Thinkin’bout Stuff

News Flash: Obama would keep troops in Iraq… although he doesn’t realize it just yet. 

Here’s my thinking on this:

From Reuters:

Obama said during the debate with Clinton that once he withdrew U.S. troops from Iraq, if al Qaeda were to form a base there, “then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad.”

“I have some news,” McCain said. “Al Qaeda is in Iraq. It’s called Al Qaeda in Iraq. My friends, if we left, they wouldn’t be establishing a base, they’d be taking a country and I’m not going to allow that to happen.”

…  Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell, who told U.S. lawmakers Wednesday that Al Qaeda in Iraq had suffered major setbacks last year and although still “capable of mounting lethal attacks,” the group had suffered hundreds of members killed or captured.

<snip>

“I have some news for John McCain, and that is that there was no such thing as al Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq,” he said to cheers.

So let’s boil this down:   

1. As president, Obama would send troops into Iraq to fight al Qaeda
2. Obama concedes al Qaeda is in Iraq (although he blames Bush for their existence… which seems somewhat moot at the moment)
3. Therefore… Obama would need to keep troops in Iraq to fight al Qaeda

By the way, why is it bad that we have a place to fight al Qaeda that is not on US soil? Although I do not buy into the theory that al Qaeda was not in Iraq until the war, let’s assume that is true… isn’t that a good thing that our enemy was willing come to the place where we already had our troops in place to fight… seems like it’s working out pretty well. First choice should always be to not have a war, but if we are in a war, seems like it’s better to fight it over there instead of over here… even better than fighting in the mountains of Afghanistan.

Soccer season is over. Work is calming down a bit. I find myself Thinkin’bout Stuff again.

Interesting how little has changed since my last post. For example, I found this snippet that I never got around to completing and posting from May 2007:

Anyone else getting tired of the Democrats wasting time and money on this investigation into why federal prosecutors were fired? Besides a political witch hunt, what is the goal here? What critical national need are they filling? What major crises are they solving? Assuming Gonzales were forced to resign, how will that make life better for you and me? Who really cares why they were fired when they can be fired without a reason anyway.. just as has happened in every other administration prior to this one?

The focus of this session of Congress seems to be revenge for having lost past elections. It’s all about playing gotcha and gimmee. What have they accomplished beyond empty political statements, like sending bills to the president they know will be vetoed effectively delaying the funding of the troops so that they can make a point. Who cares about your damn point! Stop making points! We get your point! Now go do your damn job!

You want to fire someone? Fire Reid, Pelosi and all of these renegade committee chairs who believe it is the role of Congress to spend hours grilling administration officials even when the evidence clearly indicates no wrong doing; who believe that anyone who the president believes is qualified for any position in the administration is, by definition, not qualified, and that reading and passing legislation is more of a hobby to be done in whatever spare time that is available after the inquisitions have ended for the day.

You want to talk about “worst” lists… so far this Congress is on a path to be the worst in history.  Don’t agree? What have they accomplished? Any bills out there to reduce dependency of foreign oil? Anything to encourage an increase in refinery capacity? Any real legislation to secure our borders? Any action to protect the tax cuts that will expire so that the economy can continue to grow? Let’s make the question open ended… what have they accomplished?

That was May 2007…  

Well, since then, the approval rating for this Congress plunged to a tie for the all time low of 18% in August (compare that to 45% in February 2005) and currently polls in the low to mid 20’s.   Interesting side note… in an ABC News/Washington Post poll, the majority of those polled believe Congress has not accomplished anything and only 25% blame the Democrats…  they do realize the Dems control both Houses, right? (It has to be bugging Reid and Pelosi that President Bush has been polling better than the Dem controlled Congress).

So here we are, 6 months later and this Congress has still accomplished virtually nothing of note.  We are still having ridiculous hearings, arguing over whether the President has the right to fire federal prosecutors.  Congress is still crying that they aren’t being treated as the “co-equal” branch of the government that they are, simply because the President has exercised his veto authority.  And now they came this close ((  )) to blocking the confirmation of a new Attorney General who was hand picked for nomination by Senator Charles Schumer, who apparently has decided to hold his nose and vote for his own candidate for the job.

And why is there so much gnashing of teeth and wringing of hands in the hallowed halls of Congress these days? Nominee Mukasey has refused to declare waterboarding to be a form of torture without having the opportunity to review classified documentation that will not be available to him until he is confirmed. 

Leaky Leahy and Diver Dan Kennedy are incensed since they have already declared that waterboarding is torture and is illegal.  Unfortunately for them, the lawmaking body which views them as <cough> leaders and who actually could make waterboarding illegal, have politely declined to do so,  preferring to carp about Mukasey instead of acting upon there own supposed consciences.

But the fun continues.  Senator Obama chides Senator Clinton for backing a resolution labeling Iran’s Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, presumably opening the door for President Bush to attack Iran.  Senator Clinton fires back that the resolution does not give the president the authority to attack Iran and if Senator Obama felt this was so important, wonders why he didn’t bother to show up and vote against it.  Senator Obama counters with his own resolution to tell the President he can not attack Iran without going to Congress first (which, by the way, is not true), Senator Clinton says the resolution is a waste of time because the first resolution did not give the President authority to attack, but then sends a letter (with 28 other senators… drafted by Senator Pistol Packin’ Jim Webb) to the President to let him know he doesn’t have authority to attack, but Obama does not sign the letter….  following all of this?  I’m not…

If Iran is providing terrorists with weapons to attack our troops in Iraq, and if the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is a terrorist organization, and if we are in a war against Islamic terrorism….  why would we not want to have the option to…  um…  I don’t know…  attack the terrorists?

Oh.. by the way.  None of these resolutions or letters does a damn thing, they are non-binding… kind of like a letter to the editor… gets them on the record, let’s them get it off their chest, but doesn’t really change anything.    And Congress still hasn’t approved any of the annual spending bills for the fiscal year that began Oct. 1, but they have time for all of this stuff.

Speaking of Senators Obama and Clinton, when last we left Senator Obama, he was considering the option of invading Pakistan.  Today we learned that, unlike the proposed resolution to our differences with Pakistan, Senator Obama would solve the minor differences we have with Iran by offering them membership in the WTO and by having direct one-on-one diplomatic negotiations with Adolf Ahmadinejad. On the other hand, we learned that Senator Clinton supports New York Governor Spitzer’s unilateral decision to provide drivers licenses to illegal aliens, unless of course she opposes the idea, but if given the option, she would pretty much just ask that we not ask such hard questions…. after all, it’s not nice to pick on girls.

I sincerely hope that, should the country go insane and elect HRC president, she not pull this weak everyone-is-picking-on-me crap when dealing with the leaders of other countries, friend and foe alike… they’ll eat her (and us) alive.

What if… the United States leaves Iraq victorious instead of in retreat… 

What if… the “surge” works… 

What if… well… what if President Bush leads us to a victory in spite of those in Congress who throw up roadblocks and nonsensical distractions at every turn and seem resigned to a defeat that will lead to victory for them in the polls… 

What if you loved your country so much that you want us to win in Iraq but you love to hate George Bush so much you are ready retreat in shame to prove he is wrong? 

The irrational hatred of George Bush appears to be blinding many and making it nearly impossible to cut through the rhetoric to see the reality.  

But the facts on the ground are indisputable and will, hopefully, seep into the mainstream thinking of the American psyche so that perhaps we can move beyond the irrational doom and gloom surrounding the news about Iraq which is tainting the morale of a country, whose recovery from 9/11 is nothing short of miraculous, and allow us to feel good about our future, even if it does mean a few less votes for the liberal naysayers whose power continuance is so dependent on us feeling like all hope is lost. 

Thanks to Gina Cobb for highlighting a good op-ed in the NY Times that might just serve as a stepping stone to pulling ourselves out of a somewhat self-induced nightmare that is being fed by liberal hypnotists constantly reminding us how bad our lives are today. 

Only excerpting a small piece to pique your interest, but Gina has more or you can visit the NY Times via the link above: 

(By MICHAEL E. O’HANLON and KENNETH M. POLLACK) VIEWED from Iraq, where we just spent eight days meeting with American and Iraqi military and civilian personnel, the political debate in Washington is surreal. The Bush administration has over four years lost essentially all credibility. Yet now the administration’s critics, in part as a result, seem unaware of the significant changes taking place. 

Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with. 

(snip)

Today, morale is high. The soldiers and marines told us they feel that they now have a superb commander in Gen. David Petraeus; they are confident in his strategy, they see real results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference. 

Everywhere, Army and Marine units were focused on securing the Iraqi population, working with Iraqi security units, creating new political and economic arrangements at the local level and providing basic services — electricity, fuel, clean water and sanitation — to the people. Yet in each place, operations had been appropriately tailored to the specific needs of the community. 

(snip)

How much longer should American troops keep fighting and dying to build a new Iraq while Iraqi leaders fail to do their part? And how much longer can we wear down our forces in this mission? These haunting questions underscore the reality that the surge cannot go on forever. But there is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008. 

While not exactly pointing to a stroll in the park that will lead to victory without set backs, this op-ed in the NY Times, no right-wing rag, does indicate we are moving in a better direction. I know I’m rooting for us.

Even if you love hating George Bush, I hope you love your country more. 

Update: Spree over at Wake up America drives home the point… some folks have put all there chips on the US to lose and winning will cost them too much. Just like in sports, if you bet on the other team, the temptation is strong to throw the game.

Who cares how they got there or why they are there?  Al Qaeda is in Iraq, we are in Iraq, nearly seven years ago this nation woke up to a terror war that had been waged as we slept for nearly a decade and vowed to destroy an enemy whose stated objective is to destroy us, so what’s the issue here? It doesn’t take a brain surgeon to figure this out. If we leave Iraq everyone doesn’t shake hands and go to neutral corners, they just take the ground we surrender and move the front closer to our home.

Then again, there is never-President John Kerry’s view:

From AP: In Washington, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., said Bush “is trying to scare the American people into believing that al Qaida is the rationale for continuing the war in Iraq.” But Kerry said Bush presented no new evidence to back that up, and added: “The president is picking the wrong rationale for this war. Al-Qaida is not the principal killer of American forces in Iraq.”

Um… so we should only stay if Al Qaeda kills more American soldiers? I don’t understand his point, but I do know that Al-Qaeda was the principal killer of thousands of Americans on 9/11, so tell us senator, is that rationale enough for us to stay and fight Al-Qaeda in Iraq?

This whole argument over whether Al Qaeda was there before the Iraq war or came to Iraq as a result of the Iraq war is pointless, don’t you think? 

More from AP:

Al-Qaida had no active cells in Iraq when the U.S. invaded in March 2003, and its operation there is much larger now than before the war, U.S. intelligence officers say. The war itself has turned into a valuable recruiting tool for al-Qaida, senior intelligence officials concede. Bush denied that the war triggered al-Qaida’s operations in Iraq.

Who the hell cares how they got there?! This is great news! We found the enemy… go kill them!

As far as Iraq serving as a recruiting tool, aren’t most wars valuable recruiting tools for both sides? I suppose if we surrender to Al-Qaeda there wouldn’t be much reason for them to continue recruiting… we’d all be Muslims or we’d all be dead.

I received the following comment on the An American Hero post and wanted to share it with you:

Here is a letter I wrote the Tennessean about the moving photograph of Christian Golczynski:

(it was not published)

Dear Tennessean:

The Tennessean’s April 5 photograph of young Christian Golczynski accepting the American flag from Marine Lt. Col. Ric Thompson is one of the most moving and emotion provoking images I have ever seen.

I attended funeral services for Christian’s father, Staff Sergeant Marcus Golczynski, on April 4, along with my six year-old son, dozens of Marines, and several hundred others who came to pay tribute to this fallen hero.

As one would expect, many of your readers were touched by this incredible picture. Staff Sergeant Golczynski had previously served one full tour in Iraq. Shortly before his death on March 27 he wrote to his family that he had volunteered to do this a second time due to our deep desire to finish the job we started. In his letter he said, “We fight and sometimes die so that our families don’t have to.” Tragically, Staff Sergeant Golczynski had only two weeks remaining on his second tour. We look at the photograph of Christian every day. It is displayed prominently in our home.

Our hearts ache for Christian and for all those who have lost loved ones in this controversial conflict.

Our nation is at a historical crossroads. Do we call an end to the struggle in Iraq or press on? Staff Sergeant Golczynski eloquently told his son how he felt about not giving up. Perhaps there is a lesson for all of us in this man’s life and the choices he made. He was undeniably a man of tremendous courage and conviction. America must now choose whether to complete the job.

When looking at the face of Christian Golczynski I am reminded that doing what is right is not always easy and doing what is easy is not always right. Christian’s dad knew that too.

James Drescher

Franklin, TN

Thank you James… 

Although it may not receive the local exposure that The Tennessean would have provided, it is now exposed to the search engines of the WEB and may even get picked up by some of my bigger friends out there (hint, hint…  Wake Up America, Bottom Line Up Front, Gina Cobb)

It is good to know that the Democrats in Congress have so much time on their hands that they can continue to introduce legislation that has no chance of surviving a presidential veto for purely political reasons.

Yahoo/Reuters: Clinton, of New York, joined West Virginia Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd to propose October 11, 2007, the five-year anniversary of the original resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq, as the expiration date for that resolution.

The proposal amounted to a new attempt to force Bush to accept a U.S. troop withdrawal timetable, days after he vetoed a $124 billion Iraq war funding bill because it would require him to start pulling out troops this year.

Clinton’s move had the air of political positioning. She has been pounded by the Democratic left for having voted for the war authorization in 2002 and has refused liberal entreaties to apologize for it, saying she would not have voted for it if she knew then what she knows now.

“I think it would be good if we could debate that issue. And it’s something that I will try to set up so that we can have a debate and a vote on it,” Reid told Reuters.

Ummm… hasn’t this already been debated? This is just another way of wording the surrender.

How about you just stop playing games and get back to funding the troops and finding a way to really end this thing?

Oh.. and please, please, please… if you do pass another bill… ask Pelosi to read it BEFORE she votes for it this time so everyone doesn’t have to sit around twiddling their thumbs while she reads the bill after it has been passed.

I received an e-mail today, the kind that looks suspiciously like those chain or SPAM e-mails that have a way of filling up our inboxes… we all get them.

I don’t know about you, but the first thing I do is turn to SNOPES… nope, nothing at SNOPES. Looks like I’m on my own here.

The e-mail refers to letters published in The Tennessean in response to a photo of a little boy.. no.. a photo of a brave young man who has lost his dad. Heartbreaking for sure.

Turns out… the story is real, the e-mail is true.

Staff Sergeant Marcus Golczynski, an American hero, was serving his 2nd tour of duty in Iraq. He volunteered to return for a second tour because “…as warriors have done before us, we joined this organization and are following orders because we believe that what we are doing is right. Many of us have volunteered to do this a second time due to our deep desire to finish the job we started. We fight and sometimes die so that our families don’t have to. Stand beside us. Because we would do it for you. Because it is our unity that has enabled us to prosper as a nation.”

The e-mail mentions letters to the editor using the loss of an American hero as an occasion to slam his Commander in Chief. As you read this letter, keep in mind the words of Staff Sergeant Golczynski.

From the Tennessean website:

In the April 5 letters, Rollow Mickle was once again thumping his war drum and ranting against the “liberals” who dare to take a stand against the war (”Elitists disparage Iraq war and Bush”).

I hope Mr. Mickle eagerly read his letter, then turned to the next section, which contained the heartbreaking photo of young Christian Golczynski fighting back tears as he received the flag from his father’s coffin. He was killed in Iraq.

How many more fatherless children will it take before the Bush supporters admit their mistake? What a sad chapter in American history this unending disaster has become, and what a terrible price these kids have paid. - Mel Davenport

Looks as if there are other letters to the editor with titles like ”A grieving child shows us war is out of control and we must demand answers”; unfortunately the letters have been archived. There were also letters offering prayers, gratitude and support:

From the Tennessean website:

Very few photos have brought tears to my eyes but, when I opened my paper Thursday and saw the photo of Christian Golczynski being presented the folded flag that had been taken from his dad’s coffin moments before my eyes got wet. What a brave face attempting to hide the agony of a broken heart. His dad was proud of him I am sure.

We go about our lives each day pretty much taking for granted the freedoms we enjoy and very seldom do we consider those who paid and are paying the price for us to do so. I am as guilty as anyone else. I’ll tell you one thing though. This photograph has really made me stop and think.

I plan to frame a copy of this photo and place it where I will see it every day of my life so I will be reminded of all those throughout our history who have sacrificed to make it possible for us to live free.

And I don’t mean just the soldiers … I am talking about the families who have lost loved ones in the wars and conflicts our country has been through. Those who lay awake at night wondering if their family member is OK on the other side of Earth. For those who have no idea what happened to their loved one, the MIA.

And a little 8-year-old boy named Christian who will have to grow up with no dad to throw balls with, no dad to go fishing or hunting with, no dad to share holidays with. Yes folks, freedom has a cost, you can see it in the face of this young man.

Who can say who sacrifices most, the soldier, or their family … I am so very grateful to all those who have had a part in myself and my family and friends being able to go about our day to day lives as we wish as free people in a free country.

Thank you Christian and Marc and the rest. - Robert England

Headline annoyance: reading this letter, would you have come up with this headline “Families sacrificing too much in Iraq war”. Doesn’t seem to me the writer was trying to say the families are sacrificing too much. Sacrificing? Yes. But by adding the “too much”, the headline writer tried to make it seem as if the writer is making a statement about the war.

Why on earth the headline writier felt it necessary to spin this into a commentary on the war… but I digress…

This letter is spot on. Read it again… we owe these heroes our support, our prayers, our support… our real support… our support for them AND their mission… or gratitude for their sacrifice of time.. time not spent with family… time not spent with friends… perhaps time not spent living…

Staff Sergeant Golczynski did not give his life in vain. He served his country with honor and stood between the US and our enemies and said “never again”. Never again will we wait for the enemy’s next move. Never again will we hide our heads hoping the bad guys will go away and leave us alone. Never again will we let them take the battle to American shores.

We will fight them in their streets. We will fight them in their homes. We will fight them in dark hideaways as they scurry among the rocks like the lowly rats that they are. And we will defeat them because men like Staff Sergeant Golczynski will not be defeated, as long as the politicians who believe words will shield us from WMDs step aside and lower their white flags of surrender.

When you look at this photo, remember the sacrifice this family has made, remember them in your prayers, but never forget who the real enemy is. On 9/11, we as a nation vowed to never forget. What short memories our new congressional leadership has…

Please keep Staff Sergeant Golczynski’s family in your prayers… and never forget those who serve so that we may sleep safe tonight.