Shame on the Dems (and the MSM)
Here's what I'm talking about. Rep. John Murtha, a Democrat, comes out and says that the war can't be won as it's currently being fought. It's headlined, of course, as an elected official saying that the war cannot be won -- leading a casual skimmer of the paper (or the internet) to believe that he's insisting that the war cannot be won. Period. Shame on the MSM.
But shame on the Democrats, too. They're willing to let America lose a war -- and to let terrorists win Iraq, with potentially devastating consequences for all of us -- simply because of their virtually unhinged hatred for George W. Bush and love of political power.
Here's what the Democrats should be saying: "Though we disagree with the President about how to achieve it, we all share one goal -- victory in Iraq. And the USA is committed to making sure that terrorists are defeated and that we leave that country only when we are confident that it will be a secure and functioning state."
Ironically, such a statement would help us get out of there faster by convincing the insurgents that they couldn't win. Instead, every day, Democrats give them dribbles and drabbles of hope -- hope that makes our soldiers' jobs ever hard and victory even more difficult to attain. But the Democrats don't care -- so long as they think they can win a transient political victory.
Some leaders. How amazing -- after hearing Osama bin Laden, in effect, predict that the US didn't have the staying power to be a "strong horse" -- that Democrats would work so diligently to prove him right.
But shame on the Democrats, too. They're willing to let America lose a war -- and to let terrorists win Iraq, with potentially devastating consequences for all of us -- simply because of their virtually unhinged hatred for George W. Bush and love of political power.
Here's what the Democrats should be saying: "Though we disagree with the President about how to achieve it, we all share one goal -- victory in Iraq. And the USA is committed to making sure that terrorists are defeated and that we leave that country only when we are confident that it will be a secure and functioning state."
Ironically, such a statement would help us get out of there faster by convincing the insurgents that they couldn't win. Instead, every day, Democrats give them dribbles and drabbles of hope -- hope that makes our soldiers' jobs ever hard and victory even more difficult to attain. But the Democrats don't care -- so long as they think they can win a transient political victory.
Some leaders. How amazing -- after hearing Osama bin Laden, in effect, predict that the US didn't have the staying power to be a "strong horse" -- that Democrats would work so diligently to prove him right.
posted by LadybugUSA at 8:01 AM
24 Comments:
Shame on you for reiterating and preaching the conservative party line without providing any original thought.
The Dems, as you call them, are just trying to raise question about an administration whose singular message has been "you are either for us or against us". You seem to demonize anyone who tries to present an opposing point of view.
The Bush administration is facing some tough issues. When one forges ahead like a cowboy by squashing all alternatives, opposing views, and contrary evidence then they must accept the blame for their failed policies.
Iraq was never related to the war on terror until we invaded and threw the country into civil war. Every Iraqi casualty we cause turns another faction against us. Our attempts to bring together a consensus goverment has demonstrated the futility of such efforts.
You want victory in place where it cannot be defined. If you don't understand why, I suggest you start reading Thomas Friedman's books starting with "From Beruit to Jerusalem". It explains why we failed in our attempts to stablize Lebanon and why the same is true for Iraq.
The question facing this administration and the rest of the country is how can we disengage from Iraq without tearing ourselves apart. If you really want to help the cause, stop mental masturbating and start coming up with some suggestions or solutions.
It isn't "the Dems" you have to worrying about. Its the 64% of moderate Americans who are beginning to understand that victory is not a possible end game in Iraq.
gregg is an idiot!
With an enemy sworn to our destruction has hidden itself all over the world (even in the U.S.), the only proper attitude is, "You're either for us or against us."
In life and death struggles, nuance is fatal insanity.
The policies the dems claim to be failures are the very policies average Iraqi citizens risk their lives in support of every single day. This is because they know these policies are their only hope for a free and peaceful life.
The dems, on the other hand, could not care less about a free and peaceful - and possibly friendly - Middle East. They only care about destroying anything that is in their path to power.
Perhaps victory is like pornography - you know it when you see it. If that's the case, the dems WILL NEVER SEE IT because they refuse to look at it. This war in Iraq is being won as we speak, in spite of the best efforts of the dems. It is a major turning point in the overall war on terror.
If we are causing more and more factions to turn against us, then why is Lebanon now freeing itself from Syria? Why has Lybia changed course and abandoned it WMD programs? Why have Egypt and Saudi Arabia begun to implement democratic reforms?
American citizens elect officials to lead the nation. The dems have been leading the charge against American efforts in the war on terror. Recent polls are reflecting their effectivness on public opinion. American public opinion hasn't caused dems to declare a full surrender. Rather, the dems are effectively convincing the American public that the war is a lost cause.
Sadly, if Republicans don't find leadership with backbone, they will allow the democrats to win - which means America will lose. And make no mistake, the far left (as opposed to democrats in general) WANTS AMERICA TO LOSE.
The above post by Anonymous was actually me. Sorry. I've been doing a little clean up on my computer and I think I cleared out some cookies that had my information stored in them.
I'm still working on it.
Greg
Anyone interested in Iraq's dealings with al Qaeda should read a book by Stephen Hayes, titled, "The Connection: How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America." I recommend it, especially, to those who, like Gregg, think, "Iraq was never related to the war on terror..." However, I don't really expect those claims to stop, even after they read the book, because it won't assuage their apparent hatred for president Bush.
(Can anyone recommend a good MH counselor for Gregg, since he seems to be writing notes to and about himself?)
Gregg, thank you for preaching the anti-war line and not providing any original thought. If this war in Iraq is worthless and futile, why do Iraqis risk their lives to vote? Why do they risk their lives everyday to join the security force? Democracy is happening in Iraq. Terrorist blowing up bombs does not erase democracy. So there is not a democracy problem in Iraq, there is a terrorist problem. If we turned a faction against us after every casualty, there would be no more people for us. How many factions do you think there are? People who argue that Iraq wasn't fundamental in the GWOT just don't follow what President Bush has repeated time and time again. Democracy breeds democracy. Let's not even go into Saddam's connections to terror or his weapons programs (just read the Kay Report to see his programs). When democracy rules Iraq, there will be a freedom wedge between Syria and Iran. Why do you think both these countries are fighting against what is happening in Iraq? Most of Iran is already pro west, freedom next door will push it over the edge. Syrian troops have already gotten out of Lebanon. Libya already gave up it's weapons. Syria is talking about Iraq's, I mean it's weapons. If we leave Iraq to you think Zarqawi will go back to selling cigars at his smoke shop? Let's also look at history and how long it took democracy to take hold in Germany, in France, and even in the United States. There are different political view in every country. Just because different factions in Iraq disagree and go back and forth doesn't mean democracy doesn't exist. Actually, it means it exists pretty well. Why can't victory be defined in Iraq? I love this subtle snide attitude that people have in thinking that people in the middle east can't support freedom. That's a pretty disgusting viewpoint, in my eyes. If it were true, then every Iraqi that comes to America to live wouldn't flourish like they do. President Bush is finally a leader who stood on the ladder and saw that we were doing the wrong thing for years in the Mid East, supporting regimes that were okay some of the time. He is finally someone who brought something new to the table and said freedom can exist in this area and change this area.
Responding to a presidential tasking, Clarke’s office sent a memo to Rice on September 18, titled “Survey of Intelligence Information on Any Iraq Involvement in the September 11 Attacks.” Rice’s chief staffer on Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, concurred in its conclusion that only some anecdotal evidence linked Iraq to al Qaeda. The memo found no “compelling case” that Iraq had either planned or perpetrated the attacks. It passed along a few foreign intelligence reports, including the Czech report alleging an April 2001 Prague meeting between Atta and an Iraqi Intelligence officer (discussed in chapter 7) and a Polish report that personnel at the headquarters of Iraqi intelligence in Baghdad were told before September 11 to go on the streets to gauge crowd reaction to an unspecified event. Arguing that the case for links between Iraq and al Qaeda was weak, the memo pointed out that Bin Ladin resented the secularism of Saddam Hussein’s regime. Finally, the memo said, there was no confirmed reporting on Saddam cooperating with Bin Ladin on unconventional weapons. -- National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.
Putting aside tin-foil hat conspiracy books published by right-wing crap publishers (like the one recommended by Bachbone), the evidence for an Iraq/al Qaeda axis is non-existent. The 9/11 Commission report is a fine example of what is found when one follows the available evidence as opposed ot neo-con ideology.
Jason wrote, Let's not even go into Saddam's connections to terror or his weapons programs (just read the Kay Report to see his programs).
No, Jason, let's get into Saddam's connections to terror and his weapons programs. See, the Bush administration told us we were in imminent danger from Iraq, based on Saddam's weapons programs and links to al Qaeda.
Here are three quotes from the final report put out by the Iraq Survey Group. The ISG was tasked by the US government to determine the extent of Iraq's WMD programs following the invasion. Their final report, the Deulfer Report, stands as the official US government position on Iraq and WMD.
Nuclear Weapons:
Iraq Survey Group (ISG) discovered further evidence of the maturity and significance of the pre-1991 Iraqi Nuclear Program but found that Iraq’s ability to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program progressively decayed after that date.
Chemical Weapons:
While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter...
Biological Weapons:
ISG found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW program or was conducting BW-specific work for military purposes.
So according to the US government, Saddam Hussein had no WMD nor did he have the means of acquiring WMD. It appears that you, Jason, are either lying or mislead. Would you care to share which it is, or should we guess?
Since I have just proven you unsupported claims are not trustworthy, why don't you put forward some evidence of a compelling Iraq/Terrorist link? Oh, that's right, there is no such evidence.
Putz.
As far as Carol's original argument goes, it reminds me of the following passage from a children's classic...
"Do you believe?" he cried.
Tink sat up in bed almost briskly to listen to her fate.
She fancied she heard answers in the affirmative, and then again she wasn't sure.
"What do you think?" she asked Peter.
"If you believe," he shouted to them, "clap your hands; don't let Tink die."
That's right, according to Carol, if we just clap loud enough, everything is going to be alright.
The Democratic Party - America's Surrender Monkeys.
The Democrats:
"It's haaaarrrd in Iraq."
"Let's quit."
"That will solve everything."
Troops seem to want to stay until the job is done, though. Go figure. But what do they know?
Bad day for the 'bats and 'crats.
Had a chance to back up their cut-and-run rhetoric, and wussed out.
Stayed in character, though. Got to give 'em that.
Wow anonymous insightful commentary. Let me try...
Republicans voted for cut and run before they voted against it.
Huh? When did Republicans vote for cut and run?
Dems on the other hand talk a big cut and run game, until they have to back up their rhetoric with a by-name vote. Staying in character - spineless whiny hypocritical wusses, yes they are.
Anonymous asked, " Huh? When did Republicans vote for cut and run?"
Sorry, anon, I thought from your other comments you had at least passing familiearity with what happened last night. I didn't realize you were merely an empty vessel. Here's the explanation...
We wouldn't even had the vote last night unless the resolution was brought to the floor. The first vote was the vote to bring the resolution to the floor. By voting against bring the resolution to the floor, it could have been killed even earlier.
All Democrats voted against bringing the resolution to the floor, but the Republican party voted to bring the resolution to the floor. Hence, the Republican caucus voted for the cut and run resolution before they voted against it.
By Carol's reasoning by not killing the reolution as soon as possible, the Republican House caucus provided hope to the terrorists. This brings up my next anonymous piece of meaningless drivel...
Why do Republicans hate America?
Now we know why you call yourself Mr. Twister – twisting and contorting reality seems to be your schtick.
As you well know, voting for bringing the resolution to a floor vote wasn’t a vote for cut and run – it was a vote to force all of the members of the House to take an on-the-record by-name stand on an issue that Dems have been bleating about for months – as long as they didn’t have to vote on it. Tellingly, the Dems voted en masse to flee from having to take such a stand. Their vote to avoid being put in a position to take that stand reinforces their spineless, two-faced, say-one-thing-but-won’t-stand-behind-it-when-the-chips-are-down M.O.
Republicans don’t hate America. That's just more whiny petulant drivel. Staying in character, I see.
Anonymous wrote, "As you well know, voting for bringing the resolution to a floor vote wasn’t a vote for cut and run..."
Anonymous, if the Republicasn were truly opposed to Republican Representative David Hunter's Cut-and-Run Resolution, they would have killed it by not letting it come to the floor. Unless...
You are not claiming that the Republican House Caucus was using the troops in the field for political purposes were you? Using our brave men and women in the field as political pawns would be wrong wouldn't it? That would make the Republican House Caucus hypocrites as they claim they support the troops.
Begone you left-wing moonbat troll! The Republican party would never, ever, ever, use the young patriots in Iraq as a part of a cynical political ploy.
The "...right-wing crap publisher[s]..." of Mr. Hayes' book is Harper Collins. Among its authors are Dylan Thomas, Alice Walker, Dr. Andrew Weil, Peter Drucker, Cokie Roberts, Maurice Sendak, Gen. Tommy R. Franks, Michael Crichton, Joyce Carol Oates, Dr. Laura Schlesinger, Allen Ginsberg and that other right-wing nutcase - John F. Kennedy.
Rather than critique the book on its contents, Mr. Twister trashes it because he thinks its publisher prints works by only right-wingers.
As for the 9-11 Commission, its members dismissed information we now know, from Able Danger members, was worthy of inclusion in its deliberations. We don't know how much else the Commission dismissed that may have altered its conclusions.
Obfuscation, deflection, lying and a visceral hatred of George Bush seem to be all the left has to offer.
Twister, your latest pontifications and pathetic “left –wing moonbat troll” garbage only serve to illustrate convincingly just how completely unglued and unhinged you and your left-wing moonbat buddies have become regarding the war in Iraq.
Try as you might to spin the events of last night, the vote to bring Hunter’s resolution to a floor vote was, as I already mentioned, intended to make all of the members of the House (and particularly the vocal and defeatist Democrats) take a stand, on the record, by name, one way or the other, on the question of whether the US should or should not immediately withdraw from Iraq. The Dems tried desperately to prevent that from occurring, and failed. Deal with it and move on. Trying to spin it just ain’t gonna fly. Period.
BTW, it’s Duncan Hunter, not David Hunter.
Don’t even try the BS about using our troops for political purposes. It’s not the right that ignores, downplays, or minimizes the achievements, accomplishments, and progress our soldiers have made and contributed to in Iraq – it’s you and your fellow-traveling buddies on the left. It’s not the right that plays up and magnifies the by-exception shortcomings and black eyes as the norm (Abu Ghraib! Abu Ghraib! Abu Ghraib!), it’s the left. It’s not the right that’s spouted the get-out-immediately before our soldiers can complete the job and achieve the objectives they’re currently working towards, it’s the left. But you support the troops – yeah, sure, right. The vast majority of the troops in Iraq don’t seem to see it that way, but what do they know, and who cares what they think, right? Until and unless you can find the occasional malcontent, then you and your pals play it up for all it’s worth – for your political purposes to undermine the war effort. All in a "patriotic" way, of course.
You want a picture of cynical, use-the-troops hypocrisy, take a good look in the mirror.
Wow, Anonymous, given the vacuity of your statements and how little basis in reality they had, I though we were engaging in a snark battle.
I'm sorry I didn't realize you are empty-headed enough to actually believe the spittle you let fly.
First an apology to the group--Bachbone is correct. For some reason I got Stephen Hayes and Frank Miniter (a Regnery hack) confused. Stephen Hayes did not publish at a right-wing nutjob publisher, he published with Harper Collins which is owned by Rupert Murdoch. As far as whether Mr. Hayes is himself a right-wing hack...
Since you obviously can't trust my book review now, anyone interested may want to turn to Nov. 19, 2003 article in Newsweek titled Case Decidedly Not Closed: The Defense Dept. memo allegedly proving a link between Al Qaeda and Saddam does nothing of the sort, written by Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball. They demonstrate that the Hayes used discredited intelligence material to put forward his claim of a link. More than that the memo in question was recanted by the Pentagon shortly after it was released.
An interesting aside to this is that this is precisely the same flawed intelligence Dick Cheney was touting when he made up the Iraq/al Qaeda link.
Gosh, Bachbone, I am sure impressed with Stephen Hayes and his jottings. It is nice to know that you feel a frequent right-wing Daily Standard contributor pushing recanted Pentagon intelligence is less biased than a bi-partisan Presidential commission.
Your last reply, Twister, was completely free of content and substance, and degenerated yet again into simple petulant whining. Perhaps you’re miffed that no one seems to be buying your cutesy/contrived “insight” trying to transfer Jean Francoise’s inane voted-for-it-before-he-voted-against-it comment onto congressional Republicans. It ain’t workin’, Charlie – sane, rational people, unfortunately for you, are extremely unlikely to fall for your tripe. Might want to consider trying a new angle.
Since you’ve brought up the concepts of empty-headedness and vacuity, your jaw-droppingly silly, pathetic, and laughable attempt to spin the first-round procedural vote as the equivalent to a vote for cutting and running is Exhibit 1. Clearly you are too empty headed to grasp or too dishonest to acknowledge the actual purpose of bringing the resolution to a floor vote, which was to force a debate and compel congressmen to take a stand once and for all between the emerging Democratic position to abandon the Iraq war effort as soon as possible, without regard to potential consequences, versus the present course that calls for ensuring that appropriate conditions are established and defined success criteria have been achieved before starting to draw down our troop presence in Iraq.
This may be too complex a concept for you to grasp. Encouragingly, however, a few Democrats even went on record during the debate and acknowledged that pulling out immediately or “soon” based on an arbitrary timeline is a dumb idea. So there is some hope, although you appear to be a lost cause.
Clearly you are too empty headed to grasp or too dishonest to acknowledge the actual purpose of bringing the resolution to a floor vote,
No, anonymous, I got that completely. I was making a comment on how completely divorced from reality your inane lickspittle content-free crap postings were by making my own snarky comment in the same mise en scene. Humor is considered a sign of intelligence in the higher primates. Unfortunately, I didn't realize that you don't measure up the primate standards.
If it makes you feel better, I do find it hilarious that you think my posts in this thread were serious.
It’s great that you finally deign to acknowledge what the votes in the House of Representatives on Friday were really all about.
Your contention that your inane posts were simply in-kind snark responses to my posts might fly – if you hadn’t been posting the same crap in all seriousness on completely different threads as well. You staked out an untenable position, and now find yourself having to back away from it, pathetically attempting to camouflage your cut-and-run retreat by contending you were never “serious” after all. Lower primates and your fellow moonbats (but I repeat myself) might buy it, but no one else is likely to.
You’ve had a rough time on this particular thread, haven’t you? You made a false contention that Bachbone had to call you on, then had to back away from your drivel on the House vote. Maybe you should quit your trolling here while you’re only way behind.
On the bright side, there’s nowhere for you to go but up from here.
Mr. Twister tries to paint Harper Collins as a right-wing publishing house, despite having apparently seen the list of authors posted, which contains all shades of political thinkers.
Harper Colins and The Weekly Standard are right-wing crap publishers, but Newsweek is...what? Middle of the road? (It was Newsweek that refused to publish Clinton's obscene sexual harassment of Paula Jones.) Mr. Hayes is a right-wing 'jotter', but Michael Isikoff is...what? Middle of the road 'author'? (Wasn't it Isikoff who alleged, falsely, guards at Gitmo were desecrating the Koran?)
Stephen Hayes' rebuttal to the Newsweek Isakoff article was published 11/20/2003, and Hayes specifically refuted the Isikoff assertion that the Pentagon recanted anything. He also questioned whether Isikoff ever saw that Pentagon memo or just misreperesented it.
The bi-partisan 9-11 Committee has so much egg on its collective face that one can't distinguish it from an omelet. "Bi-partisan" means little in an atmosphere where politicians will say little or nothing bad about each other unless they suspect guilt can be pinned on only one side of the aisle. If both sides are at fault, they play "bi-partisan CYA" for both sides of the aisle and blame some bureaucrat.
The 9-11 waters are still roiling. As are the State Department, Pentagon, CIA and FBI. If we find some politicians who are more interested in the nation's future than party affiliation, we may yet get all the facts.
Post a Comment
<< Home