Carol Platt Liebau: "D" for Democrat / Defeat / Dishonorable

Friday, February 23, 2007

"D" for Democrat / Defeat / Dishonorable

In one succinct paragraph, Charles Krauthammer illuminates the point I was trying to make here and here:

Slowly bleeding our forces by defunding what our commanders think they need to win (the House approach) or rewording the authorization of the use of force so that lawyers decide what operations are to be launched (the Senate approach) is no way to fight a war. It is no way to end a war. It is a way to complicate the war and make it inherently unwinnable -- and to shirk the political responsibility for doing so.

These days, when one sees a "D" behind a politician's name, it's harder than ever to figure out whether it stands for "Democrat" or "Defeat" or "Dishonorable."


Blogger One Salient Oversight said...

"R" for Republican / Racist / Repulsive

3:45 PM  
Blogger stackja1945 said...

Again D for dill as said in Australia, New Zealand: a fool or idiot. Seems to sum the Dems.

4:24 PM  
Blogger JohnnyT. said...

O S O says >Republican /Racist /Repulsive< this is a typically ill-informed smear. Just throw an insult at the wall and see if it sticks. What does Racism have to do with anything? Are we racist against the Iraqi's while we are fighting alongside Iraqi's? Or does that slander have to do with Obama? I think Hillary will take care of Him. Maybe you could have made your point better saying the "R" behind some politicians names stands for "Rong", or "Reallymeanspirited", or "Rich". All those could have illustrated your weak argument without lowering down to Lame namecalling. You get 1/2 credit for "Repulsive" but the acronym being sought was not how the Subject makes you feel, but who they are or what they do. Otherwise we could go on and on with "D" words that insult ,but do not enlighten.

5:33 AM  
Blogger brian.busse said...

R for Republican / Rabid / Ridiculous

The only thing that can happen now is for the war to end. It has already been lost in the sense that the goals set for it can no longer be achieved, if they ever could have been, by military force. Should we chose to do so, we could certainly kill most every insurgent in Iraq. All we have to do is repeat Falujah, over and over again. Just become even less concerned with collateral damage than we have been to date. (Not much room left there, but we could increase the number of innocents we kill for every insurgent). Only one problem. We still don't win. We'll have more innocent blood on our hands than a hundred Osamas. (instead of the tens that it is now) The region will be more inflamed, not less. And all we'll have to show for our effort is more problems than when we started, and less resources to confront them.

9:48 AM  
Blogger One Salient Oversight said...

Hey... I'm just doing what Carol did for the Democrats.

If what I wrote was a "typically ill-informed smear" then perhaps people shouldn't throw stones in glass houses?

8:47 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home