeat were said.

Edelman has been echoed by our own miltary leaders, as Captain's Quarters shows us with a blogger conference call with Colonel Stephen Twitty:

Note: Despite Robert Gates' fence-mending with Hillary Clinton over the withdrawal rhetoric coming from Congress, Col. Twitty confirms that the highly-publicized demands to retreat from Iraq have damaged his command's ability to get good intel from the local populace. It has left them distrustful of the Americans, and fearful of a takeover by the terrorists in the wake of our departure. See the Colonel's answer to my question at the bottom.

The Democrats automatically get defensive with comments like "so now, in a democracy we cannot voice our concerns", but that isn't the case. They are politicians, they can interact in a number of ways, the only reason they do so where it can be caught on camera is to garner votes for their next election.

Getting that next vote is more important to them that the hardships their public words will have on our troops, and our ability to wage this battle to secure Iraq.

I pointed out a comment from a previous post from a woman whose husband is in the field, a woman that also thinks Hillary and the Democrats public words may harm her husband:

It's about time the pentagon said something. Now they can go after the rest of our "esteemed leaders" in the house and senate and tell them to sit down and STFU! Then they can go after MSM and tell them the same.

Whether they want to admit it or not we are a nation at war and they need to start acting accordingly and keep their mouths shut. This is one time when a transparent government is not needed. Keep it behind closed doors and out of the media. My husbands life may depend on it. Bunch of jerkoffs!!!
Boy, that rant felt good this morning!
ArmyWife | 07.20.07 - 3:05 am |

If Hillary and crew think their feigned indignation is fooling anyone, they are sorely mistaken.

In a Wapo column today, David Ignatius, makes a few points, some I agree with and some I disagree with, but the ones I am excerpting are spot on target:

Try to imagine what was running through the mind of Hassan Kazemi Qomi, Iran's ambassador to Baghdad, as he sat across the negotiating table from his American counterpart, Ryan Crocker, last week. While the U.S. diplomat delivered his stern warning against Iranian meddling in Iraq, Qomi must have wondered: Why should I listen to this guy? Congress is going to start pulling U.S. troops out soon, no matter what he says.

That's the difficulty for Crocker and Gen. David Petraeus as they try to manage a stable transition in Iraq while Congress chants ever more loudly: "Troops out! Troops out!" It's hard for anyone to take American power seriously when prominent members of Congress are declaring the war already lost.


Extricating the United States safely from Iraq will be difficult under the best of circumstances. But it will be impossible if the necessary bargaining takes place against a backdrop of continual congressional demands for a faster withdrawal. In that situation, the Qomis and Sadrs will take the admonitions from Crocker and Petraeus as just so much hot air -- and a bad situation will get even worse. Why should they listen to us today if we will be gone tomorrow?

Our politicians understand all of this, they simply do not care. Their next election is more important and anyone that dares call their hand on this, gets treated with disdain and intellectually dishonest arguments, because if they were to be honest, they would have to admit that their next vote is far more important that America is.

Their next vote is far more important to them than the lives of our fine, brave troops.

Their next vote is far more important to them than OUR National Security.

Their next vote is all that matters to them in the end and when politics outweigh simple right and wrong, it is time for the politicians to be held accountable for it.

In another piece Captain Ed points out that although these politicians have the "right" to speak out, they also have a responsibility to use caution when they know the consequences.

Yet we cannot shade our eyes and pretend that this strident and hysterical debate has not had an effect on our ability to prevail in Iraq and to shape the outcome through negotiations. In a conference call with the commander in Ninewah on Friday, we heard that the calls from Congress for immediate withdrawal has "absolutely" damaged the Army's HUMINT efforts and made the populace more fearful of abandonment by the US to the Shi'ite militias and the terrorists. Frightened populations look for those who will protect them -- and Arab cultures in particular are known for this, which is why they produce so many strongmen and no democrats.

The protests of MoveOn, International ANSWER, and Code Pink make little difference to the Iraqis in the street. It's the irresponsible rhetoric coming from Congress that creates the problems in American credibility in Iraq, and it's pushing the Iraqis away from the central government that we helped nurture into existence. Congressional leaders need to act more responsibly and stop pandering to the excesses of these fringe protest groups.

With power comes responsibility and for Hillary Clinton, who is vying for the most powerful position in the United States of America, the Presidency, showing such irresponsibility as she has been doing of late with her careless words, said publicly with the deliberate intention of harming our troops and their ability to perform, only goes to show she is not qualified to hold such power because she does not know the difference between healthy disagreement and politically sacrificing our military for her own ambitions.

Presidents must put the good of the country ahead of their own personal good and Hillary Clinton has once again proven, without a doubt, that she is incapable of that.

Many despise President Bush, disagree with his policies and I have some major disagreements with a few of them myself, although I do not lower myself to name calling and disrespect for the position he holds, I have come out completely against some items of his agenda, the most recent being the immigration reform bill, but depite "popularity polls", he does what he was elected twice to do, and that is what HE thinks is best for our country.

A President has information that we, the people, do not have, the president has information that even the politicians, Republican and Democrat,do not have, the President also has reports that our media does not have and even when they do, they do not show, us, "the people" those reports, and Bush could have went along with the 'polls' on many occasions and assured himself a nice comfortable legacy, but he put what he thought was the best for "we the people" before his own approval ratings because that is what a responsible President does.

Hillary Clinton and many of the presidential hopefuls from both sides of the aisle have proven and they continue to prove that they are incapable of putting the needs of a county before their own.

I have seen on our own comments section that people are so full of hatred, if anyone dares to support the troops and their mission, if anyone dares to believe that we, as a country, is better off fighting to create a stable Iraq, then those people must of course simply be "Bush Lovers".

These are the people that cannot see beyond their own blind hatred and liberal talking points to see the bigger picture and answer a very simple question:

Are we, as a country, safer if Iraq is stable, or are we, as a country, safer if Iraq is a safe haven for terrorists that wish to attack the United States of America?

If you believe, like I do, that we are safer, as a country, if Iraq is stable and not a haven for terrorists, then no sacrifice is too great to achieve that goal.

National Security is more important than politics and until the Democratic politicians understand this, they will continue to hold onto the stigma that has been theirs for many, many years.... Weak on National Security.