We Must Fight. We Must Win.

(Or "Why Diana Irey deserves your support")

By Diana Irey Posted in Comments (31) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

ImageThe world as we knew it ended 27 years ago next week, when hundreds of radical Muslim students overran and occupied the American embassy in Teheran. For 444 days, the world watched and waited, as a radical Islamic regime held hostage not just 52 diplomats in a fortified bunker, but, in fact, an entire nation thousands of miles away.

For the first time, we Americans – a proud people, with an altruistic history of sacrificing blood and treasure to free or defend millions of people around the globe from the depredations of dictators and tyrants – heard our county described savagely as the “Great Satan.”

The seizure of the American embassy in Iran on November 4, 1979 by Muslim extremist students was the first shot fired in what is now, clearly, a war with a radical Islam determined to destroy the West and reestablish the Muslim Caliphate along a crescent that stretches from Spain to the Middle East.

This war is unlike any our nation has ever faced – in fact, it is unlike any war ANY nation has ever faced – because it is not a war that pits one nation-state against another; it is a war that pits one entire civilization against another.

To make matters worse, we face this war not because of territorial ambitions, or imperial over-reach, or commercial or economic interests; we face this war because we choose to exist.

Read on . . .

For more than three decades, they waged war against America and her principal ally in the Middle East – Israel – and we chose not to see it for what it was. Rather than recognizing what was going on, we chose, like the ostrich, to bury our heads in the sand. And as a result, we buried American bodies in the desert.

The seizure of the American embassy in Teheran in 1979 was followed by the suicide truck bombing against the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut on October 23, 1983, which cost us the lives of 241 young soldiers – the deadliest single-day death toll for the Marine Corps since the battle of Iwo Jima in World War II.

That attack was carried out by the same Hezbollah terrorists who rain destruction on northern Israel. They were funded, trained, and equipped by Iranian Revolutionary Guards.

And what did we do? Ronald Reagan chose to listen to the counsel of men who advised withdrawal – men like my opponent, Jack Murtha.

Five weeks after Bill Clinton was inaugurated as our 42nd President, a Ryder rental van packed with 1300 pounds of explosives detonated in the underground parking garage of the North Tower of the World Trade Center. Islamo-fascist terrorists linked to what later became known as “al Qaeda” had brought spectacular terrorism on a grand scale home to America for the first time.

Just a few months earlier, American soldiers had been dispatched to Somalia in a humanitarian mission to ensure the safe delivery of foodstuffs to end starvation that had already killed 300,000 Somalis. On October 3rd and 4th, 1993, in what became known as the Battle of Mogadishu – popularized by the book and movie “Black Hawk Down” – 19 Americans died at the hands of Somali militias, and Americans watched on CNN as the body of a dead American Marine was dragged through the streets.

What we did not know at the time – and only learned years later, thanks to the capture and interrogation of al Qaeda operatives – was that the assault on the American forces was conducted by forces trained, equipped, and funded by the then-virtually-unknown al Qaeda.

And what did we do at the time? Bill Clinton chose to listen to the counsel of men who advised withdrawal – men like my opponent, Jack Murtha.

After that, the attacks against Americans overseas began coming faster and faster:

The June 1996 truck bomb attack on a U.S. Air Force barracks in Khobar, Saudi Arabia. 19 American servicemen died.
The August 7, 1998 coordinated attacks against the U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. 257 people died, and another 4,000 were injured.
The October 12, 2000 attack on the U.S.S. Cole, a U.S. Navy guided missile destroyer in the Gulf of Aden. 17 Americans did in al Qaeda attack.

And then, less than a year later, the war came back home to America on 9/11.

Islamo-fascist terrorists are determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can, and destroy our nation – not because of anything we’ve done, but simply because of who we are and what we believe.

This is the great challenge facing America in the early years of the 21st century, and we need leaders who understand this threat and are committed not just to defending against it, but to defeating it.

When Osama bin Laden – the world’s most dangerous Islam-fascist terrorist – issued his famous call to arms in August 1996, he “praised the 1983 suicide bombing in Beirut … and especially the 1993 firefight in Somalia after which the United States ‘left the area carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you,’” according to the 9/11 Commission report.

The American embassy in Teheran. Beirut. World Trade Center One. Mogadishu. The Khobar Towers. American embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. The U.S.S. Cole.

Each time, our response was muted. Each time, terrorists learned a simple lesson: they could kill Americans with impunity.

This war will not be over until one side or the other is vanquished. And I, for one, do not want to have to explain to my children why America lacked the will to defend itself.

When a bully confronts you in the schoolyard, you have two choices – you can run and hide, or you can stand your ground and fight back. If you run and hide, he will come after you. Again and again and again. But if you stand your ground and fight back, you can beat him.

For too long, America has acted like a frightened child.

But the stakes in this conflict are too large for us to continue to act that way.

For the sake of our children, and our children’s children, we must defeat this enemy NOW.

The war in Iraq is difficult. I have spent time visiting with wounded soldiers at Walter Reed. I have seen their courage, their resolve, and their commitment. I am very humbled by their sacrifice.

Withdrawing from Iraq now, before the mission is complete, would be just one more time that America raises the white flag of surrender. It would ensure that the sacrifices made by our fighting men and women – and their families – would be in vain. It would merely send the message to the terrorists one more time that America does not have the will to prevail – and it would, therefore, embolden the terrorists and lead to even further attacks. It would send a message to other governments as well, that America is an undependable ally – and that it is safer to cut a deal with the terrorists than to count on us.

The Islamo-fascist terrorists who threaten us may be the first to engage in a clash of civilizations, but they are not the first to threaten America. Their fate will be the same as the fate of others before them who threatened us.

America, as the sage said, will be the land of the free only so long as it is the home of the brave.

God bless our troops.

(Good luck, Diana! Contribute or volunteer here.)

« We need more COIN in the Afghan realmComments (0) | Donald Rumsfeld attempts to help a Pentagon press corps that cannot help itselfComments (3) »
We Must Fight. We Must Win. 31 Comments (0 topical, 31 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »

I see it and I continue to hope that the majority of Americans who want to wish it all away will come to see it again as they did on 9/11. I believe that time has a power of making people become complacent and I fear that is where this nation is right now. I really hope Donna Irey beats that political dinosaur and brings fresh ideas and a realistic view of this very long war.

Peace through superior fire power:)

... we face this war because we choose to exist.

I have thought for a long time that you are not just prettier than Jack Murtha (D-Okinawa), but you are an inspiring leader able to state truth concisely. The above quote and your take on immigration ("a tall fence with a wide gate") have both left me muttering "Why didn't I think to say it that way?"

It is my hope that your future in politics extends far beyond winning a Congressional seat this fall.

--
Evil men hide from the truth, but good men stand upon it.

Your op-ed is garbage.

Some points which you were apparently unable to ponder

* the US was in Iran in 1979 b/c we were busy stealing the oil profits of that country. We were dragged into Iran in the 50's by a blind, misguided fear of communism (are you, or have you ever been, a member of the communist party?). The Brits who had been happily stealing the oil wealth of Iran for, what 5 decades(?) were on the verge of losing their nestegg so they told their US counterparts that the leader of Iran was promoting socialism and was leaning towards to the soviet union. We organized a bloody coup and replaced their leader with a religious puppet, who, surprise surprise, the people rose to overthrow 25 years later. If this war for us started 30 years ago, it's only because we (the American people) weren't paying attention 25 year before that.


This war is unlike any our nation has ever faced – in fact, it is unlike any war ANY nation has ever faced – because it is not a war that pits one nation-state against another; it is a war that pits one entire civilization against another.

* you have a logical contradiction in this statement. Is this a war of a nation vs. another civilization or a war of two civilizations? while ignoring the fact that you've forgotten about our allies (this *is* a coalition of the willing, yes?) the former happened in 40's (you remember dubleyou dubleyou two?). the latter, well, what the **** do you cal the crusades?

that's just in the intro. reading the rest of your vitriolic, factually specious op-ed gives me hives. If anything, I would you should sit the next six years out and read some history books.

--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

You not only have a filthy mouth - this is RS, we have a ban on the "f" word unlike Kos and DU - you brain has been asleep too long and has rotted.

If you have problems with the US policy toward Iran in the '70's, take them up with Jimmy Carter. The mullahs were his idea. And you can take your "stealing oil profits" mantra to the streets in Seattle or Toronto, it was a lie in the '70's and it's no less now.

Your ignorance on the war is unspeakable. Just go away and dirty up Kos' pages.

_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

after reading the misquotes taken from Webb's books, I thought you all reveled in dirty talk. I apologize for using more bad words than George Allen at a fund raiser.

and, thanks for taking the time to read the post. if you sit back and exercise a modicum of critical thinking, you'll see that the time period I was talking about was more towards the 50's and 60's.

"stealing oil profits".

Take BooBooKittys advice, it's good. And it will keep you occupied.

_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

just links. You are a finely tuned idiot.

_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

Ms. Irey seems to attract lots of trolls. Looks like they are pretty worried about her. Is cut and run not popular any more in Murtha's district?

Very interesting....

I heard Murtha proposing cut and run on one of the Sunday talk shows yesterday. That was followed by Howard Dean confirming that "redeployment" to Okinawa was the Democratic plan.

The dictionary and The Black Book of communism.

One will tell you the difference between buying and stealing and the other will tell you that 90 million people should have feared communism.

__________________________________________________________
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes

And you are, by the way, obliged to answer that. It's a moderator thing.

Moe

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

"Member for
1 hour 38 min"

That's a countdown, no?

"Every time some nitwit college student burns a flag on camera, that's one less idiot who can ever run for public office." - Crank

I ask you as Ann Coulter pointed out in her book "treason" were there not communists in the State Department?

there probably still are.

_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

Mrs Irey, we apologize for our trolls. They are an unfortunate blemish on the Internet, as you know, and the uncompromising stand this site often takes seems to attract them.

This war is unlike any our nation has ever faced – in fact, it is unlike any war ANY nation has ever faced – because it is not a war that pits one nation-state against another; it is a war that pits one entire civilization against another.

you have a logical contradiction in this statement. Is this a war of a nation vs. another civilization or a war of two civilizations? while ignoring the fact that you've forgotten about our allies (this *is* a coalition of the willing, yes?)

That's not a logical contradiction, that's a nitpick, and a myopic one at that. From your posts here so far, and I suspect we have plumbed your depth, it's not clear that you know what a logical contradiction is. In this case, Mrs. Irey is clearly saying that this war of which our nation is a part is one pitting two civilizations against one another. We and our allies, and the bystanders such as the French are on one side while Al-Qaida, Hamas, and Jack Murtha are on the other.

the former happened in 40's (you remember dubleyou dubleyou two?). [As for] the latter, well, what [...] do you cal the crusades?

WWII was a battle between one allied set of nations and another. They were all part of the same civilization. One side believed that the supposed genetic superiority of certain "races" gave them the right to dispose of those not in the proper "race" as they saw fit. The other side, having toyed with that view, had rejected it.

The Crusades were battles motivated by religion, many of which resulted in infighting on one side or the other. Since then, the West has made hundreds of years worth of progress, while the Islamic culture has refused it outside of certain narrow fields (such as Mathematics and blowing oneself up). They want to undo our civilization, and along with our allies, we are going to keep them from doing that.

that's just in the intro. reading the rest of your vitriolic, factually specious op-ed gives me hives. If anything, I would you should sit the next six years out and read some history books.

There you go again, using words you don't understand among people who do. Her post was not "vitriolic" in any way I can see, but was in fact highly restrained, Mrs. Irey being the class act that she is. And "specious" doesn't mean "incorrect", nor is it a nonce-word you can throw in as a negative. In particular, calling her piece "factually specious" either means you think her facts, though appealing, were incorrect, or that you think her piece was factual but still made some kind of attractive but inaccurate conclusion. I almost wish you would remain unbanned long enough to tell me which one, or in fact what, it was supposed to mean.

--

Evil men hide from the truth, but good men stand upon it.

less than two hours in to your tenure here and you jump on an Op-Ed by a congressional candidate.

I kept waiting to read the punch line, but then I realized you were serious. Oh, well, I'm sure the troll police will put you back on a one week restriction till you try from another email address.

If this is a trend, maybe we should wait till after the election to approve any new logins.

In blogging as in life, 'tis surely better to give than to receive!

Statement of Republican Policy on U.S. Armed Forces in Somalia, Adopted April 1, 1993

U.S. military forces in Somalia have fulfilled the mission given them by President Bush. Republicans therefore call on President Clinton to bring our troops home.

The United States has a proud tradition of providing international humanitarian assistance to those truly in need. Somalia is a case in point. In the early 1980's, and again in the early 1990s, the American people and the U.S. Government responded to famine in Somalia by bringing in massive quantities of food and medical assistance.

In the last several months, as anarchy gripped that country and famine again loomed on the horizon, President Bush sent U.S. Armed Forces to Somalia to restore order and permit food to reach the people. He made a commitment to withdraw our troops when the mission was completed and return the operation to the U.N. This process was begun before he left office. The mission has been accomplished, but our troops remain, and it appears President Clinton has no intention of bringing them home. Instead, U.N. bureaucrats who want to keep the United States in Somalia will decide their fate.

Republicans commend our Armed Forces for restoring order to Somalia and for helping to alleviate human suffering in that country. However, we have several deep concerns. Without appropriate congressional consultation, President Clinton has committed thousands of U.S. military personnel to a U.N. peacekeeping operation commanded by a foreign national for an indefinite period of time. Our men and women in uniform will provide both the fighting teeth and the logistical tail for this open-ended operation.

Republicans believe U.S. Armed Forces should always remain under U.S. command. They should not be loaned to international organizations to conduct operations with ambiguously defined objectives.

Furthermore, costs to the U.S. taxpayer continue to mount. In addition to the $800 million in costs already incurred by the U.S., President Clinton has just committed the taxpayers to another half billion dollars.

The United States is the world's only superpower, but this does not mean we are omnipotent, nor that our obligations are universal. Republicans believe that President Bush's commitment to pull our forces out of Somalia should be fulfilled.

Troops were sent into Somolia with a fairly well defined mission. Arguably, the mission was over so the troops could come home.

Clinton kept them there. He sent SF into Mogadishu in October for a mission timed to make the evening news cycle not accomplish the mission in a manner that would get the job done and protect the guys doing the job. When the s**t hit the fan, Bill did what Dems do - he cut and run. He left those SF guys under fire and refused them armoured reinforcements. He would not allow a Btn of Marines who were locked and loaded and in the Mogadishu soccer stadium to rescue them. He let them be slaughtered by the terrorists and their bodies were drug through the streets.

If they had been brought home in April, Mogadishu would not have happened. If Bill had supported the SF guys under fire, Mogadishu would have turned out differently. Instead, we end up with dead military men, AQ is emboldened because we ran and Bill had a photo op with parents of dead soldiers. For that I hope he rots in hell.

Today's Democratic Leadership is no different than Bill Clinton. No moral compass, no vision for America, no need to support the guys in harm's way. For that I hope they rot in hell.

_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

is that Republicans in 1993 were just as ignorant as Clinton was in regards to the threat from Bin Laden. Both sides should be ashamed of themselves for that fact.

Keep in mind that the April 1st resolution was adopted two months AFTER the first WTC bombing in February of 1993. That Repbulicans weren't able to connect the dots between February and April of 1993 is just as disturbing as the fact that Democrats were not.

Hindsight's 20/20, but it just annoys me that it appears throughout the 90s both Republicans and Democracts were using Bin Laden as a political hot potato as opposed to a real issue that needed to rise above partisan rancor.

Sadly, even today that's still occurring. We've gotten ourselves so far away from a place of moral superiority on this issue that I feat the only thing we have left is partisan bickering and finger-pointing. No one - Republican or Democract - seems to be doing anything other than playing demagogues and gotcha politics with our personal security. It's depressing.

in charge of strategy and execution of national security policy, not the Congressional Republicans. That's why he gets the blame for a lame policy and virtual lack of execution. Would B1 or Dole have done better? Probably not, but that's not the point. They weren't in charge Billy Boy was. He failed.

Your comments about partisanship in the '90's are silly. Clinton (who was in charge) didn't realize we were at war. He was playing cops and robbers. It took 3000 dead on 9/11 to wake up the chattering classes. We are now REALLY at war and the Democrats are still playing politics. While I'm not tickled about the R's response to things and I don't like the rules of engagement in Iraq, it's the D's who are being absolutely treasonous and seditious about the conduct of the war.

_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

This is off topic, but it bears reminding. Clinton was the most absolutely partisan president ever. Look up ANY speech he ever gave as a President and you will find at least one gratuitous and mostly non-factual slam at the Republican Party.

He was always in campaign mode and he is the primary reason that politics have become so rancorous.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

Republicans in 1993 were just as ignorant as Clinton was in regards to the threat from Bin Laden. Both sides should be ashamed of themselves for that fact.

And that isn't even remotely the point. We know now what Bin Laden learned. We need not cement the lesson, nor teach it to others who missed it in 1993, by the repetition of Somalia and Viet Nam in Iraq.

Bin Laden's level of involvement in Somalia doesn't change Clinton's failure to learn from it.

--
Evil men hide from the truth, but good men stand upon it.

We got it right in 1953 when we overthrew their elected leader in Iran. Our only mistake was letting them have universities in Tehran. Education in our client states is always antithetical to our interests.

That's why our strategy of pacification without infrastructure building will ultimately prevail in Iraq. When just need to exterminate the 70% of the population that wants us to leave so that we can finally leave Iraq.

"....letting them have universities in Tehran. Education in our client states is always antithetical to our interests."

Yes, especially when the curriculum is beheading, car bombs and sharia law.

I snorted coffee all over my keyboard laughing at your idiocy. The bill will be forthcoming.

Now go away.

Moe

PS: Your commentary says infinitely more about your attitudes than it does of ours; I would hope that you would some day understand what it's saying about you, except that my religion considers suicide to be the worst of sins.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

I can't vote for you (though I certainly would if I lived in your district), but I look forward to having you in the House. Best wishes on election day.

I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.

Time to dissemble another GOP talking head and the all to common distortion of facts. This one come to us via Diana Irey a congressional hopeful from PA. She is trying to unseat Jack Murtha and takes a few cheap shots on her website to make her point. But today I will be focusing on an article penned by the candidate on why we so desperately need Republican leadership to keep us safe from the dreaded Muslim bogymen.

http://donkephant.blogspot.com/2006/10/diana-irey-just-another-gop-histo...

Donkephant

For it is All Hallow's Eve, and Those That Walk In Twilight must be - not adored, of course, but perhaps recognized would be a safe way of putting it.

Anyway, in accordance with old, old, old tradition... I give you a treat, o costumed one:

Blam.

Wasn't that nice of me? Now you can go back to your website and tell everybody how you were banned at RedState. I could almost imagine that you'd pen a screed about the irony of it all, except that anybody who uncritically links to Olbermann would be effectively dead to it anyway...

Moe

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

Nah, the Soviet Union wasn't a threat. I save this little gem from Alexander Solzhenitsyn's "Gulag Archipelago" just in case a moonbat shows up to denigrate the U.S. victory in the Cold War.

The accused and the Soviet Government – “And it must be kept in mind that it was not what he had done that constituted the defendant's burden, but what he might do if he were not shot now. "We protect ourselves not only against the past but also against the future."

The longer we dwell on our misfortunes the greater is their power to harm us - Voltaire

 
Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)


©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service