Oxymoron: Liberal Strategy
Has the cut-and-run contingent figured this out yet? Iran is trying to destabilize Iraq, as those quoted in the linked piece point out. Yet American liberals are only too eager to give President Ahmadinejad a victory by removing our troops, thereby leaving the Iraqis helpless in the face of Iranian manipulation.
Figure that one out -- and decide if those are the kind of global strategists who can be depended on to keep us all safe.
Figure that one out -- and decide if those are the kind of global strategists who can be depended on to keep us all safe.
posted by LadybugUSA at 6:31 PM
11 Comments:
Editor wrote, "We need more tax cuts to win."
And a Constitutional amendment to ban flag burning.
Thank you Martin and Lewis.
Actually I agree. More Tax Cuts, Stronger economy, Better industrial strength.
Bgeorge, he actually said someting right.
Tbe basis for anything the Democrats do is this: "anything that harms Bush or by extension the Republicans is good for us."
By flagging the war against Islamic Jihad as merely "Bush's war", they attempt to dissociate themselves as stakeholders. Therefore, with the war being Bush's war, there is really no worry about defeat, since it isn't a Democrat's problem, only Bush's.
Time for a diaper change eLarson?
Moron.
Actually, let me amend that.
Some where in the mountainous no-man region between Pakistan and Afghanistan lives the most diabolic creature, living in a cave and tethered to a dialysis machine.
This is, perhaps, the crux of it. Either the conflict is over one man, Osama bin Laden, or it is bigger.
The ersatz editor (of what, by the way?) implies that if you Get Osama, the whole thing is over. Presumably then the world will once again be made safe for transnational socialism, and the arguments can return to purely domestic matters such as soaking "the rich."
On the other hand, I'm not persuaded that the holding Osama bin Laden's head up on Al Jazeera will end anything, and that other players need to be dealt with--in particular, Iran's Mohammedan regime, with whom we've been in conflict for more than 25 years.
the weaker Bush makes the US military
Please provide us your careful analysis of how the US military is made weaker.
Sorry, editor. Your hand-waving "Go watch CSPAN" is not going to cut it. You posted a dogmatic assertion with zero evidence behind it.
The burden is on you.
Put up, or shut up.
ELarson,
You exerted way too much effort when you already had it nailed with "Moron". I have to admit to being a bit ashamed for having wasted time myself trying to debate someone so stupid. I'd much prefer being stumped and made to question my principles with some intelligent lefty (there really are some, you know) than to waste another keystroke on this retarded chimp. Henceforth, if I respond to eddy-boy at all, it will be with only mockery. It's all he deserves.
I won't ask you to support your propaganda because we all know it is just GOP taking points and/or FOX stories.
"You all" "know" many things.
If you feel I've made a dogmatic assertion, feel free to ask me. It is only fair.
Thanks for actually posting something. I don't imagine the Mohammedan cannon fodder gives a rip about the national guard, so I don't think there is a causality there.
I trust you've written your congressman urging him or her to support increased funding for national guard units.
I don't "know" that you did, I only trust from your implied concern, that you have done so.
Surely you wouldn't be any kind of--gasp!--hypocrite.
The post-Kennedy Democrats view cutting marginal tax rates like a vampire views a cross.
Why? Beats me. When tax rates are lowered--within reason, of course. You can't lower them to zero--tax revenue to the government increases due to more money circulating through the economy. It has been shown time and again.
In passing, I'll note that "a heavy progressive or graduated income tax" is point #2 in the Communist Manifesto, right after the abolition of private property.
Post a Comment
<< Home