I know that I will continue to vote for him for as long as he continues to run. I don’t see him running for President, unfortunately. He has always stated that he loves doing what he’s doing, representing us, giving us a voice in Congress. I would hope that he would be willing to run for President, but I don’t see him doing so–at least, not anytime in the near future…

And that is the way it is!

Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) presents a sobering commentary on the war on Islamic terrorism and the Democrat Party’s refusal to acknowledge the dire consequences if we lose in Iraq.
 
 
 

h/t: Hot Air

Link:

Bookm…

Please enlighten me. I might be light years behind the new “internet speak”.

RMR on July 30, 2007 at 11:07 PM

Don’t fret.

The people who are really light years behind this new “internet speak” are the Dimocrats and Libidos.

They have absolutely underestimated the power of new media:
Inhofe on YouTube spotlighted by HA and then the world.

It is really comical to know the news highlighted by MSM two days before they spotlight it.
I smile every time and note to myself, “The times, my how they are a’changing!!

profitsbeard on July 30, 2007 at 9:37 PM

Yeah.

Given this scenario, and the post-9/11 low threshold for tolerating threats to our security, I really do not see what else we could have done.
Lancer on July 30, 2007 at 9:59 PM

I agree. And I wish we knew the answers to your questions.

Common Sense This is what Sen Inhofe has and he tells it like he sees it.
bones47 on July 30, 2007 at 10:01 PM

I’ve really come to like him!

One thing that concerns me is what happens next time. Thanks to Iraq, republic-building is permanently off our list of strategies for dealing with the Middle East. What do we do in the event a future administration decides that the government or Iran or maybe Saudi Arabia have become too great a threat to be allowed to continue? How do we react if, for instance, Iran-backed Hezbollah slips an Iranian nuke aboard a feighter ship bound for New York harbor? Even if the USAF neutralizes Iran’s nuclear arsenal, what do we do then? Bomb them into the stone age and let the place implode a la Iraq without the US presence? I have no idea, and frankly I am afraid neither does Uncle Sam.

At any rate, he’s one of the few Senators I admire.

Not bad at all.

What the Senator is referring to is some type of geo-political victory. But any policy to remake an arab land, an arab land of waring tribes and clans, pieced together artificially in the 20th century from the lands of the Ottoman empire, into some type of self-sustaining liberal democracy is a fool’s errand without end. No muslim nation on earth, much less an arab muslim nation, has ever been, or if I may be so bold, ever will be, a stable democracy, much less a stable liberal democracy. Islam forbids democracy, forbids freedom, forbids equality.

Military force, the type of force the Senator wishes to stay in Iraq, can not achieve that type of victory without, of course, killing everyone and starting over from scratch, something our society, and our political leadership, refuses to do, or even consider. So talk of holding out for victory in Iraq is quaint jingoism.

If Inhofe was running, I’d forget I had ever heard of Fred.

Maxx on July 30, 2007 at 8:06 PM

Inhofe/DeMint

Clearly this GW thing is worse than we thought! It’s been going on for 100 years!

(*Global Warming Hysteria)

F15Mech on July 30, 2007 at 7:58 PM

It’s fair to say that like everyone else, I expected an entirely different war. I expected mass casualties in the 6-month timeframe and especially in the first couple of weeks, then the Iraqi government would gradually stand up and we would have been out in 18-24 months. Given the size of Iraq’s military prior to the invasion and the facts that a) Saddam knew that this one was for keeps and b) we all expected him to have and use NBC weapons while fighting a conventional ground war, 10k casualties wasn’t unthinkable.

So we’ve had far fewer casualties than I expected, but a much messier war.

Just out of curiosity, what sort of length of time did you expect and why did you expect it?
F15Mech on July 30, 2007 at 7:58 PM

Hm, in my statement, I was projecting – putting myself in the position of government for the purpose of rephrasing. I don’t think they collectively expected the situation we are in; I don’t mean to disparage but they would have had a better plan as Cheney said the other day. And the left has made all kinds of hay with the ‘Mission Accomplished’ Banner, which did indicate the belief of a concluded achievement.

But to answer your question, personally, I’m not sure what I expected. That’s a hard question because I didn’t quite get the message on why we went into Iraq (not criticizing it, just saying seemed a conglomerate of reasons, not 1 clear decisive one).

When the talk turned to democracy, I thought Iraq would be the great experiment. But I wasn’t optimistic. All governments exist by consent of the governed, and we never seemed to acknowledge that. And without that acknowledge, I don’t know how we keep from treading water. The projection of our consent/standards on to others is tricky – not necessarily impossible, but tricky at least. We were, after all, greeted as liberators no matter what NYT says now, but what has that translated to…

So from that standpoint, I never really knew what to expect. And also of course, the apparent disparity between staying in a place to provide the necessary security and (vs) the changed military structure under Rumsfeld to a more agile force is a juxtaposition that also fed static into my calculations.

And I also didn’t expect that Iran and other various parties would ship weapons and men into Iraq and us not be extremely forceful in response. In short, my personal expectations never came to clear conclusions and that is essentially the same place I am now – there are so many moving pieces on the board, I don’t know which possibility will be the final outcome.

two or three weeks ago, I wrote in this blog that the war in Iraq was already in the process of Changing Significantly for the Better. I’m not psychic, but I ain’t stoopid.

Those of you who also Believed should be proud and relieved at being vindicated; the rest of you should stop reading the Time and Newsweek and watching CNN, NBC, yada yada yada

If Inhofe was running, I’d forget I had ever heard of Fred.

This is well said. Nicely done Senator.

Let me rephrase it for your quibbles sake, Bryan. We didn’t expect to be suffering casualties for this length of time.

Spirit of 1776 on July 30, 2007 at 7:03 PM

Just out of curiosity, what sort of length of time did you expect and why did you expect it?

Al Queda has turned it into a war with Islam.

No one can say that Al Queda or anyone is in Iraq to restore the Baathists. Al Queda wants a Sunni Islamic State and Iran wants a Shiia one.

We are fighting Iran by proxy and most other Sunni Muslims states like Syria and Saudi arabia.

The mistake from the start was to think that Al Queda was all about Afganistan and Iraq was all about Saddam. Neither has been true.

It says they’re investigating possible connections to a wealthy contractor. I assume a probe into Feinstein is next, correct?

WASHINGTON (AP) – Chief Justice John Roberts suffered a seizure at his summer home in Maine on Monday, causing a fall that resulted in minor scrapes, Supreme Court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg said.
He will remain in a hospital in Maine overnight.

Roberts, 52, was taken by ambulance to the Penobscot Bay Medical Center, where he underwent a “thorough neurological evaluation, which revealed no cause for concern,” Arberg said in a statement.

I’ll quibble with one thing, though: I expected more casualties in Iraq than we’ve suffered by now.

Yep ! ! And they didn’t get off one, not one Scud missle
or get to use any of their nasty stuff.