Constitution Monitor:...............Trump...............Biden............... 2021 Congress

Thursday, November 30, 2006

Iran arming Iraqi Militia

Here's a huge surprise! According to a story I read on the ABC News Website, U.S. officials say that they have found "smoking-gun" evidence of Iranian support for terrorists in Iraq!

Well, if they needed to know that, all they had to do was ask anybody with common sense.

Wait, never mind, common sense is becoming hard to come by. Proof is in the pudding, folks. The Left now dominates Congress.

Now that we have proof that Iran is the main support for the powerful militia in Iraq (which seems to also be receiving training from Iranian-backed Hezbollah), the idea of cut and run by the left is rolling even faster. In fact, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki of Iraq said Thursday that he believes the Iraqi Security forces will be ready by June 2007 to take full control of security in Iraq.

You know, this got me to thinking. The left keeps calling the situation in Iraq a civil war. Left wing, and even a few right leaning blogs are calling for the White House to admit that the situation in Iraq has deteriorated into a civil war.

By definition, this is not a civil war. Iraq is a nation attempting to get on its feet after a long bout with a ruthless dictator that has been recently removed, and troops from neighboring nations that have been hostile to Iraq in the past are assisting a criminal element with terroristic tendencies within the nation of Iraq in attacking the fledgling government, the American troops there to assist the government, and anybody supporting the democratic effort hoping to eventually make the Iraqi democratic experiment as impotent as the U.N.

Hardly a civil war.

That would be like calling the illegal immigrant invasion of the United States a civil war.

Bush has insisted that the United States stay until the job is complete. I agree with that, but with one added sentence. After the job is complete, there should continue to be an American presence in Baghdad, as there has been in Japan, Germany, etc.

And I also agree with Bush that "This business about a graceful exit just simply has no realism to it at all."

Graceful Exit. Sweet Abandonment. Caring Desertion. You can be nice about the words all you want. It is still a cut and run, and it is not good for the region, or for the United States.

What message would we be sending to our allies? That we can't be trusted?

I know what message we are sending to our enemies. That's why they arm the Iraqi militias, and pray out loud on airplanes.

Speaking of those six imams escorted off of a plane in Minneapolis after spooking the passengers with prayer to Allah, a commenter on my other political site, A Right Angle in a Left Turn World, said this about that situation:

"How ironic that they are getting the freedom of religion defense, when if the same thing happened, let's say Billy Graham got up on a flight and started praying out loud, he would be accused of imposing his religion on others!"


Anonymous said...

This proxie war stuff with Iran has got to be dealt with. IMO the Iranians are killing our troops. That's an act of war. This country is so lost when they go to the polls and vote the left into enough power to take control of congress. I'm not afraid to say it. I've been saying it: we're in the first phases of WW3 or 4 depending on how you look at the cold war...

The WRONG party is in power and very soon many that voted that way will see that mistake.

It's going to get worse. There's nothing the left can do but speed up the process of a full blown WW3.

Advantage: Our Enemies. The first order of business raising the minimum wage????

Anonymous said...

Guess what, you guys need a civics lesson. It's the Commander in Chief who makes the desicion to drop bombs and wage war. Congress only has the power of the purse strings, and the now outmoded ability to "declair" war. It's called separation of powers.

And guess what, today Malikai asked us to leave Iraq in 7 months. Bush is preparing to cut and run as we speak, using Malalkai as his front man. And Bush won't lift a finger to do anything about this so-called smoking gun, which could yet turn out to be another Jessica Lynch type story, because Bush has recklessly used all his political capital. He cried wolf too many times and the American people aren't having it.

So you're dreams of waging war against Iran will come to naught, but not because of a democratic congress.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Douglas V. Gibbs said...

Mudkitty, you are partly correct. The president can only declare war - but it must be approved by Congress, and a conflict without a declaration of war is a different matter completely. Note to the second part of your comment: Iraq's Prime Minister did not ask us to leave in 7 months. He indicated that he believes that Iraqi Security Forces should be able to hold down the fort independently. We should always have at least a minimal presence. If Bush does pull us out too much too early, it will because he is folding under pressure applied by Congress - and a landslide of events will begin as a result, all not good. The smoking gun won't matter, not because Bush won't do anything because he has no guts as you imply, but because he is concerned about the opinions of people that don't matter. I don't want to wage war on Iran, but I do want to make sure they remain out of business that doesn't concern them. WWIII, however, won't be our choice. I believe that regardless of what we do, Iran will take an aggressive stance and make an aggressive move somewhere which will spiral into an all-out war on the West (it's damn close as it is) and cutting and running will definitely embolden them to do that.

Anonymous said...

I know one thing...

I'll be glad when Ebyjo brings my computer back. Sorry Doug that was my delete. Screwed up. Pecking on fried key sticking keyboard.

Back on topic:

She acts like we never served day one in the military.. LMBO!

...Or combat.

I think we might know alittle about how it works MudKitty appreciate the left wing rant there though.

Anonymous said...

Not exactly, DG - the congress "declairs" war (an arcane formality that's been done away with since Korea) at the urging of the commander in chief (it's in the Constitution, I have it right here.) Only the commander in chief can order a strike, meaning wage the war. But congress can deny a president the money to wage war in the manner he/she sees fit, hense the intended separation of powers (although it's never happened, so far, in our great Nation's history.)

If you don't have a copy of the Constitution handy, you can read it online, although I'm sure you don't need me to tell you that.

Douglas V. Gibbs said...

so what's the point, mudkitty? The enemy knows that our government is in turmoil over this, and they know that the left wants to cut and run, and it is emboldening them now - regardless of who can do what. As long as Bush and a Republican Congress has been in control, they have been worried, so no attacks on the U.S. - However, since the Democratic takeover of Congress, the violence in Iraq has actually increased. Coincidence? And how is it the fault of the U.S.? The militia is funded and trained by Iran. Hmmm, what to do. Tell, me, Mudkitty, what ought to be done? Run away and hope the bad men leave us alone?

Anonymous said...

The point is not to compound a mistake.

You know there's that famous Napoleon quote..."It's not just a crime, it's a mistake."

DG - get a grip, the dems haven't been sworn in. They haven't taken over yet. Don't start sounding like those on other rightwing sites who are basically screeching "It's been 3 weeks already and the dems have done nothing to clean up our mess - oops...I mean solve the problems of the world..."


Now, how to rationally not compound this most dangerous mistake that Bush made at the expense of all of us...? Good question.

Bush is going to cut and run, by your standards. Mark my words. I can see it happening already. Bush said he'd leave Iraq for another presidency to deal with, but you can no longer trust what Bush says. He's going to jump on the Malakais 7 month plan, in order to salvage the '08 elections where 33 republican senators are up for re-election. He doesn't want to go down as the man who killed Reagan's so-called Conservative Movement.

When you make statements like "run away and hope the bad guys go away" it not only sounds somewhat fearful, and childlike, but you are presenting a false dicotomy, and a fallacy. "Bad guys" are never going to go away. Get used to it. Be smart. Don't let your fear run away with you. Don't let people exploit your prejudice nor you pre-concieved notions (cuz believe me, we all have 'em.)

lilfeathers2000 said...

Sorry I am not jumping into this debate guys.
I would only piss someone off.
However its our war and it was delivered to our doorstep on 9/11/01.
Its never been Bush's war. Thats the funny thing about the Democrats now they forget they voted for that war they encouraged that war.
Now they run from those decisions.
Common sense died I read the obit on the internet. Course I don't believe everything I read.


Anonymous said...

re: "Here's a huge surprise!"

What a great opening line. Except I was laughing so hard I found it dificult to read the rest of the article. - Excuse me. I gotta go pee. - Bwwaaaahaaahaaaa!

Anonymous said...

Ok! I'm under control now. What a great posting! You have encapsulated the entire problem in one little post.

Question: why can't the MSM do it as well as you have done?

Answer: You told us that too. "Common sense is becoming hard to come by."

Anonymous said...

Anthers, attacking Iraq for 9/11 is the equivilent of attacking Mexico for Pearl Harbor.

Douglas V. Gibbs said...

No, it is the equivalent of attacking Germany for Pearl Harbor - should we not have? After all, the Germans weren't technically a part of Pearl Harbor. . .

Anonymous said...

The U.S. used Pearl Harbor as a very valid "excuse" to attack Germany because Germany and Japan were allies. Remember? Pearl Harbor was an ingraved invitation to enter WW2.

Saddam was not an in league with Al Quaeda, and when asked that question point blank, Bush, and even Cheney, have been forced to admit that.

Douglas V. Gibbs said...

This is where you people miss it. There are nations, but ultimately with those people it is The Muslim World. They are all allies with each other, and they all belong to the same nation. Islam. Besides, 12,000 al-qaeda were recently reported to be in Iraq. What about Zarqawi? Remember him? High ranking al-qaeda member - in Iraq!

Anonymous said...

Islam is a religion, not a nation, just like Judaism is not Israel.

DG - do your realize how small a number 1200 can be in warfare? Historicly and from a practical standpoint. And where did you get the stat from, an article of World Nut Daily? From Rummy's pentagon? Those geniuses?

Douglas V. Gibbs said...

1200? I didn't say 1200. It's 12,000. 12,000 number came from an Associated Press story on November 11, 2006 - and it isn't an estimate, it is a claim by Al Qaeda. Link: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/10/iraq/main2170851.shtml



I thought you followed the news, mudkitty. Perhaps you are not as informed as you claim to be.

Anonymous said...

DG, are you seriously pretending not to know that was a typo? Come on, you're a bigger man than that?