posted on August 22, 2007 03:32:42 PM new
Imo, the Iraq war has been made a political issue by the liberal left rather than a matter of what is in OUR best interests. AMERICAN'S best interests....all parties included.
This is a great site to read some of what we will face IF we RETREAT from Iraq....as most all the dem candidates running for President are doing.
It is my hope ALL American's would at least become AWARE of the consequences of voting for ANY candidate who is calling for our withdrawal from Iraq at this time.
=============================
Foundation for Defense of Democracies > Publications > The Cost of Withdrawal From Iraq
The Cost of Withdrawal From Iraq
August 15, 2007
In the debate over U.S. policy in Iraq, some argue that an immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces is necessary to preserve American security and prestige. The opposite is more likely. Withdrawing from Iraq prematurely will have detrimental consequences for Americans and Iraqis alike, and will benefit al-Qaeda and other dangerous groups.
The Threat of an al-Qaeda Safe Haven
Note: Al-Qaeda leaders and U.S. military officials alike believe that a quick U.S. withdrawal would result in a political vacuum that the al-Qaeda network would quickly fill, thus establishing a major safe haven from which to expand its jihad in the region and plan attacks against the West.
General Michael Hayden
Director of the CIA
Jan. 18, 2007
I strongly believe [that U.S. failure in Iraq] would lead to al Qaeda with what it is they said is their goal there, which is the foundations of the caliphate, and in operational terms for us, a safe haven from which then to plan and conduct attacks against the West.
*
National Intelligence Estimate
July 17, 2007
We assess that al-Qa’ida will continue to enhance its capabilities to attack the Homeland through greater cooperation with regional terrorist groups. Of note, we assess that al-Qa’ida will probably seek to leverage the contacts and capabilities of al-Qa’ida in Iraq (AQI), its most visible and capable affiliate and the only one known to have expressed a desire to attack the Homeland. In addition, we assess that its association with AQI helps al-Qa’ida to energize the broader Sunni extremist community, raise resources, and to recruit and indoctrinate operatives, including for Homeland attacks.
*
Ayman al-Zawahiri
Letter to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi
Recovered during military operations in Iraq
July 9, 2005
The Jihad in Iraq requires several incremental goals: The first stage: Expel the Americans from Iraq. The second stage: Establish an Islamic authority or emirate, then develop it and support it until it achieves the level of a caliphate -- over as much territory as you can to spread its power in Iraq…. The third stage: Extend the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq. The fourth stage… the clash with Israel… The mujahedeen must not have their mission end with the expulsion of the Americans from Iraq, and then lay down their weapons, and silence the fighting zeal.
The Death Toll Following a Withdrawal
Note: Many analysts have warned that a precipitous withdrawal would lead to massive bloodshed among Iraqis. While it is impossible to determine the exact amount of Iraqis who would die, the consequences are potentially devastating.
John Burns
New York Times Correspondent
July 30, 2007
[T]he sort of figures that were being discussed amongst senior American officials here, as a potential, should there be an early withdrawal and a progress to an all-out civil war, they’re talking about the possibility of as many as a million Iraqis dying.
*
Robert Gates
United States Secretary of Defense
April 6, 2007
I believe if we were precipitously to withdraw from Baghdad at this point, that there would be a dramatic increase in sectarian violence.
*
Natan Sharansky
The Shalem Center
July 8, 2007
A precipitous withdrawal of U.S. forces could lead to a bloodbath that would make the current carnage pale by comparison. Without U.S. troops in place to quell some of the violence, Iranian-backed Shiite militias would dramatically increase their attacks on Sunnis; Sunni militias, backed by the Saudis or others, would retaliate in kind, drawing more and more of Iraq into a vicious cycle of violence.
*
James D. Fearon
Geballe Professor in the School of Humanities and Social Science and Professor of Political Science
Stanford University
September 15, 2006
US withdrawal, whether fast or slow, is indeed likely to cause higher levels of violence and political disintegration in Iraq. But rapid withdrawal would be particularly likely to lead to mass killing of civilians.
Boon to al-Qaeda, and Damage to U.S. Prestige
Note: A precipitous withdrawal from Iraq would significantly damage the U.S.’s reputation, and would make regional actors very hesitant to align themselves with the U.S. in the future. At the same time, it would strengthen al-Qaeda by allowing them to claim that they have now defeated a second superpower on the battlefield.
John Howard
Prime Minister of Australia
November 14, 2006
If the coalition leaves Iraq in circumstances seen as defeat, the ramifications of that throughout the Middle East will be enormous… It will embolden the terrorists and extremists not only there but also in our own region, especially in neighbouring Indonesia… We need to remember what is at stake here, not only for Iraq and the Middle East but also for American power and prestige around the world.
*
Peter Bergen
Author: Holy War Inc. and The Osama bin Laden I Know
May 3, 2007
A rapid withdrawal of all U.S. troops would hurt America's image and hand al Qaeda and other terror groups a propaganda victory that the United States is only a “paper tiger.”
*
Major General Don Sheppard (Ret.)
United States Air Force
May 3, 2007
Everyone wants the troops home -- the Iraqis, the U.S., the world -- but no one wants a precipitous withdrawal that produces a civil war, a bloodbath, nor a wider war in an unstable Mideast... And we do not want a U.S that is perceived as having been badly defeated in the global war on terror or as an unreliable future ally or coalition partner.
*
Steven N. Simon
Council on Foreign Relations
February 2007
Military disengagement will be a severe blow to the United States, which staked its prestige and defined its security on the basis of a war to disarm Iraq and transform its politics. Disengaging will signify the inability to achieve these strategic goals. American resolve will likely be questioned.
*
Michael Duffy
TIME Magazine
July 19, 2007
Even under the rosiest scenarios, the U.S. will suffer a humbling blow to its prestige as it leaves Iraq and the Sunni-Shi’ite civil war intensifies.
*
Marine Corps Commander James Conway
Address at the National Press Club, Washington, DC
July 20, 2007
And if [al-Qaeda is] perceived to have won, you're going to see resources, recruitment, momentum -- all those things that are gained by the winning side -- make it that much tougher.
Regional Spillover
Note: A U.S. defeat in Iraq would allow terrorist and sectarian violence to spill over into other countries in the region.
The Sunday Times (London)
May 13, 2007
“A radical plan by Al-Qaeda to take over the Sunni heartland of Iraq and turn it into a militant Islamic state once American troops have withdrawn is causing alarm among US intelligence officials. . . . According to an analysis compiled by US intelligence agencies, the Islamic State has ambitions to create a terrorist enclave in the Iraqi provinces of Baghdad, Anbar, Diyala, Salah al-Din, Nineveh and parts of Babil… ‘Al-Qaeda are on the way to establish their first stronghold in the Middle East,’ warned an American official. ‘If they succeed, it will be a catastrophe and an imminent danger to Saudi Arabia and Jordan.’”
*
Joost Hiltermann
International Crisis Group
December 13, 2006
Clearly, Saudi Arabia wants to send a signal to the United States that any precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, meaning a withdrawal that would not leave in place stable structure could be very dangerous for Saudi Arabia, and may force it to intervene in order to prevent Iran’s influence in the region from expanding.
*
Major General (retired) Don Sheppard
United States Air Force
May 3, 2007
Iraq's neighbors would be drawn into the all-out civil war likely if U.S. forces left too quickly. Iran could move in to further strengthen its influence in southern Iraq; Turkey likely would move against the Kurds in the north; and Saudi Arabia would be inclined to take action to protect Sunnis in western Iraq.
*
James Jay Carafano and James Phillips
The Heritage Foundation
July 17, 2007
Several National Intelligence Estimates have pointed out the grave implications of a rapid withdrawal of U.S. forces -- not only for Iraq but for the entire region, due to the destabilizing spillover effects of a failed Iraqi state. Congress has also been warned by Iraqi officials of the consequences of a premature withdrawal.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Aug 22, 2007 03:35 PM ]
posted on August 22, 2007 04:16:01 PM new
Today: August 22, 2007 at 8:30:6 PDT
Bush: Leaving Iraq Would Be Devastating
KANSAS CITY (AP) -
President Bush says U.S. withdrawal from Iraq "without getting job done" would be devastating. In a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars National Convention, Bush said Iraq is central front in war on terror.
Earlier today, the White House sought to dispel the impression left by President Bush that he was distancing himself from embattled Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in advance of a new assessment of the war and conditions in Iraq.
Bush on Tuesday had offered a tepid endorsement of the Iraqi government, expressing frustration at the lack of progress and saying it was up to the Iraqi people to decide whether to replace those in power. The remark brought an angry response from al-Maliki who said, "No one has the right to place timetables on the Iraq government. It was elected by its people."
The White House set out to reframe Bush's comment and the way it was interpreted.
National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said the president's words were not intended to signal a withdrawal of support for al-Maliki. As a result of the heavy media coverage of his remarks at the North American summit in Canada, Bush will insert a direct line of support for al-Maliki in his speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars conference, Johndroe said.
"Prime Minister Maliki knows where the president stands," Johndroe told reporters ahead of Bush's speech. The spokesman said that after Bush's comments in Canada, the White House had tried to make clear Bush was not distancing himself from Maliki.
"It appears that did not come through for whatever reason," Johndroe said.
When they met in Jordan last November, the president called al-Maliki "the right guy for Iraq." Now, he continually prods al-Maliki to do more to forge political reconciliation before the temporary military buildup ends.
The flap over al-Maliki stole the spotlight from Bush's attempt to compare the war in Iraq to U.S. involvements in Asia that lost popular backing but eventually proved their worth and led to lasting peace.
"The ideals and interests that led America to help the Japanese turn defeat into democracy are the same that lead us to remain engaged in Afghanistan and Iraq," Bush said in advance excerpts of Wednesday's VFW speech.
"The defense strategy that refused to hand the South Koreans over to a totalitarian neighbor helped raise up an Asian Tiger that is a model for developing countries across the world, including the Middle East," Bush said.
Bush often uses historical comparisons in urging patience on Iraq, but White House aides hope a specific focus on Asia will get skeptics to rethink their positions on Iraq and get beyond the daily, violent setbacks there.
Bush even cites Vietnam as a cautionary tale for those urging troop withdrawals today.
"Three decades later, there is a legitimate debate about how we got into the Vietnam War and how we left," Bush said. "Whatever your position in that debate, one unmistakable legacy of Vietnam is that the price of America's withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens whose agonies would add to our vocabulary new terms like 'boat people,' 're-education camps' and 'killing fields.'"
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., quickly dismissed Bush's position.
"President Bush's attempt to compare the war in Iraq to past military conflicts in East Asia ignores the fundamental difference between the two," he said. "Our nation was misled by the Bush administration in an effort to gain support for the invasion of Iraq under false pretenses, leading to one of the worst foreign policy blunders in our history."
Bush's speech at the VFW is the first in a planned two-punch combo.
After comparing the current war against extremists with the militarists of Japan and the communists in Korea and Vietnam in Wednesday's speech, he plans to discuss the war in Iraq in the context of its implications for the broader Middle East in a speech next Tuesday at the annual American Legion convention in Reno, Nev.
The president's address at the convention was preceded by a two-day parade of presidential hopefuls and Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, who addressed the group Monday.
Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, are to report to Congress before Sept. 15 about the impact of the troop buildup that Bush ordered in January. Their report will provide the basis for Bush's decisions about the way forward in Iraq.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
UNTIL old 'admit defeat - withdrawal from Iraq and let it be another terrorist haven, reid can prove his continuing LIES about our President.....UNTIL he actually takes ACTION, rather than just giving more opinions to the press....he can CLAIM he was mislead...but that's NOT PROOF of any such NONSENSE.
THEY have no proof....just more political 'talk' they're so famous for.
Let their put SOME/ANY proof forward, start impeachment proceedings IF they REALLY believe that was the case. THEN when they have to provide PROOF rather than their 'opinions' they can take some ACTION against our CIC.
Until then it's just MORE of their HOT AIR.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on August 22, 2007 05:53:35 PM new
All of this is so obvious to anybody who went to high school, it is downright scary that the whack pack members here respond with the "why would they do that..(blink, blink)?"
