 By Michael Reagan May 08, 2004
The resolution offered by Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) stated that while the prisoner abuse contradict the policies, orders, and laws of the United States and the United States military and undermine the ability of the United States military to achieve its mission in Iraq; those abuses "are incompatible with the professionalism, dedication, standards and training required of individuals who serve in the United States military, and contradict the policies, orders, and laws of the United States and the United States military and undermine the ability of the United States military to achieve its mission in Iraq. The resolution Nancy Pelosi and such colleagues as Conyers, Waxman, Rangel, Hoyer, and Jackson-Lee refused to support simply said that the vast majority of members of the Armed Forces have upheld the highest possible standards of professionalism and morality in the face of illegal tactics and terrorist attacks and attempts on their lives; that "members of the Armed Forces have planned and conducted, frequently at great peril and cost, military operations in a manner carefully intended to prevent or minimize injury to Iraqi civilians and property; and that over 138,000 members of the United States Armed Forces serving in Iraq, a total force comprised of active, National Guard, and Reserve personnel, are executing a courageous and determined mission to rebuild and rehabilitate a proud nation after liberating it from the tyranny, oppression, and genocide of Saddam Hussein's evil regime" Let it be remembered that this gang of Democrats who could not find themselves able to praise our soldiers fought going to war with the regime of Saddam Hussein when his minions were torturing, raping and brutally abusing and murdering his own people, but can't wait to condemn the United States for the crimes of a handful of soldiers. On March 7 2003, Pelosi said "Before going to war, we must exhaust all alternatives, such as the continuation of inspections, diplomacy and the leverage provided by the threat of military action." In another statement she said that "An acceptable alternative would require the United States to seek a multilateral diplomatic initiative before authorizing the use of force." In October this year, after the Kay report discounted the presence of weapons of Mass destruction Nancy Pelosi, said the results of the search so far demonstrated that no imminent threat existed ''and there was time for more diplomatic effort before we went to war.'' But there wasn't time for those prisoners in Saddam's torture chambers, rape rooms or awaiting execution. Had she and her Democrat colleagues prevailed, who knows how many more Iraqis would have filled the mass graves of hundreds of thousands of their countrymen and women while we dallied around looking for the phantom of international support. As David Gelernter wrote in the Weekly Standard, March 28, 2004 "By overthrowing Saddam, we stopped a loathsome bloody massacre--a hell-on-earth that would have been all too easily dismissed as fantastic propaganda if we hadn't seen and heard the victims and watched the torturers on videotape. But Democratic talk about Iraq is dominated not by the hell and horror we abolished or the pride and joy of what we achieved. Many Democrats mention Saddam's crimes only grudgingly." Saddam's regime was ripping human flesh to shreds. Do not Democrats understand that what we achieved by liberating Iraq, what mankind achieved, he asked? "And when we saw those mass graveyards and torture chambers, heard more and more victims speak, watched those videotapes, the conclusion became inescapable: This war was screamingly, shriekingly necessary." Not to Nancy Pelosi and her
colleagues; they'd rather concentrate on abuse of Iraqi detainees
by a few misguided reservists than recognize the dedication and
heroism of our troops.
 mereagan@hotmail.com Distributed to subscribers for publication by: Cagle Cartoons, Inc.
|
||
