January 11, 2007

DEMS SING PRAISES FOR AMERICA’S ACHIEVEMENTS IN IRAQ (and More Thoughts on the GWB Speech)

The official Democrat response to GWB's speech, delivered by Dick Durbin, in large part consisted of warning the Iraq government that we aren't going to be there forever and that they have to work hard to gain control of the situation. That's fine with me. And notice how he was actually singing the praises of America's achievements in Iraq:

We have deposed their dictator. We dug him out of a hole in the ground and forced him to face the courts of his own people. We've given the Iraqi people a chance to draft their own constitution, hold their own free elections and establish their own government. We Americans and a few allies have protected Iraq when no one else would.

GWB couldn't have said it better. 

Observations on GWB's speech: His delivery was weak. He looked tired. But I liked what he said a lot. 

It's a good plan. Clear the killers out of the neighborhoods, and then leave soldiers on the scene to make sure they don't come back.

I particularly liked what he said about Iran: 

Radical Shia elements, some supported by Iran, formed death squads.

... Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity and stabilizing the region in the face of extremist challenges. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We'll interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.

We're also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region. We will expand intelligence-sharing and deploy Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies. We will work with the governments of Turkey and Iraq to help them resolve problems along their border. And we will work with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the region.

That's unambiguous: "to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the region."

Given Iranian Pres. Ahadinejad's statements that he intends to destroy America, preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons is key to American safety.

GWB stated that "Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops." In other words, they're backing people who are killing our guys. Again, an unambiguous statement that Iran is a center of radical Islamist attacks on U.S. soldiers, and that such attacks will be dealt with.

GWB addressed the key question of ideology:

The challenge playing out across the broader Middle East is more than a military conflict. It is the decisive ideological struggle of our time. On one side are those who believe in freedom and moderation. On the other side are extremists who kill the innocent, and have declared their intention to destroy our way of life. In the long run, the most realistic way to protect the American people is to provide a hopeful alternative to the hateful ideology of the enemy, by advancing liberty across a troubled region. It is in the interests of the United States to stand with the brave men and women who are risking their lives to claim their freedom, and to help them as they work to raise up just and hopeful societies across the Middle East.

From Afghanistan to Lebanon to the Palestinian Territories, millions of ordinary people are sick of the violence, and want a future of peace and opportunity for their children. And they are looking at Iraq. They want to know: Will America withdraw and yield the future of that country to the extremists, or will we stand with the Iraqis who have made the choice for freedom?

Everyone knows what ideology he's talking about: the political ideology of radical Jihadists. (Click here for a recent post on the subject.)

The presentation was weak, but the substance of the speech was very good.