http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=10463

Quote :

"Withdrawal Is Not an Option by Rep. Sam Johnson Posted Nov 23, 2005 I spent 29 years in the Air Force--served in Korea and Vietnam--and spent seven years as a POW in Vietnam--more than half of that time in solitary confinement. I know what it’s like to be far from home--serving your country, risking your life, and hearing that America doesn’t care about you. Your Congress doesn’t care about you. Your Congress just cut all funding for your war. They’re packing up and going home--and leaving you here. When I was a POW, I was scared to death when our Congress talked about pulling the plug that I would be left there forever. I know what it does to morale--I know what it does to the mission--and so help me God, I will never, ever let our nation make those mistakes again. Never. Our men and women in uniform need our full support. They need to know that when they’re in Iraq driving from Camp Blue Diamond to Camp Victory that the Congress is behind them--to give them the best armored trucks they can drive, the best weapons they can fire, and the best ammunition they can use. They need to have full faith that a few naysayers in Washington won’t cut and run--and leave them high and dry. They need to know these things because that’s mandatory for mission success and troop morale. America--and the Congress--must stand behind our men and women in uniform because they stand up for us every minute of every day! Any talk--even so much as a murmur--of leaving now just emboldens the enemy and weakens the resolve of our of troops in the field. That’s dangerous! We’re making great progress in Iraq. Remember in January how we saw pictures from Iraq of that first election. For weeks the media predicted gloom and doom. Remember that? What did we see? We watched people as they waited in lines for hours--defying death threats--just to cast their vote for democracy. Remember the picture of the woman in a black head cover flashing her purple finger in the V after voting in the first Iraqi elections. It was a breakthrough for democracy--and it was just the beginning. Remember the recent vote on the referendum--when people came out in droves to make their voice heard. You wouldn’t have known about it because there was so little mention of it here in the American press--but people got out there and they voted--they showed their support for a democracy, a new government, hope and a future. These people are thirsting for something more--they’re risking their lives in the name of a new government, and we must stay the course if we want to foster a stable Iraq and create hope for millions in the Middle East. And our work is paying off--not just at the ballot box. Remember when we were waking up that Sunday morning in shock as we caught Saddam Hussein cowering in a rat-hole. He’s gone. And you know what, at least 46 of Hussein’s 55 most wanted regime members are either dead or incarcerated. Nationwide, thousands and thousands of police officers have been hired and nearly 200,000 Iraqi soldiers are trained and serving their country. It’s going to take time--but our guys on the ground are working with other nations to make inroads to create leadership and inspire democracy in a country that has only known hate, fear, and death from a ruler. However, sadly, some members of Congress want to embolden the enemy by saying we just cut and run. That’s just irresponsible and unconscionable. I have to ask: What would Iraq be like if the United States pulled out--allowing dangerous people like the head of al Qaeda, Zarqawi, to run the country? What would that mean for the region? The world? Al Qaeda rules with death, fear, terror and blood. Al Qaeda takes innocent people hostage--then beheads them--and then brags about it on the Internet. Al Qaeda has no respect for human life. They prey on innocent people to do their dirty work - because they know we don’t target schools and hospitals and mosques--yet those are the exact places that they’re using for safe cover. Al Qaeda will kidnap loved ones, especially very young children, of people trying to build democracy, like local leaders, to scare them out of helping out the new country. They’re taking kids hostage because parents want a new life and a better future for their children. Why is that such a crime? What part of al Qaeda do you want operating here in America? Al Qaeda is a world-wide organization and world-wide threat. I don’t want any part of this. Americans don’t want, need or deserve al Qaeda. Our troops are over in Iraq fighting not just for our freedom and protection--but freedom for the world. We must fight the bad guys over there--not over here. We must support our troops to the hilt so they don’t go to bed at night--covered in talcum-powder thin white sand wondering, “Does America really support me?” In case people have forgotten, this is the same thing that happened in Vietnam. Peaceniks and people in Congress--and America--started saying bad things about what was going on over there. Let me tell you what it did for troop morale. It’s a real downer. I just pray our troops and their families can block this noise out and know that I will fight like mad to make sure our troops have everything they need--for as long as they need--to win the global war on terrorism. Withdrawal is not an option! Mr. Johnson (R.) represents the 3rd District of Texas. He served in the U.S. Air Force for 29 years, flying combat missions in both the Korean and Vietnam Wars. He was a prisoner of war in Hanoi for nearly seven years. "

[Edited on November 24, 2005 at 9:06 AM. Reason : ]

11/24/2005 9:05:30 AM

so...a bunch of talking points like

"lets not cut and run"

"they did this to veitnam"

qualifies as a post?

Quote :

"However, sadly, some members of Congress want to embolden the enemy by saying we just cut and run."

strawman



[Edited on November 24, 2005 at 9:43 AM. Reason : -]

11/24/2005 9:40:21 AM

An article from a US Congressman has a lot more weight than anonymous leftwing blog propaganda and deserves its own post.

11/24/2005 9:42:58 AM

He starts 5 paragraphs with

Quote :

"Al Qaeda"

its just the same propaganda. trying to make use think that a bunch of nationals in Iraq can threaten homeland secuirity. i dont see many getting on planes and flying to washington. which would suggest, they dont give a damn about our homeland.



[Edited on November 24, 2005 at 9:46 AM. Reason : -]

11/24/2005 9:45:15 AM

The congressman makes a good point. Would you rather that we invite the fight against Al Qaeda here to the United States by embolding them if we do leave Iraq unfinished or should we carry the fight to them, keeping their efforts bottled up in a foreign land?

And by the way, the insurgents are not nationals. They are international terrorists. They care just as much about the people of Iraq as, well, you do.

[Edited on November 24, 2005 at 9:48 AM. Reason : more]

11/24/2005 9:47:48 AM

They know they would do more damage if they attacked the mainland. If they wanted to hurt the US, they would do that. But they dont. That is proof that there is no threat to the US from anyone in Iraq.

All they would have to do is fly to mexico, buy a gun, and walk across the border.

11/24/2005 9:50:36 AM

Quote :

"anonymous leftwing blog propaganda"

This is simply nonanonymous rightwing blog propaganda. You god damn rightwing blog propagandist.

11/24/2005 9:51:28 AM

It's hard to attack the US when they're constantly on the run. Keeping them on the defensive keeps them out of the United States.

As for our lax border control, that's a whole different argument but I agree with your sentiment with regards to the dangers that it poses.

11/24/2005 9:52:10 AM

Quote :

"It's hard to attack the US when they're constantly on the run. Keeping them on the defensive keeps them out of the United States."

You have dodged my point. Its not hard to attack. You clearly must know this, but youve decided to twist yourself into a partisan pretzel to avoid the truth.

IF THERE WERE TERRORISTS IN IRAQ THAT WANTED TO INFLICT HARM ON AMERICAN, THEY WOULD FLY TO AMERICAN AND KILL CIVILANS

you have no response. just mindless talking points. they kill the troops in Iraq becuase they hate occupiers, which, i dont know, makes sense.

IF THERE WERE TERRORISTS IN IRAQ THAT WANTED TO INFLICT HARM ON AMERICAN, THEY WOULD FLY TO AMERICAN AND KILL CIVILANS



[Edited on November 24, 2005 at 9:57 AM. Reason : -]

11/24/2005 9:54:56 AM

Speaking of propaganda, nice pic in your gallery, SaabTurbo.

http://brentroad.com/photos/00415322.jpg

Credibility = zero

Good day.

11/24/2005 9:55:39 AM

Defending their own backyards is obviously taking precedent. Our security measures in this country has helped as well. It's not like they haven't tried to attack. Keeping them on the defensive instead of being able to pull another 9/11 is the best way to keep them out of this country.

Besides, they're called insurgents for a reason. BECAUSE MAYBE THEY'RE NOT FROM IRAQ BUT CROSSING OVER FROM SYRIA AND IRAN.

[Edited on November 24, 2005 at 9:59 AM. Reason : ]

11/24/2005 9:57:41 AM

Quote :

"Defending their own backyards is obviously taking precedent. "

You said these were internation terrorists, not Iraqi nationals.

Quote :

" It's not like they haven't tried to attack."

WTF? Show me a report of an Iraqi trying to attack homeland

Quote :

"Keeping them on the defensive instead of being able to pull another 9/11 is the best way to keep them out of this country. "

But we didnt attack terrorists you moron. We attacked Iraq. You do know that, right?

Quote :

"Besides, they're called insurgents for a reason. BECAUSE MAYBE THEY'RE NOT FROM IRAQ BUT CROSSING OVER FROM SYRIA AND IRAN."

Ummm...again, we are trying to stop terrorists attacks, youve just admitted that all the Iraqi war has done is made those that hate us come attack us in Iraq. If they were terrorists, they would come attack america.

[Edited on November 24, 2005 at 10:02 AM. Reason : -]

11/24/2005 10:00:52 AM

The insurgents are international terrorists that are associated with Al Qaeda. Do you not watch the news?

The terrorists have concentrated their efforts in Iraq making it easier to locate and kill them.

I am not talking about Iraqi nationals. However, you are confusing them with the insurgents.

You act as if Al Qaeda hasn't been trying to attack this country from within. That simply isn't the case. Spreading their resources thin has made it a lot tougher.

[Edited on November 24, 2005 at 10:04 AM. Reason : ]

11/24/2005 10:02:59 AM

Quote :

"The insurgents are international terrorists that are associated with Al Qaeda."

Just like Iraq has 20 nukes and 35 different WMD programs.

Quote :

"The terrorists have concentrated their efforts in Iraq making it easier to locate and kill them. "

No evidence anywhere of this.

Show me evidence that a terrorist who was planning to attack the US decided to instead kill our soldiers in Iraq

SHOW ME

show me one tiny piece of credible evidence.

Show me and i will pledge total support for the war.

[Edited on November 24, 2005 at 10:07 AM. Reason : 0]

11/24/2005 10:04:22 AM

MAYBE I SHOULD USE MY MAGICAL POWERS TO STEAL AL QAEDA INTEL SO I CAN TELL YOU WHERE THEY WERE PLANNING THEIR NEXT ATTACK IN THE UNITED STATES

You are a moron if you think that I can get inside the minds of a terrorist and tell you where they are going to attack next.

Do you really think that Al Qaeda and those associated with them are not working on ways to attack this country from within?

[Edited on November 24, 2005 at 10:07 AM. Reason : ]

11/24/2005 10:07:25 AM

You have failed. You admit there is no way to back the "we are fighting them over there, so we dont have to face them hear" statement.

Its all just partisan rhetoric.

11/24/2005 10:08:59 AM

You want the name of a terrorist who would rather bring the fight here to the United States but instead has concentrated his efforts in Iraq? I give you Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who aided in funding 9/11, if he's alive is currently in Iraq. He was a part of 9/11 for Heaven's sake. Is that not reason enough to keep people like him bottled up in Iraq?

I win.



[Edited on November 24, 2005 at 10:25 AM. Reason : ]

11/24/2005 10:11:28 AM

gee i thought the mastermind was bin laden.

Quote :

"He first appeared in Iraq as the leader of the Tawhid and Jihad insurgent group"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3483089.stm

you lose. try again.



[Edited on November 24, 2005 at 10:15 AM. Reason : =]

11/24/2005 10:13:27 AM

Quote :

"Speaking of propaganda, nice pic in your gallery, SaabTurbo. http://brentroad.com/photos/00415322.jpg Credibility = zero Good day."

I was making fun of your choice of words dumbass, not trying to make an actual point. Not only that, but I don't get so damn worked up that I start scanning through your photo gallery for any sort of evidence to support my own statement. That picture is funny, and it's going to stay in my gallery.




Who would take this shit seriously?

Quote :

"This is simply nonanonymous rightwing blog propaganda. You god damn rightwing blog propagandist."

[Edited on November 24, 2005 at 10:36 AM. Reason : ]

11/24/2005 10:35:28 AM

Cause and effect. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is the head of Al Qaeda in Iraq. Al Qaeda is an international terrorist organization. Did you miss the bombings in Jordan and the latest attack that was thwarted in Australia?

Now answer this for me - do you think that Al Qaeda would rather be planning and concentrating its efforts against the United States by attacking this country from within or would they rather fight a defensive front in Iraq? Our military presence in Iraq has forced them to change their strategy. That doesn't mean that they still are not planning more attacks against the United States. The hotels in Jordan were American owned and attacked for that symbolic purpose. Their resources (and the fact that we've killed a bunch of insurgents) have been seriously strained.

11/24/2005 10:51:02 AM

Quote :

"Speaking of propaganda, nice pic in your gallery, SaabTurbo. http://brentroad.com/photos/00415322.jpg Credibility = zero Good day."

11/24/2005 11:10:34 AM

Yes, because a Sore Loserman sign is just as bad as comparing Bush to Hitler!

Besides, you have little room for wiggling, pryderi.

http://brentroad.com/photos/00369089.jpg

11/24/2005 11:15:11 AM

Quote :

"Cause and effect. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is the head of Al Qaeda in Iraq. "

Maybe. In case you havent been paying attention, our intellegence on Iraq shouldnt really be taken seriously.

Quote :

"Did you miss the bombings in Jordan and the latest attack that was thwarted in Australia? "

So...us getting our best and bravest killed in Iraq was suppose to prevent this? Becuase....they didnt.

Quote :

"do you think that Al Qaeda would rather be planning and concentrating its efforts against the United States by attacking this country from within or would they rather fight a defensive front in Iraq?"

They would rather kill our civilians. 9-11 is the only thing that stirred our country up at all. they know this.

Quote :

"Their resources (and the fact that we've killed a bunch of insurgents) have been seriously strained."

Their greatest resource is the civil hatred for america in the middle east. It has been fueled, not strained.


[Edited on November 24, 2005 at 11:20 AM. Reason : -]

11/24/2005 11:18:57 AM

Quote :

"Yes, because a Sore Loserman sign is just as bad as comparing Bush to Hitler! Besides, you have little room for wiggling, pryderi. http://brentroad.com/photos/00369089.jpg"

Just pointing out the stupidity of your previous statement.

[Edited on November 24, 2005 at 11:26 AM. Reason : .]

11/24/2005 11:26:35 AM

Stupidity is comparing Bush to Hitler.

Even equating a Sore/Loserman sign with such vitrolic hyperbole is beyond pathetic.

[Edited on November 24, 2005 at 11:29 AM. Reason : ]

11/24/2005 11:28:09 AM

It's not impossible to draw parallels.

Your hatred of democrats is well-known, therefore I shall dismiss all of your arguments.

[Edited on November 24, 2005 at 11:31 AM. Reason : ]

11/24/2005 11:30:29 AM

My immense dislike of liberals is well known, not that you should be surprised that your sweeping generalization is wrong. Being a Democrat does not equal being a leftwing loon. I even doubt that the Democrat Party is to your liking, pryderi.

[Edited on November 24, 2005 at 11:39 AM. Reason : I can't hate those I pity]

11/24/2005 11:38:24 AM

True. The Democratic party is more like "republican lite". Nixon would be a left-wing loonie in today's political climate.

11/24/2005 11:41:09 AM

wlfpk is catholic.............cred gone

11/24/2005 12:42:31 PM

Change catholic to muslim and every liberal on this thread would be all over you. But picking on Christians is ok.

11/24/2005 12:45:13 PM

I'm not picking on your religion. I'm picking on your willful ignorance of facts and lack of sources in your statements.

11/24/2005 12:49:29 PM

^ HAHAHAHA you of all people talking about sources.

HAHAHAHAHA *snort snort* HAHAHAHAHAHA

I have plenty of credible sources. Leftwing loon blogs are not sources, pryderi. Sorry to be the last one to let you in on that little tidbit.

11/24/2005 12:53:10 PM

Washington Post, Fox News, CNN, NY Times are "left wing loon" blogs?

11/24/2005 1:00:51 PM

naw muslims suck too

11/24/2005 1:21:54 PM

i mean, i willingly admit that the reason the middle east is so fucked up is because they follow a fucked up set of rules

11/24/2005 4:11:28 PM

Quote :

"You want the name of a terrorist who would rather bring the fight here to the United States but instead has concentrated his efforts in Iraq? I give you Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who aided in funding 9/11, if he's alive is currently in Iraq. He was a part of 9/11 for Heaven's sake. Is that not reason enough to keep people like him bottled up in Iraq?"

ahahaha

al-Zarqawi is a bad guy, doubtless

but whatever happened to that Osama Bin Laden fellow?
remember, his name ISN'T Saddam Hussein

---
btw, liberalism is the reason you have social security, medicare and medicaid
but I guess you hate those

[Edited on November 24, 2005 at 4:30 PM. Reason : -]

11/24/2005 4:29:12 PM

don't forget relatively clean water and safety standards

11/24/2005 4:47:50 PM

Name me something that the left has done in the past 40 years there, snewf.

11/24/2005 5:19:56 PM

there?
where?

here?

also, what do you mean by left?

11/24/2005 5:50:25 PM

left = liberal

You are right about one thing, in principle I do disagree with social security but not so much medicare and medicaid although the private sector is far more competent when it comes to health care coverage.

11/24/2005 5:52:37 PM

but what does "liberal" mean?

Dictionary.com defines it as such:

lib·er·al
adj.

Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.

Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.

Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.

Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.

Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.

Not strict or literal; loose or approximate: a liberal translation.

Of, relating to, or based on the traditional arts and sciences of a college or university curriculum: a liberal education.

Archaic. Permissible or appropriate for a person of free birth; befitting a lady or gentleman.
Obsolete. Morally unrestrained; licentious.

11/24/2005 5:58:09 PM

im pretty liberal in my farting

11/24/2005 6:07:40 PM

i've been quite liberal making my turkey sandwiches tonight

11/24/2005 7:05:46 PM

Quote :

" Withdrawl is not an option"

unless we change our mind

11/24/2005 7:31:42 PM

Quote :

"Withdrawl is not an option"

Yes. If you keep injecting the Heroin you won't have to worry about withdrawl.

(While we are talking about alternative definitions.)

I believe Wlfpk4Life is too dependably neo-con to come up with any new insights. Time will tell, but it doesn't look good.

11/24/2005 7:55:45 PM

i think the real problem is that its obvious that in the time bush has been in office the country has gone to shit yet there are still republicans that think republicans are better than democrats

11/24/2005 8:33:04 PM

i mean

in another thread he is extolling rumsfeld for telling us we can start leaving soon

and by the way

he quotes some rep here
but tells us we can't quote Murtha

Murtha > Johnson

fuck Wlfpk4Life

11/24/2005 9:25:02 PM

he is a sneaky bastard

11/24/2005 9:51:20 PM

Has debate in the Soap Box denigrated so much that we're using people's Photo Galleries as fodder for debate?

Lord.

11/24/2005 9:51:22 PM

i miss packguy

thats a republican i could handle

11/24/2005 10:15:06 PM