FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 7, 2007
WASHINGTON D.C. -Congressman Thaddeus McCotter, Chairman of the Republican House Policy Committee, today released the following statement on Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s upcoming visit to the United Nations and Ahmadinejad’s request to visit Ground Zero during his trip to New York City.
“The irrational ruler of Iran, which is reported to shield Al-Qaeda members from the full measure of justice, should only be allowed to view Ground Zero in order to apologize and pledge to atone by opposing terrorism.
“If Ahmadinejad does not, he will be going to gloat over the site where his terrorist cohorts invaded American soil and killed over three thousand American souls. To those who naively claim we can ‘negotiate’ with Ahmadinejad, his actions belie the sanity of your proposed diplomacy.”
McCotter issued his statement just as it was reported Coalition forces arrested a corps of Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards Quds Force officer in Sulimaniyah, who was involved in training foreign terrorists in Iraq and transporting explosive devises into Iraq responsible in the lethal attacks against the our soldiers, Iraqi Government, and all Coalition Forces.
NOTE: Ahmadinejad is scheduled to arrive September 24 to speak to the U.N. General Assembly, as the Security Council decides whether to increase sanctions against Iran for its uranium enrichment program.
###
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Iraq: A Quartet of Critical Inquiries
By Rep. Thaddeus McCotter
As a person’s word is their bond, a nation’s word is its bond. Once broken, “its word is no good.”
In 2002, with the world – and especially our enemy – watching, America gave its solemn vow to the oppressed Iraqi people we would emancipate them from a tyrant to experience their God-given right to liberty. Over four years later, in Iraq our soldiers and civilians continue striving and sacrificing to honor America’s pledge; but, on the home front, the Left is bent upon breaking America’s promise to liberate the Iraqis, in particular, and forsaking America’s dedication to liberty, in general.
Before acquiescing to this execrable outcome, Americans must demand the Left answer this quartet of critical inquiries regarding Iraq :
1. If America breaks its vow and abandons the Iraqis to be slaughtered, who in the region or the world will trust our word?
2. If America belies its professed commitment to liberty, what can we possibly offer the Middle East ’s – indeed, the world’s – oppressed to turn them away from the enemy and toward us?
3. After Iraq is abandoned, how soon will the Left demand America ’s immediate retreat in the other “war without end” – Afghanistan ?
4. What are the consequences to America if we are defeated in Iraq and Bin-Laden is proven right: “ America is definitely a great power, with an unbelievable military strength and a vibrant economy, but all of these have been built on a very weak and hollow foundation”?
These questions and others will not and can not be answered by the Left. Offering constructive alternatives to and measuring the consequences of national security policies is neither their goal nor inclination. Their contempt for America as the greatest threat to “world peace” precludes it.
Possessed of our sanity, let us provide the answers to these questions.
1. No one.
2. Nothing.
3. Immediately.
4. A war without end.
Should the Left prevail and these answers become bitter realities, present and future generations of Americans will be faced with the dark specter of nuclear armed terrorist states in a war without end against an implacable enemy bent upon our destruction; and, our just God so disposed, the Left will be held to account for betraying the integrity of America’s word in this crucible of our nation’s War for Freedom.
And, make no mistake, we will not escape the history’s inquiry of us:
What did you do to win it?
United States Representative Thaddeus G. McCotter is the Chairman of the Republican House Policy Committee
As a person’s word is their bond, a nation’s word is its bond. Once broken, “its word is no good.”
In 2002, with the world – and especially our enemy – watching, America gave its solemn vow to the oppressed Iraqi people we would emancipate them from a tyrant to experience their God-given right to liberty. Over four years later, in Iraq our soldiers and civilians continue striving and sacrificing to honor America’s pledge; but, on the home front, the Left is bent upon breaking America’s promise to liberate the Iraqis, in particular, and forsaking America’s dedication to liberty, in general.
Before acquiescing to this execrable outcome, Americans must demand the Left answer this quartet of critical inquiries regarding Iraq :
1. If America breaks its vow and abandons the Iraqis to be slaughtered, who in the region or the world will trust our word?
2. If America belies its professed commitment to liberty, what can we possibly offer the Middle East ’s – indeed, the world’s – oppressed to turn them away from the enemy and toward us?
3. After Iraq is abandoned, how soon will the Left demand America ’s immediate retreat in the other “war without end” – Afghanistan ?
4. What are the consequences to America if we are defeated in Iraq and Bin-Laden is proven right: “ America is definitely a great power, with an unbelievable military strength and a vibrant economy, but all of these have been built on a very weak and hollow foundation”?
These questions and others will not and can not be answered by the Left. Offering constructive alternatives to and measuring the consequences of national security policies is neither their goal nor inclination. Their contempt for America as the greatest threat to “world peace” precludes it.
Possessed of our sanity, let us provide the answers to these questions.
1. No one.
2. Nothing.
3. Immediately.
4. A war without end.
Should the Left prevail and these answers become bitter realities, present and future generations of Americans will be faced with the dark specter of nuclear armed terrorist states in a war without end against an implacable enemy bent upon our destruction; and, our just God so disposed, the Left will be held to account for betraying the integrity of America’s word in this crucible of our nation’s War for Freedom.
And, make no mistake, we will not escape the history’s inquiry of us:
What did you do to win it?
United States Representative Thaddeus G. McCotter is the Chairman of the Republican House Policy Committee
Friday, September 14, 2007
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Is Petraeus correct that Iraq surge is working?
If you missed my oped in the Detroit News on Thursday, Sept. 13th.....
Is Petraeus correct that Iraq surge is working?
Iraq becomes more stable as U.S. starts winning 'War for Freedom'
Rep. Thaddeus McCotter
Critics whose foreign policy expertise fits on an eco-friendly foreign car's fender allege Iraq is a "bumper sticker war without end." This slogan is false. Finally, if fitfully, this integral theater in our nation's War for Freedom is becoming a free, stable state opposed to terrorism; and the Iraq war is ending because we are winning.
This news was obscured amid the repugnant partisan attempts to spin the congressional testimony of Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker as dishonest or erroneous. While it will arrive neither quickly nor cheaply, the truth will emerge as our troops succeed in their mission and start coming home.
Incorporating Crocker's diplomatic initiatives, Petraeus' new counter-insurgency strategy's goal in Iraq is to eradicate insurgents and place reconstruction efforts into local Iraqis' hands. This strategy is succeeding. Due to increased security and economic opportunity, Iraqis are choosing liberty instead of the insurgency.
Iraqi shift to liberty
In his Sept. 7 letter to the Multi-National Force-Iraq, Petraeus stressed the importance of Iraqis' political shift to liberty:
"We are also building momentum in an emerging area of considerable importance -- local reconciliation. Local Iraqi leaders are coming forward, opposing extremists and establishing provisional units of neighborhood security volunteers. With growing government of Iraq support, these volunteers are being integrated into legitimate security institutions to help improve local security. While this concept is playing out differently in various areas across Iraq, it is grounded in a desire shared by increasing numbers of Iraqis -- to oppose extremist elements and their ideologies.
"This is very significant because, as many of you know first hand, extremists cannot survive without the support of the population. The popular rejection of al-Qaida and its ideology has, for example, helped transform Anbar Province this year from one of the most dangerous areas of Iraq to one of the safest. The popular rejection of extremists has helped Coalition and Iraqi Forces take away other areas from al-Qaida as well, and we are seeing a spread of this sentiment in an ever-increasing number of Sunni areas. Now, in fact, we are also seeing a desire to reject extremists emerge in many Shia areas."
Iraqi security participation up
This critical local reconciliation has increased Iraqi participation in their security; hastened the day they will be solely responsible for it; and, as in the early days of American independence, Iraqi local reconciliation will precede, facilitate and dictate national reconciliation. But most important for Americans, Iraqis' local reconciliation is the reason Petraeus proposed commencing troop reductions this month and continuing them through July 2008, when nearly 30,000 of our citizen-soldiers will have departed harm's way for home.
Perversely, critics decry this good news as a "token" political stunt. Demanding our immediate retreat in Iraq, these detractors ascribe their own misdeeds upon others -- namely, playing politics with our troops.
A strategic retreat is a dangerous maneuver for a fighting force, which gets smaller as the advancing enemy grows stronger. When rushed, disaster results, as happened to the Soviet Army in Afghanistan. Petraeus and Crocker refuse to repeat this mistake. Thus, American troop reductions are based upon progress in Iraq, not politics in Washington.
This responsible nexus for our troops' return threatens the radical left because it mutes its propaganda claims that a "war without end" has somehow already ended in America's defeat. Instead, every American has a concrete "benchmark" to measure our progress to victory in Iraq: witnessing and welcoming the return of our triumphant troops.
True, our troops can't come home quickly enough. No, this does not mean the war is won, as arduous and dangerous work remains. Yes, our nation must vigilantly monitor the facts on the ground to ensure the Iraqis' local political shift to liberty proceeds with requisite speed.
But let those who won't unite behind the cause of victory at least welcome the news that our troops -- because of progress in Iraq -- are coming home with their "mission accomplished." Now that will look good on the grille of a Michigan-made SUV.
Is Petraeus correct that Iraq surge is working?
Iraq becomes more stable as U.S. starts winning 'War for Freedom'
Rep. Thaddeus McCotter
Critics whose foreign policy expertise fits on an eco-friendly foreign car's fender allege Iraq is a "bumper sticker war without end." This slogan is false. Finally, if fitfully, this integral theater in our nation's War for Freedom is becoming a free, stable state opposed to terrorism; and the Iraq war is ending because we are winning.
This news was obscured amid the repugnant partisan attempts to spin the congressional testimony of Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker as dishonest or erroneous. While it will arrive neither quickly nor cheaply, the truth will emerge as our troops succeed in their mission and start coming home.
Incorporating Crocker's diplomatic initiatives, Petraeus' new counter-insurgency strategy's goal in Iraq is to eradicate insurgents and place reconstruction efforts into local Iraqis' hands. This strategy is succeeding. Due to increased security and economic opportunity, Iraqis are choosing liberty instead of the insurgency.
Iraqi shift to liberty
In his Sept. 7 letter to the Multi-National Force-Iraq, Petraeus stressed the importance of Iraqis' political shift to liberty:
"We are also building momentum in an emerging area of considerable importance -- local reconciliation. Local Iraqi leaders are coming forward, opposing extremists and establishing provisional units of neighborhood security volunteers. With growing government of Iraq support, these volunteers are being integrated into legitimate security institutions to help improve local security. While this concept is playing out differently in various areas across Iraq, it is grounded in a desire shared by increasing numbers of Iraqis -- to oppose extremist elements and their ideologies.
"This is very significant because, as many of you know first hand, extremists cannot survive without the support of the population. The popular rejection of al-Qaida and its ideology has, for example, helped transform Anbar Province this year from one of the most dangerous areas of Iraq to one of the safest. The popular rejection of extremists has helped Coalition and Iraqi Forces take away other areas from al-Qaida as well, and we are seeing a spread of this sentiment in an ever-increasing number of Sunni areas. Now, in fact, we are also seeing a desire to reject extremists emerge in many Shia areas."
Iraqi security participation up
This critical local reconciliation has increased Iraqi participation in their security; hastened the day they will be solely responsible for it; and, as in the early days of American independence, Iraqi local reconciliation will precede, facilitate and dictate national reconciliation. But most important for Americans, Iraqis' local reconciliation is the reason Petraeus proposed commencing troop reductions this month and continuing them through July 2008, when nearly 30,000 of our citizen-soldiers will have departed harm's way for home.
Perversely, critics decry this good news as a "token" political stunt. Demanding our immediate retreat in Iraq, these detractors ascribe their own misdeeds upon others -- namely, playing politics with our troops.
A strategic retreat is a dangerous maneuver for a fighting force, which gets smaller as the advancing enemy grows stronger. When rushed, disaster results, as happened to the Soviet Army in Afghanistan. Petraeus and Crocker refuse to repeat this mistake. Thus, American troop reductions are based upon progress in Iraq, not politics in Washington.
This responsible nexus for our troops' return threatens the radical left because it mutes its propaganda claims that a "war without end" has somehow already ended in America's defeat. Instead, every American has a concrete "benchmark" to measure our progress to victory in Iraq: witnessing and welcoming the return of our triumphant troops.
True, our troops can't come home quickly enough. No, this does not mean the war is won, as arduous and dangerous work remains. Yes, our nation must vigilantly monitor the facts on the ground to ensure the Iraqis' local political shift to liberty proceeds with requisite speed.
But let those who won't unite behind the cause of victory at least welcome the news that our troops -- because of progress in Iraq -- are coming home with their "mission accomplished." Now that will look good on the grille of a Michigan-made SUV.
Monday, September 10, 2007
Rep. McCotter speaks on the House Floor about Gen. Petraeus' Testimony on the progress in Iraq.
Tonight I spoke on the U.S. House floor to discuss Gen. Petraeus' Testimony. Below is a video of my remarks.
Thursday, September 6, 2007
Fighting the Spin on Petraeus Report...Rep. McCotter on Hill Tube
Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-Mich.) said he's fighting the spin on the upcoming Petraeus report
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Battle of "The Bums"
During their mutual month-long August recesses, wherein public confidence in each has plummeted to record lows, the American Congress (“Our Bums”) is denouncing the Iraqi Parliament (“Their Bums”) as “do nothings.” Further, despite American military progress on the ground in Iraq, Washington claims Baghdad’s failure to meet political benchmarks will doom General Petraeus’ plan for victory.
The premise of this claim is absolutely backwards.
Along Iraq’s bloody path to freedom, the greatest obstacle has been the average Iraqi’s wary neutrality in the battle between the United States’ “Coalition of the Willing” and the insurgents. Today, a nihilistic insurgency has been revealed to offer average Iraqis nothing but subjugation and extermination; in stark contrast, General Petraeus’ counter-insurgency strategy is delivering both the eradication of the insurgents and localized reconstruction efforts – i.e., a palpable hope for security and prosperity. Consequently, the true measure of political progress in Iraq is NOT found in its national Parliament; the true measure of political progress in Iraq is occurring in local tribes, towns and provinces where Iraqis are choosing liberty instead of the insurgency.
This Iraqi “election for freedom” is not an intrinsically military development. It is fundamentally a political development complementing and speeding military progress; and hastening the day such individual and local “grassroots” political wins collectively dictate political progress in Baghdad.
Let us, as the sovereign citizens of our free republic, ever remember how in representative democracies Parliaments and Congresses do not dictate to sovereign citizens; sovereign citizens dictate to Parliaments and Congresses. Thus, in Iraq each citizen in his or her respective tribe, town and province must inform and consent to federal laws being enacted, implemented, and honored; and, when this consent is individually granted in sufficient numbers, Iraq will complete its transformational emancipation from tyranny to liberty.
Further, let us, as the sovereign citizens of our free republic, ever remember how we cannot abandon Iraq’s fledgling democracy – or any democracy – under terrorist attack. The War for Freedom must be won through ideological, political, economic, diplomatic and – as an ultimate resort – martial means. If the U.S. abandons Iraq’s democracy, we will also abandon our and the entire free world’s inherited legacy of and professed commitment to freedom. If this betrayal of ourselves and the Iraqis occurs, our enemies will be empowered and we will be ideologically disarmed in the face of the enemy. If not liberty, what political principle will a discredited and defeated U.S. promote to turn the Middle East’s oppressed away from Al Qaeda’s extremism?
Come September 15th then, Americans must focus on the true measure of political progress in General Petraeus’ initial strategic assessment – tribal, local, and provincial support for liberty instead of the insurgency; and we must do so cognizant of the truth expressed and proven by prior generations of Americans who, in times of national trial, preserved and promoted our nation’s revolutionary experiment in human freedom: The only way to ensure liberty for ourselves is to extend liberty to the enslaved.
Of course, it would help too, if the collective bums in both the Iraqi Parliament and the American Congress remembered all power in a democracy is vested in its sovereign citizens, not its subservient government.
United States Representative Thaddeus G. McCotter is the Chairman of the Republican House Policy Committee and one of “Our Bums”
The premise of this claim is absolutely backwards.
Along Iraq’s bloody path to freedom, the greatest obstacle has been the average Iraqi’s wary neutrality in the battle between the United States’ “Coalition of the Willing” and the insurgents. Today, a nihilistic insurgency has been revealed to offer average Iraqis nothing but subjugation and extermination; in stark contrast, General Petraeus’ counter-insurgency strategy is delivering both the eradication of the insurgents and localized reconstruction efforts – i.e., a palpable hope for security and prosperity. Consequently, the true measure of political progress in Iraq is NOT found in its national Parliament; the true measure of political progress in Iraq is occurring in local tribes, towns and provinces where Iraqis are choosing liberty instead of the insurgency.
This Iraqi “election for freedom” is not an intrinsically military development. It is fundamentally a political development complementing and speeding military progress; and hastening the day such individual and local “grassroots” political wins collectively dictate political progress in Baghdad.
Let us, as the sovereign citizens of our free republic, ever remember how in representative democracies Parliaments and Congresses do not dictate to sovereign citizens; sovereign citizens dictate to Parliaments and Congresses. Thus, in Iraq each citizen in his or her respective tribe, town and province must inform and consent to federal laws being enacted, implemented, and honored; and, when this consent is individually granted in sufficient numbers, Iraq will complete its transformational emancipation from tyranny to liberty.
Further, let us, as the sovereign citizens of our free republic, ever remember how we cannot abandon Iraq’s fledgling democracy – or any democracy – under terrorist attack. The War for Freedom must be won through ideological, political, economic, diplomatic and – as an ultimate resort – martial means. If the U.S. abandons Iraq’s democracy, we will also abandon our and the entire free world’s inherited legacy of and professed commitment to freedom. If this betrayal of ourselves and the Iraqis occurs, our enemies will be empowered and we will be ideologically disarmed in the face of the enemy. If not liberty, what political principle will a discredited and defeated U.S. promote to turn the Middle East’s oppressed away from Al Qaeda’s extremism?
Come September 15th then, Americans must focus on the true measure of political progress in General Petraeus’ initial strategic assessment – tribal, local, and provincial support for liberty instead of the insurgency; and we must do so cognizant of the truth expressed and proven by prior generations of Americans who, in times of national trial, preserved and promoted our nation’s revolutionary experiment in human freedom: The only way to ensure liberty for ourselves is to extend liberty to the enslaved.
Of course, it would help too, if the collective bums in both the Iraqi Parliament and the American Congress remembered all power in a democracy is vested in its sovereign citizens, not its subservient government.
United States Representative Thaddeus G. McCotter is the Chairman of the Republican House Policy Committee and one of “Our Bums”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
