Video: Bush’s amnesty shilling led war support to erode, says Ingraham

I don’t understand this reasoning whatsoever. I support the war effort, because it is a necessity for our national security, not because I support the President and he told me to support the war. Just because the President did not have my support on illegal immigration, does not mean I say, okay, since the President pissed me off, I am now going to support a necessary war anymore.

What kind of idiotic nonsense is that?

Are people that stupid that they stop supporting things, just because a politician pisses them off?

That just tells me that those people never supported the issue to begin with.

I support issues, not politicians. I support politicians who support my issues.

People either support the war effort or they do not and if they support the war effort, they will support the politicians who are executing that war effort, no matter what other issues on which they are at odds.

Remember the 2004 election. Many social liberals supported President Bush for re-election, because they supported the war effort. They did not support President Bush, they supported the war effort, so they put their support behind the only person who they saw would execute the war effort. There is a difference.

Those people who are withdrawing their support for the war effort because they are pissed off about illegal immigration are fools and no better than the dhimmicrat traitors.

This war is not about our petty political differences and has nothing to do with conservative or liberal, DNC or GOP. Would people have given up on World War II, because some domestic policy pissed them off? Yeah, smart move there.

Let’s stop all the stupid hysterics and focus here, people. This war is going to last a long time and it is necessary to fight it. Quelling insurgencies are said to take 9 years. Come September 2007, we will have been with the current COIN strategy for 9 months. Our military is damn good, but it cannot succeed in a 9 year strategy in 9 months. People better get it through their heads that this is going to take a long time and if we don’t dig in and defeat the Islamic Totalitarians now, it will be MUCH, MUCH worse later.

Michael in MI on July 11, 2007 at 5:30 PM

OhEssYouCowboys, you may want to check out this article from today’s OpinionJournal about what we would have now had we NOT gone into Iraq: Today’s World Would be Far Worse if Saddam Were Still in Power

EXERPT:

It’s not far-fetched, therefore, to consider what economists call a counterfactual — what things would look like today if the U.S. had not invaded Iraq.

First, U.S. troops would still be in Saudi Arabia. Our troops were there because of the Saudis’ fear of an Iraqi attack. We should recall that one of the principal reasons Osama bin Laden cited for attacking us — not only on 9/11, but for many years before — was that U.S. troops were supposedly defiling the Muslim holy places in Saudi Arabia. As absurd as this seems to us, it apparently resonated with the Mohamed Attas of this world. With Saddam still in power, American arms would be necessary to protect Saudi Arabia, and our presence there would still be a continuing irritant among militants and a source of al Qaeda-inspired terrorist attacks against the United States around the world.

Imagine, also, trying to persuade Iran to abandon the development of nuclear weapons when Iraq — which had attacked Iran — was actively engaged in doing exactly that. We hope now to change Iran’s course through economic sanctions — a difficult prospect to be sure — but that would be a hopeless quest if its leaders and population believed they needed nuclear weapons to deter Iraq. Once it became clear that Iran would develop nuclear weapons, many Sunni Arab nations would want a nuclear deterrent, and Israel’s position would be hideously complicated.

Then there are Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Palestinian territories. Before Saddam was deposed by the U.S. invasion, he was bidding for leadership of the Arab world in its opposition to Israel and U.S. policy in the Mideast. We can now see the resources he would have brought to bear in that effort. Saddam was a Sunni leader of a Shiite country. As he watched the Islamic world becoming more fundamentalist, he too became more overtly religious. Undoubtedly, he saw himself as the new Nasser, the one person who could unite the Arab and perhaps the Islamic world against the West and Israel. If he had remained in power, he would now be contesting with Iran for sponsorship of Hezbollah and Hamas. With these two regional powers competing in their militancy against Israel, there would be little chance of a Mideast peace any time soon. Gaza, now under Hamas control, would become a protectorate of Iraq, and the effectiveness of the West’s financial boycott would have been nullified.

Saddam’s interest in driving the U.S. out of the Middle East would be coincident with those of al Qaeda and he would have the weapons of mass destruction that al Qaeda has been seeking. We could never be sure that if we opposed Saddam — say, in another Iraqi invasion of Kuwait — he would not make weapons of mass destruction available to al Qaeda.

In short, it would be difficult to construct a scenario in which the ultimate outcome of events in Iraq today would be as negative for the United States as a world in which Saddam remained in control of Iraq.

Michael in MI on July 11, 2007 at 9:54 PM