Retreat Not an Option in Iraq

[skinsfan51]

I'm not sure if this was posted yesterday. I didn't see it by its official title, so if it was I apologize.

Good news article. Just how news should be reported on every news station. Unbiased facts. We decide. I think trusting the U.N. is a HUGE mistake. The world does not need someone like Annan right now who is "soft on terror." Terrorists should never be treated softly.

Beware of a President who is a "bedfellow" of Annan and the U.N. He's putting our Nation at risk in a big way.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Retreat Not an Option in Iraq

Wednesday, September 22, 2004

By Bill O'Reilly

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,133160,00.html

Bush and Kerry on Iraq.

Last night on "The David Letterman" program, Senator Kerry discussed his vision for Iraq. And today at the United Nations, President Bush did the same thing.

Let's start with the common ground. Both men know that if the U.S.A. cuts and runs in Iraq, disaster would befall the world, so retreat is not an option. To have Saddam Hussein replaced by a new terror government would present enormous problems.

Why do you think Al Qaeda associates like al Zarqawi are operating out of Iraq right now? They want that country to become another Taliban-like state which would allow terrorists a sanctuary. That simply can't happen. The U.S.A. must prevail.

President Bush believes his administration will overcome the present chaos in Iraq and defeat the killers, using a combination of U.S. power and a growing Iraqi military. But that may not happen. It's impossible to predict the Iraqi outcome, according to the president's own intelligence reports.

John Kerry sees it differently. He believes he can persuade other countries to help America and Britain in Iraq. But that could be wishful thinking. There is no certainty that Kerry will be able to do that.

The senator is pounding Bush for mistakes made in the campaign, but he needs to come up with more than a maybe about foreign cooperation if he wants to win the Iraq debate.

Also, it is unwise to provide any troop withdrawal timetable because anything could happen over there. Mr. Kerry is making a mistake by expecting the United Nations to help in Iraq. Kofi Annan is soft on terrorism and not reliable when it comes to righting any wrongs whatsoever.

Annan's history is abysmal. On his watch as a U.N. executive, there was genocide in the Balkans and in Rwanda. Somalia degenerated into a terrorist state. North Korea violated nuclear weapons treaties. And Saddam violated 17 U.N. resolutions, as well as profiting greatly from the corrupt U.N. oil for food program.

Even today, an honest passive in the face of Sudanese genocide and has the unmitigated gall to say the removal of Saddam was "illegal."

Kofi Annan is a terrorist enabler. And any American president who throws in with him is putting all of us in danger. John Kerry would be wise to distance himself from this weak and deceitful man.

So there you have it, a tale of two Iraqi visions. Of course, you decide which is more valid. And that's a memo.