Democrats Need An “Exit Strategy” From Congress, Not Iraq
I was happy to see President Bush, in his State of the Union Address, make it perfectly clear to the Democrats that in essences - there will be no defeatist style "exit strategy" in Iraq. We intend to win this war and are not going to embolden the enemy by telling him when we will leave. “When Iraq is totally free and secure, then we can bring the troops home“, Bush said. Isn't that just what I said in my Sept. 19, 2004 article "Exit Strategy"? An "exit strategy" is only needed if you do not intend to win the war, that’s why we needed one in Vietnam. What we really need is an “Exit Strategy” for Democrats to get out of Congress.
Obviously, if Democrats were in power, this war would not be won, at least not by the U.S. and her allies. There would be an "exit strategy" and we would pull out and surrender the country to the terrorists on the appointed date. All the insurgents would have to do is to go into hiding until our departure, then come back out of the woodwork and simply take over by force, fear, and intimidation. That was the strategy they tried when we invaded Iraq but they made the mistake of thinking we would get out before the country was secure. When we didn't, they then thought they could scare us away like they did with Spain. Now they know we aren't going to leave until they have surrendered, left the country, or have all been killed.
Once again, President Bush has not only stared down the terrorists, but has also sent the message to the Democratic Party to just forget about their "exit strategy", and their attempts to encourage the enemy with anti-war rhetoric. Where was the “exit strategy” for France and Germany? Where was the “exit strategy” for Japan? Where was the “exit strategy” for Korea? There wasn’t any because an exit was never the goal, just as it is not the goal in Iraq. Democrats have been unsuccessfully trying to make it the goal. They don’t really care if this war is won or lost, just as long as we get out of it. When it became clear that we were not going to have a clear victory in Vietnam, we developed an “exit strategy” to extract our troops. Democrats seem to think that war should be treated like some tv contest show complete with a storyboard schedule and scripted ending. They’ve been listening to Michael Moore for too long.
On the day after the State of the Union Address, Ted Kennedy was asking “when are Iraqis going to start defending their country and shedding their own blood instead of the Americans doing it all?”. Can you believe the ignorance of this clown? Doesn’t he even know that Iraqis did half of the fighting in Fallujah, and more of their police and security forces are now dying in the streets than Americans, and have been for quite some time? In fact, attacks on American troops have dropped significantly in recent months since the Fallujah Operation, Iraqi defenders are now taking the brunt of the attacks.
Has Kennedy completely lost his grip on reality? Perhaps the re-election of President Bush was just too much for him and it pushed him right over the edge. I cannot understand how a US Senator can be so ill-informed about such an important issue that he is the biggest critic of, or perhaps that is why he is the biggest critic… he doesn‘t know the facts or even what it‘s all about. If ever there was a case of someone shooting off his mouth when he doesn’t know what he’s talking about, it is Ted Kennedy in front of the US Senate and the press.
What does this say about the people in Massachusetts who elected him to represent them? No wonder they voted for John Kerry with their warped view of reality. This is the result of the left wing anti-American propaganda that got started during the campaigns and now even those who created it are believing it. They’ve chosen to ignore the threat of terrorism, they see no connection between terrorism and Saddam Hussein, and they don’t understand why we are fighting a war in Iraq. They’ve become placid and submissive to the propaganda that says all this is totally unnecessary but stop short of saying that Saddam Hussein should still be in power. “We didn’t find his WMD yet, so therefore he didn’t have any and was in full compliance with UN resolutions“. All other justifications for the invasion have been thrown out and ignored by the left so a war there just doesn‘t make any sense to them.
They are still saying we should have left after toppling the Hussein regime and stick to the claim that we are fighting against the Iraqi people now. They make no distinction between the people of Iraq and the terrorist insurgents who oppose Democracy. Was toppling Saddam the end of the mission in Iraq? No. It might have been easier to complete the mission of rebuilding a democratic government if it weren’t for the insurgency but no one could have predicted that. Since the resistance adopted the tactics of terrorism, and imported terrorists from other Islamic countries, our involvement there had to be extended beyond what was planned under less hostile conditions. We are not going to cut and run now as liberals are demanding, and leave the Iraqi people at the mercy of terrorism.
Should we expect anything more from Kennedy? A man who never worked a day in his life, entered the military in 1951 and left two years later still a private. Got into Congress on his namesake, rather than any accomplishments, and has sat there for the past 42 years doing nothing but thinking up new ways to spend our money. He’s never lived in the real world so why would we expect him to know anything about what it is really like? As a Democrat, he claims to represent the working and lower class people but he has no clue what it means to be a working class or lower class person. The closest he has ever come to it is in giving instructions to his housekeeper, gardener, and servants. As an elitist, he sees his constituents as peons and himself as being their ruler and financial manager (because they’re too dumb to know how to spend their own money). Politically, he indoctrinates them into an ideology that was never developed in the real world and is based only on his perception of them from his lofty perch in Washington. If you’re not a US Senator, then you must be a child and need government to take care of you.
Kennedy, along with his, hypocritical, liberal colleagues pretend to care about the troops in Iraq, but they don’t. If they did, they would give them encouragement and support instead of trying to demoralize them with statements like “our military is the problem in Iraq”, “their mission is a mistake“, “they are bogged down in a quagmire”, the “insurgency is growing stronger”, and “their Commander in Chief is a liar and misled them into an immoral war”. All of these statements have been said by Kenney and non of them are true. This shows anything but support. It shows complete and utter contempt and hatred for them, their Commander, and their mission. It offers nothing but encouragement and support for the enemy who our troops, and the Iraqis, are giving their lives to defeat. The Kennedycrats use their psuedo caring for the troops as a diversion in trying to end the war before it’s won. To them, the goal here is not in winning the war, but in bringing the troops home where they won’t have to do what they enlisted for and have trained to do. We can’t be risking the lives of our soldiers in a war! So what do the Kennedycrats think we have armies for? To build tent cities for the homeless?
To them, every military action now is another Vietnam which they hate, not only because of the hell that it was, but also because it was their party that created the mess in the first place by sending in combat troops and mismanaging the war from Washington with Kennedy’s brother and to a larger extent, Lyndon Johnson. Are they feeling guilty about the 50,000 who died there or just ashamed of their inability to conduct a war? They love to complain about the 1400 who died in “Bush’s war” but never mention the 50,000 who died in the “Kennedy/Johnson” war. They proved then that Democrats are no longer capable of handling National Defense, and they’re proving it again today with their comments on Iraq. Democrats are in full agreement with Jacques Chirac… “War always means defeat”. For them, it always does ever since WWII. That’s why there was no war under Carter or Clinton. They preferred to appease and ignore the threats from enemies and let them continue to grow until they exploded into buildings in New York. At least they could leave office and say they preserved the peace during their administration. But at what cost?
We’re seeing a different President Bush in his second term than we did in his first. Without the need for worry about reelection, Bush can now concentrate on doing what has to be done for the country. He’s standing up to the media and to the Democrats and knows he has the power now to do it. The Democrats had the opportunity to take on the important issues during the nineties but instead, elected a president who was more interested in his sex life, career, and legacy than in doing what was needed for the country. Bush tried working with the left in his first term but now knows better than to expect any support and cooperation from them. He knows what needs fixing and his administration knows how to fix them, and will, in spite of Democrat obstructionists. We should all thank Mr. Clinton for passing on the real challenges to President Bush, a man who is not afraid to tackle and resolve them. Challenges like terrorism, social morality, preserving the business climate that built this country, and Social Security, a program in desperate need of change but until now, no president has had the guts to touch it.
They call it the “third rail” of politics with reference to the deadly third rail of a subway train charged with 480 volts, touch it and you’re dead. But President Bush isn’t afraid to touch it. He has nothing to loose and knows it needs fixing. If the third rail of a subway train is broken, it has to be fixed or the trains will run out of power and stop. Although Social Security is not in “crisis” mode yet, the president knows it will be before too long if it’s not repaired now. Democrats would prefer to wait until it becomes a crisis before doing anything but by then, it would be not just a crisis, but a disaster. It was the same with Iraq. If left alone, Saddam Hussein would have become a disaster for America, he had to be stopped before becoming an “eminent threat”, that is exactly what President Bush said and he was right.
When scientists talk about the possibility of an asteroid hitting our planet, they suggest the best defense is in attacking the celestial body as early as possible by nudging it into a different trajectory. If it’s hit early enough, it only requires a slight change in direction to avoid a disaster down the road. The same is true of the Social Security System. A small change now will result in saving the system from disaster years down the road. By investing some of the money in private security accounts, that money not only grow to five times what it’s worth today, but can also be passed onto other family members as a nest egg to build for their retirement. Today’s Social Security doesn’t grow and returns no interest.
When it was created seventy years ago, there were sixteen workers paying in for every retiree collecting benefits, today there are only three. In thirteen years there will be more money going out than is coming in and by the time today‘s young people retire, their benefits will be cut by twenty five percent or more. What will $1200 a month be worth in 30 years? Not much more than bread and beer money. The Democrats solution to the problem… raise your taxes, drastically, but not until it becomes a crisis. In the mean time, they can find plenty of other reasons for tax increases.
Why do Democrats oppose the more sensible solution that Bush has proposed? For one reason, they seem to dislike private enterprise and don’t want your money going there. This is not surprising for a Democrat party that has become more of a Socialist party in recent years. For another, and I think likely the larger reason, is that with your money in private investments, Congressional Democrats no longer have control over it to spend as they wish. This is a source of resentment and anger on their part as it means less money and power in their hands.
What President Bush has proposed is a good and sound plan and has worked well in other Capitalist societies as well as in Galveston Texas which has opted out of the Social Security System altogether in favor of private investments. Their retirees are now getting $4000 a month instead of the $1500 a month Social Security would be paying them. I wish this plan had been in effect when I was a young man, then I wouldn’t be worried about my retirement now. The ones who are threatened most by a failing a Social Security System now, will be the lucky ones if Bush gets his plan approved. It’s going to be an interesting four years in politics.
To see other Newsletter articles, JOIN the mailing list, or be REMOVED from the list go to
PLEASE NOTE: Email addresses used for this newsletter are not authorized for use in group mailing lists from your address book under any circumstances. Thank you for your cooperation. You are welcome to post Techniguy's Newsletters to groups and forward them to others on your mailing list.