58 Comments

  1. Calling Democrats “terrorists” again eh?

    It’s absolutely offensive and you know it.

    Dana, I think your poster seriously owes an apology to all Americans.

    ~

  2. sgo, a bit of thin skin there eh? What would you call it when in the middle of a war with our troops on the ground in Iraq, the entire democrat side of the isle, along with 17 RINOs, essentially votes aid and comfort to our enemies?

    Sorry you’re so deeply offended but Yorkshire has it right. So this is what dems mean when they say “we support the troops”. Nothing but bovine excrement.

    And the supporters of this “non-binding” resolution are so gutless that they won’t even go near cutting off funding like Ted Kennedy and his fellow cowards and fifth columnists did to cause the collapse of South Viet Nam.

    If you enjoyed the Killing Fields of Cambodia you ain’t seen nothin’ yet. The congressional cowards are working on the sequel as we speak.

  3. York, why are YOU aiding the terrorists? This Iraq debacle based on LIES (and you know it was lies that started this bloodbath) has done nothing but create enthusiasm for anti-American sentiment, AND has greatly increased terrorism. War is supposed to be a last resort. It was a personal ambition of GWB from before he stole the oval office. (and there’s plenty to document that too)

    Also, why don’t you support our troops? Our troops, in fact the higher ranks as well agree with the resulting vote today in Congress. This “surge” in nothing more than a last shot in the dark for Bush to save face, for having created a chaotic hell-hole, a loss for our country, for Iraq, for our place in the world, for our treasury, and most of all the loss of many many thousands of innocent human beings, leaving behind a void in the hearts of so many families that can NEVER again be filled with that particular light that their son, daughter, mother, father, grandparent, baby, friend, whomever brought them. Also, the bodies of the individuals that are without full capacity is tragic beyond words as well. We don’t even see the results of the devastation upon the Iraqis. The news will only show you the results of the suicide bombings, NOT the bombing our policy causes upon civillians.

    For what? For war profiteers.

    Also, why do you support acts of war crimes? This from Judges of International Tribunal:

    “The charges of the indictment that the defendants planned a waged aggressive war are charges of the utmost gravity…To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime: it is the *SUPREME INTERNATIONAL CRIME differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”

    *emphasis mine

    So, how does it feel to be promoting war crime, York?

  4. York, what a disgusting remark from you, to those of us that care for our troops, and humanity’s well being!

    The troops emotional well being will forever be scarred beyond recognition. Their families acknowledge that it is not the same person that comes back for the war, that left for it. They have to know that, (and they do…most) that they were lied to by their own government and killed human beings that never deserved to die. What a nightmare to live with! You don’t hear much about the many suicides following these sodiers’ deployment. There are reports, but not in the MSM.

    There has just been another move by GWB (bastard) to cut Veterans benefits again. Why don’t you even have a trace of concern for these honorable men and women?

    Who is the actual treasonist? You are by supporting this criminal child in the oval office, that destroys not only our Constitution, our honor around the world, the well being of humanity, and just about anything you can think of that is revered regarding morality and principle, representative of the United States. It deeply shames me the way this man has violated our honor as a PREVIOUSLY bright shining example of what other nations aspired to be around the world. We have been referred to as the new Nazi Germany by others now.

    The word “regime” has been used in place of “administration” by more astute individuals now for quite some time. There is nothing that can or will prevent this wretched human being occupying OUR Whitehouse from doing whatever the hell he wants. Is that our United States? I’m not recognizing my country. I miss it.

  5. Yorkshire, I gather you think that anyone who doesn’t support Bush’s “surge” notion is a terrorist. That would include a simple majority of US soldiers serving in Iraq.

    When even a large minority of serving soldiers are, in your eyes, terrorists, you have two choices: You can conclude that the US military is now fighting for the enemies of the US, your situation is hopeless, and you had better emigrate. Let us know where you decide to emigrate to.

    Or you can consider that, when a simple majority of people do not support a notion that the President had about a war, a notion which goes against the expert advice and experience of people who know more about the situation in Iraq than the President does, they have a right to vote against it without being called “terrorists” because they don’t support the President’s nutty ideas.

    It’s worth noting that, when George W. Bush was running businesses (into the ground, mostly) there eventually came a time when the people who were actually putting the money into the companies he didn’t know how to run, insisted that he shouldn’t be allowed to make decisions any more. This was then politely called making him a “consulting manager”. It was not considered that simply not permitting him to make further stupid decisions would give “aid and comfort” to the company’s competion: rather the reverse.

  6. Politics was once a noble art in this nation, and the earliest participants were once people whose risktaking could have put them at the wrong end of a piece of rope. The fate of so many who signed that Declaration in 1776 showed the penalty for patriotism. The war that followed was not popular and a lot of mistakes were made. Afterwards, most people (except for those who went to Canada) became instant patriots.

    Now we have another unpopular war. Unlike the one in Vietnam, this was not the result of Cold War miscalculation but the result of a deadly threat from an amorphous enemy. We displayed an act of Natonal cowardice in the dealings with the Mad Mullahs during the Carter era. This emboldened the terror apparatus. Outrages continued and certain nations gave assistance to an international enemy that could move from nation to nation to escape justice. The first World Trade center attack did not have the effect that was desired and there was little done in response. The scope of the second briefly united the nation but our collective attention span is limited and our enemies know our weakness.

    Too many of our current breed of politicians fear nothing as much as losing their salaries and perquisites of office. Many have never had a real job in their life and pretend to be ‘public servants’. Venality is often the most powerful force that motivates them.

    We have one party that is now in the majority that would sacrifice the future of civilization for political gain. Peace in our time always has its appeal. Appeasement seldom is without its short-term appeal.

    Are we talking about a lack of patriotism that can be treated as treasonous? There are the Lynn Stewart types who would be hanged in a more thinking age and the radicals of the ACLU stripe who would pervert the Bill of Rights into a suicide pact. Most of our elected officials are rther gutless timeservers more driven by the opinion polls rather than principle.

    They want to keep their jobs.

    Among the most despicable is Representative Mike Castle of Delaware. He bears the label of Republican. While he can cater to certain business interests out to gouge the public, this careerist seems very much at home with his Washington buddies Biden and Carper. As one of the State’s “Three Stooges” he regularly gets elected by supporters who must hold their nose on election day. His last opponent was a former law partner and there was even an irrational ‘Green Party’ candidate in the race. The State GOP leadership often seems more than a chorus of castratti singing his praises.

    Tho base of urban venal machine politics is now more powerful a force than the old Solid South. Add to this a noisy band of well-funded radicals with a dream for ‘Amerika’ that would be a nightmare to the Founding Fathers and you have cause to worry. Opposing them is a GOP that seems to be rotting from the head down. This does not refer to the President but to those less visible ‘leaders’ who seem to concentrate in achieving generic victories by abandoning any scintilla of principle in the protection of time-worn incumbents.

    Inertia is a powerful thing in the political world as well as the physical. It longed sustained the GOP. A spirit was rekindled in 1964 that did not bloom until 1980. Where will such a spiritual fire be re-kinlded? The ‘fire brigade’ of the ‘GOP Establishment’ seems determined to keep this from happening.

    The revived ‘establishment’ needs a swift kick in the fundament. It did not seem to recognize the one it got last November.

  7. Art Downs: The fate of so many who signed that Declaration in 1776 showed the penalty for patriotism.

    If you think that, you need to study your history better. (Or at least, stop taking your historical knowledge from
    urban legends circulating on the Internet.) The only person who signed the Declaration of Independence who directly suffered because of signing it (Richard Stockton of New Jersey, arrested as a signatory in 1776) was also the only one to recant his signature and sign a pledge of allegience to King George III.

    We have one party that is now in the majority that would sacrifice the future of civilization for political gain.

    No, remember, it’s now February 2007: the Republican Party is no longer in the majority in Congress, so that’s no longer true.

  8. There is an old saying: lead, follow, or get out of the way.

    • The Democrats did not lead: they produced a document that was meant to bitch-slap the President, but didn’t actually change policy.
    • The Democrats did not follow. To have followed, they’d have had to have supported the Commander-in-Chief, even if they didn’t necessarily like his policies.
    • All that they did was get in the way.

    The non-binding resolution doesn’t actually do anything. It does not cut off funds for the war, it does not issue any directives which must be followed, it does not require that the troops be removed from Iraq, it does not change policy in any way.

    The only thing it has are two psychological effects, both of which are bad:

    • It tells the troops that the majority of the House of Representatives do not support their mission, believe that the mission will fail, and that they want it to fail. All this can do is to demoralize the troops.
    • It tells the enemy that the majority of the House of Representatives do not support the war effort, want it to fail, and if the enemy can just hold on a little longer, they will win. All this can do is embolden the enemy.

    The Democrats have the majority in both Houses of Congress. If they wish to use that power to end the war, then they ought to actually do something to require pulling out the troops; this they haven’t the cojones to do. All they are doing now is passing senseless resolutions that don’t stop the war, don’t help American troops, and don’t support any strategy to try to win the war.

    They are truly disgusting pieces of filth.

  9. SGO wrote:

    Calling Democrats “terrorists” again eh?

    It’s absolutely offensive and you know it.

    Dana, I think your poster seriously owes an apology to all Americans.

    And The Liberal Avenger wrote:

    Patently offensive – an insult to all Americans.

    Is this the kind of site you’re running, Dana?

    I agree with LA: the Democrats’ resolution is patently offensive to all Americans!

    And SGO: Yorkshire needn’t apologize for telling the truth.

  10. From Ed Morrissey:

    Unfortunately, the House just sent a huge signal to the terrorists that waiting us out is a winning strategy, one they will not have to endure for very long. I don’t believe that the politicians who voted for this resolution are traitors or Quislings, and in fact I strenuously reject that characterization. I think they’re idiots and fools, though, and idiots and fools can be almost as dangerous.

  11. More predictable clueless nonsense about “the troops” and the war from sgo, LA, blu and jes. Which of you have ever even touched an M-16? Have any of you ever been in combat on the far side of the world while our elected representatives sold you down the river as the democrats did in Viet Nam and are now attempting to do again? Will you this time take responsibility for the Killing Fields that will inevitably result from a precipitous withdrawal?

    Don’t even begin to cite polls to me about what the troops think or about their “mental condition” unless you yourself have been there. I’ll speak for our troops and I’ll save you some time reading ridiculous polls about what the troops think. They want to win and return home victorious as soon as possible. No soldier wants to spend one more minute in combat than necessary and all of us detest war. Period. Got that?

    It is not possible to “support the troops” and then characterize their sacrifices as “a waste” as one of the front runners for the democrat presidential nomination has recently done. It is not possible to “support the troops” then leave them there for more months without reinforcements while you dither with “gotcha politics” and pass ridiculous “non-binding resolutions” for political points. It is not possible to “support the troops” and “listen to the generals” when you unanimously approve a commander and then unanimously disapprove of his tactics.

    If the democrats want to bring the troops home to show their “support for the troops”, do it. Don’t beat around the bush, don’t delay – cut off the funds immediately and withdraw the troops. If the war isn’t worth fighting, why should the troops continue to remain in harms way for six more months, six more days or six more hours?

    The answer is because the members of congress are gutless, both parties. Either fight to win or leave. I’m tired of listening to armchair generals bloviating about “nonbinding resolutions”. Contribute to a solution or kindly just be quiet.

    And for you armchair generals here, what’s your solution? I don’t care how we got there, who lied, what we found, what we didn’t find, yada, yada, yada. The fact is, we’re in Iraq – live with that reality. Now what’s your plan to leave general sgo, general blu, general LA and general jes? Please don’t answer unless your answer includes your solution for withdrawing without further emboldening the enemies of civilization as OBL stated that we did with our withdrawals from Somalia, Lebanon, Viet Nam, etc.

    Yorkshire and Dana, you have it exactly correct. This resolution does nothing other than provide aid and comfort to our enemies and to destroy the morale of our fine young men and women serving honorably in combat. Shameful!

  12. And SGO: Yorkshire needn’t apologize for telling the truth.

    Truth? well then, let’s see.

    A. You want to kill the terrorists

    B. You consider the Democrats terrorists

    A+B=C You want to kill Democrats

    yup an apology is needed unless you really want to kill Democrats.

    ~

  13. SGO wrote:

    Truth? well then, let’s see.

    A. You want to kill the terrorists

    B. You consider the Democrats terrorists

    A+B=C You want to kill Democrats

    yup an apology is needed unless you really want to kill Democrats.

    No, SGO, we want to defeat terrorists. Some of them, the really dedicated Islamists, cannot be defeated without killing them, true enough.

    But the Democrats, basically being wimps, will cave easily enough when they see the dedicated terrorists being killed. Then they’ll go back into their corners and not bother the rest of us.

  14. Harry Arthur: Don’t even begin to cite polls to me about what the troops think or about their “mental condition” unless you yourself have been there. I’ll speak for our troops and I’ll save you some time reading ridiculous polls about what the troops think. They want to win and return home victorious as soon as possible. No soldier wants to spend one more minute in combat than necessary and all of us detest war. Period. Got that?

    Fine. No problem. So, remind me again why you think this “surge” of the President’s is a grand idea that ought to be supported?

  15. Fine. No problem. So, remind me again why you think this “surge” of the President’s is a grand idea that ought to be supported?

    Oh, maybe because it’s working. M. Al-Sadr fled to Iran, and murders are down already. Or, the terrorists believe that the Dims will pull out and just wait. The first answer is correct.

  16. Congressional Score:
    Terrorists 246- Americans 182
    Nuf’ said

    Indeed! The maniacal howling and screeching from the left wing contingent is proof positive that your comment was right on the bullseye. And, deep down, they know it.

  17. York, what a disgusting remark from you, to those of us that care for our troops, and humanity’s well being!

    There are few things more tiresome than self-righteousness coming from someone who has nothing to be self-righteous about. The Party of Appeasement is so wimpy that they’re even tentative in their boot licking, with this ridiculous “non-binding resolution” whose sole result will be to demoralize the troops while emboldening the enemy. You’d think these fools would have learned that appeasement never works, because it’s failed every time it’s been tried, from Chamberlain vs Hitler to Carter vs Iran and Slick Willie in Somalia. An astute person once observed that one version of insanity is doing the same thing, over and over, and expecting a different result.

  18. Calling Democrats “terrorists” again eh?

    It’s absolutely offensive and you know it.

    Dana, I think your poster seriously owes an apology to all Americans.

    Yeah, I apologize that people who want this country succeed in all endeavors have to put up with wimpy votes like this. If the Libs had a real set, they would have shown the world we can cut and run quickly instead of the slow death you want to pull off. I sorry to that from January 21, 2001 you hated Bush with a passion I have never seen and continue to this day. I apologize that we have a wimpy media that will not and has not reported the whole story in Iraq, only those stories that have been proven fabrications like the Shiites burning, to only half the stories of true success there. And I’m sorry to for the troops who have just been stabbed in the back by the dims in congress. It’s pure BS that you support the troops. With support like that, I would be demoralized too.

  19. The only thing shameful is that it wasn’t a binding resolution.

    You red state mentality are all for killing more people for a lie. Also shameful. Easy for you, while you are sitting at your computer on your asses. Someone else doing the bleeding. For lies and profit. You are shameful. You are treasonous.

  20. Pingback: appletree » Blog Archive » The US has Already Lost

  21. It’s not about wanting to succeed. It’s about recognizing that the US has already lost.

    That, and you should ask what the liberal critics of the Democratic Party think before you start going on about how the Democrats are too wimpy. Yes, the non-binding resolution doesn’t mean much. But it sets the stage for a binding resolution. The Feingold bill to cut off funding isn’t going to pass tomorrow, but the Democratic Party can arrange things so that it has the political capital to pass it in, say, September.

  22. That, and you should ask what the liberal critics of the Democratic Party think before you start going on about how the Democrats are too wimpy. Yes, the non-binding resolution doesn’t mean much. But it sets the stage for a binding resolution. The Feingold bill to cut off funding isn’t going to pass tomorrow, but the Democratic Party can arrange things so that it has the political capital to pass it in, say, September.

    The Democrat Party should just be honest and change its name to “The Vichy Regime Part Deux”.

  23. You red state mentality are all for killing more people for a lie. Also shameful. Easy for you, while you are sitting at your computer on your asses. Someone else doing the bleeding. For lies and profit. You are shameful. You are treasonous.

    Quit trying to pretend that you “Support the Troops” since it’s quite obvious that you don’t.

    Basically your posts amount to putting on a cheerleader suit*, and waving your pompoms yelling:

    Terrorists RULE!
    America SUCKS!
    Gooooo Terrorists!!!!
    Yay, Sis Boom Bah !!!

    * Faux suicide bomber’s belt optional …

  24. So what was the purpose of a non-binding resolution? Just to stick it in Bush’s face at the expense of the moral of the troops? You say we lost Iraq. All I’ve heard from the left from day one is we lost. It’s just your self-fulfilling prophecies that you wanted to be true because of Bush only.

    Under Clinton, we wouldn’t be having this discussion, because he would have done nothing and accept the loss on 9/11 as we just made them mad. But then again, there would have been a few more 9/11′s after that.

    Bin Laden and Zawahiri are cheering your actions. They now will rub it our faces that we still don’t have the stomach to fight. And the Dems in the House just proved it to them.

    Support the Troops? Don’t make me laugh. With support like this we would still be living under the standards of 1895.

  25. Pingback: The US has Already Lost « Abstract Nonsense

  26. OK, for those who believe that the US has already lost (which might actually be the truth), why aren’t y’all up in arms about what the Democrats are doing?

    If we’ve lost, and the Democrats are doing anything

  27. And SGO: Yorkshire needn’t apologize for telling the truth.

    Truth? well then, let’s see.

    A. You want to kill the terrorists

    B. You consider the Democrats terrorists

    A+B=C You want to kill Democrats

    yup an apology is needed unless you really want to kill Democrats.

    When it was asked the other day what kind of commenter are you, I added the Strawman commenter. Thanks for proving that point to be true.

  28. Yorkshire, you’re not saying anything that the German nationalists didn’t say in 1918 and 1919. You’re not providing a serious disanalogy, or saying anything except “I want us to win; therefore we can win.”

  29. Thank God the country is waking up and this mentality that York (sorry, York) is expressing is only in the 26% now. Astonishing state of delusional denial, while killing thousands. Gee, how could anyone support such a foolish direction, such as that which the bubble boy in the oval office proposes?

    You people are truly missing the light switch. The rest of us found it a loooooong time ago. Too bad your error, which you apparently feel no shame, is slaughtering innocent people. You are officially now, the Ted Bundy wanna-bes–the 26%ers on Bush’s side.

    Causing terrorism!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. No, I’m not kidding about the last statement. You’re nuts. We lost. You don’t care that thousands more will be killed.

  30. Yorkshire: Under Clinton, we wouldn’t be having this discussion, because he would have done nothing and accept the loss on 9/11 as we just made them mad.

    Hm. When terrorists attacked the WTC under Clinton, they were arrested, brought to trial, convicted, jailed, and are still in jail today, 14 years later. And there wasn’t another attack by Islamic terrorists on US soil in Clinton’s Presidency.

    When terrorists attacked the WTC under Bush, Bush did nothing. Nothing to prevent the attack: nothing to track down the leader of the group responsible. Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders are still free: Bush said, not even a year after 9/11, that he just doesn’t think about bin Laden much. No wonder. We all saw when Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans how little Bush’s administration had prepared or planned for any further terrorist attack.

    Dana: OK, for those who believe that the US has already lost (which might actually be the truth), why aren’t y’all up in arms about what the Democrats are doing?

    If you accept that the US has already lost, Dana, why aren’t you up in arms about what Bush is doing and why 186 Republicans are voting to kill more US soldiers and more Iraqis in a war that you know Bush already lost?

  31. Yorkshire: Oh, maybe because it’s working.

    Really? Got any cites for that? Or just your happy fantasy? You think this surge of 21 000 soldiers is all that was needed to end the civil war in Iraq, bring peace and democracy there? Oh, I forgot; Bush isn’t trying to claim that, just that 21 000 more soldiers can “claim Baghdad”. And then what?

    M. Al-Sadr fled to Iran

    Possibly. But what difference is one cleric going to make? There’s a civil war going on in Iraq, in which the US is just one of the most lethal factions.

    and murders are down already.

    Got any cites for that?

    Or, the terrorists believe that the Dims will pull out and just wait.

    Well, Yorkshire, everyone in the world knows that eventually some President – Bush or his successor – will have to quit letting US soldiers die in Iraq to no purpose. Bush led the US to defeat. Of course, it’s useful to al-Qaeda for the war to continue as long as possible, pinning down the US military, ramping up hatred against Americans in the Middle East, but Bush has never been that interested in stopping al-Qaeda: as he himself said.

    The first answer is correct.

    Yet you have no cites to prove it. None. Odd, that.

  32. The conflict in Iraq is a strange sort of civil war. It is not a conflict of ideology or one of secession. It is more akin to the battles among mobsters in depression-era Choicago, but on a more deadly scale.

    There is a religious facade but that is typical of bloody conflicts that often use superstition to encourage self-sacrifice.

    The sinister role of Iran in a telling factor. Why would Shiite Mad Mullahs provided aid and comfort to Sunni insurgents? Did not Libya once arm terrorists on both sides of the alleged religious line in Northern Ireland? Some well-placed weapons and some military action seems to have convinced that nation’s leader to mend his ways. Perhaps Iran would benefit from some similar discipline.

    We are witnessing a struggle between good and evil that was experienced against the Axis powers. In that struggle, Congress passed the Selective Service Act by the narrowest of margins before the bombs and torpedoes started falling at Pearl Harbor.

    There are those of a ‘progressive’ mindset who will act as apologists for terrorists. Some of the older in their ranks took a line of praise for Stalin in their youth. We see this perverse attitude with respect to vicious criminals and blame not the thug but society or some ofther allegedly mitigating factor.

    Appeasment has never been effective as a tool against evil. It may be used as a tool to buy the time to create the weaponry and will to strike the devastating blow. Pure appeasement is little more than incremental surrender.

  33. Pingback: Common Sense Political Thought » Archives » Question for Moonbats: What happens if y’all get your way?

  34. Appeasment has never been effective as a tool against evil. It may be used as a tool to buy the time to create the weaponry and will to strike the devastating blow. Pure appeasement is little more than incremental surrender.

    That is exactly right. I’m done arguing with the Appeasement Brigades. There are always losers and quitters in life whose only “solution” to any problem is to just give up. Dealing with such is just a waste of time.

  35. When it was asked the other day what kind of commenter are you, I added the Strawman commenter. Thanks for proving that point to be true.

    Please please explain how that is a “strawman” ?

  36. When it was asked the other day what kind of commenter are you, I added the Strawman commenter. Thanks for proving that point to be true.

    Please please explain how that is a “strawman” ?

    Because you introduced an assumption to knock down.

  37. Eric, it’s easy for you to talk about the virtue of “never giving up” when you are not in the fight. The actual fighters, the soldiers, both ground troops and senior military have said that it’s over. We lost. Prolonging the hell only prolongs the hell, and kills more people, each and everyone of them having someone that loves them, that will be devastated. Each and every life lost, or damaged bodily, or emotionally sends a ripple out in all directions hurting many many others. Why pontificate about virtue when each of these lives lost should not have happened, and don’t have to happen anymore? Being able to pound one’s chest? That, sadly, is what the pro-war GWB crowd are doing.

  38. Wow Yorkshire! Can I get your recipe for your fly paper salad.

    Quite a collection of “progressive” moonbats you’ve got here. You really should apologize to Dana for drawing such a collection of bubble children living in their little BDS dreamworld.

    Can some one tell me what part about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s claims you don’t understand or refuse to see as reality?: Ahmadinejad sparked widespread international condemnation in October when he called for Israel to be “wiped off the map.” And the U.S. is next.

    Does anyone here deny the propagation of the Caliphate?

    In nearly all cases, the jihadi terrorists have a patently self-evident ambition: to establish a world dominated by Muslims, Islam, and Islamic law, the Shari’a. Or, again to cite the Daily Telegraph, their “real project is the extension of the Islamic territory across the globe, and the establishment of a worldwide ˜caliphate’ founded on Shari’a law.”

    Terrorists openly declare this goal. The Islamists who assassinated Anwar el-Sadat in 1981 decorated their holding cages with banners proclaiming the “caliphate or death.” A biography of one of the most influential Islamist thinkers of recent times and an influence on Osama bin Laden, Abdullah Azzam declares that his life “revolved around a single goal, namely the establishment of Allah’s Rule on earth” and restoring the caliphate.

    Is there something wrong with having a stable and democratic Iraq in the ME? Or do 26 million Iraqi’s somehow deserve less of human prosperity than we do. The consequences of failure in Iraq will be devastating to the stability of the region and indeed promote the caliphate.

    Sad that the tiny mindset of a selfesh portion of our society fails to see the bigger picture. Does the hatred of our President blind them so much that they dare not look beyond their petty self-interest?

    You can bet that Yorkshire’s recipe will be safe with “Duke” (for a while), and we’ll continue to talk about the left’s sole ambition to be “stuck on stupid”.

    Pass the mustard.

  39. Eric, it’s easy for you to talk about the virtue of “never giving up” when you are not in the fight.

    Blu, we’re ALL in the fight. I did my time in the military and, but for a training accident, might have ended up flying missions in Desert Storm. In a perfect world, we’d have finished that war properly and supported the Kurdish and Shi’ite uprisings against Saddam instead of turning our backs on them. But it’s not a perfect world, the first President Bush screwed up and now his son had to go and finish the job.

    As for your comment that:

    The actual fighters, the soldiers, both ground troops and senior military have said that it’s over. We lost.

    That is simply not true. The vast majority of troops that I’ve heard from believe they’re fighting for a good cause, and their main gripe is the way the biased media keeps spinning the news so as to encourage the American people to just give up and stop supporting them. The troops want to win. Those of us who support the troops also want them to win. As for the rest, the quitters, the losers, the Surrender Monkeys? Well, ultimately, who cares what they think? As Teddy Roosevelt once put it, it’s the guy (or gal) in the arena, fighting the good fight, who ultimately matters, not the whiny critic sitting there picking his nose.

  40. Eric, I salute you for your service, but the troops that you have mentioned, who think that the war should go on, are the minority.

  41. Yorkshire: Under Clinton, we wouldn’t be having this discussion, because he would have done nothing and accept the loss on 9/11 as we just made them mad.

    Jes: Hm. When terrorists attacked the WTC under Clinton, they were arrested, brought to trial, convicted, jailed, and are still in jail today, 14 years later. And there wasn’t another attack by Islamic terrorists on US soil in Clinton’s Presidency.

    I guess the attacks on the African Embassies didn’t count. You do know a recognized Embassy is considered part of that nation’s sovereign territory. I guess you forgot about the USAF Khobar Towers in Saudi. And I guess you forgot about the USS Cole. In all of these the US was attcked. The response was laughable, if at all. And Law Enforcement which Clinton believed was the way to go, has not jailed these killers. But, keep on citing the 93 WTC captures who were also getting their message out of JAIL by a turn coat lawyer.

  42. I’m extremely disappointed in you, Dana. I thought you were better than that.

    I daresay the Gordo and LA “testimonials” no longer apply.

  43. Yorkshire: And Law Enforcement which Clinton believed was the way to go, has not jailed these killers.

    Osama bin Laden is still alive, well, and giving Republicans advice on how to vote, over five years after 9/11. (And Republicans are accepting his advice, so I guess you guys don’t think he really deserves jail time…)

  44. Yorkshire: And Law Enforcement which Clinton believed was the way to go, has not jailed these killers.

    Jes: Osama bin Laden is still alive, well, and giving Republicans advice on how to vote, over five years after 9/11. (And Republicans are accepting his advice, so I guess you guys don’t think he really deserves jail time…)

    All I can say is??????????????????

  45. I believe general blu has weighed in with her disagreement with gen Patreus. Perhaps being the author of the Army’s current counterinsurgency doctrine isn’t adequate compared to general blu’s vast military experience.

    Eric, I salute you for your service, but the troops that you have mentioned, who think that the war should go on, are the minority. Always able to miss the point … No soldier wants a “war to go on”, all of us want to win and go home. I can assure you that whatever nonsensical polls you’ve read about “what the troops think”, that they want to win and come home. Period.

    Gutless “non-binding”, no action resolutions simply embolden the enemy and demoralize our troops. This war is not lost, unsubstantiated assertions here and elsewhere to the contrary, but it certainly can be if we continue to fail to focus on the long term results should we fail.

    Are you ready for the Iraqi “killing fields”?

  46. Fine. No problem. So, remind me again why you think this “surge” of the President’s is a grand idea that ought to be supported?

    OK, I will. Whether it’s a “grand idea” (your words, not mine) or not, I don’t know, and neither do you, quite frankly. General Patreus, unanimously confirmed by the senate and author of the Army’s counterinsurgency doctrine, seems to think that reinforcing the troops on the ground and attempting to stabilize Bagdad so the Iraqi military, police and civilian government have a chance to create some stability in the captial, has at least some probability of working. That’s about as close as we can get to the term “grand idea” I’m afraid.

    The idea ought to be supported because it represents a whole series of changes in direction from what was clearly not working previously. You can’t have it both ways. I’ve been listening to quotations from gen Shinseki for the better part of 4 years now, particularly from your side of the isle, which suggest that we need to increase our troop strength. Let’s try it. While we’re at it, let’s revise the rules of engagement and let’s see what we can accomplish working closely with the Iraqi Army.

    At this point we don’t know whether this will work. It’s important to try simply because failure and loss is not really an acceptable option. As far as ideas go, I haven’t really heard anything that doesn’t resemble waving a white flag from the democrats in congress or in any of these forums. Are there better ideas? Let’s hear a few. Endless ad hominem prattle directed at Bush, Cheney, Halliburton, oil, profiteering, 9/11 inside jobs, etc, are also not good ideas, nor in fact are they ideas at all. We’re there, now what?

    I’ll give you a hint, though, redeployment to Okinawa is not one of the alternative “good ideas”. Neither is immediate withdrawal and neither is publishing a firm timetable that the enemy only need wait out to win.

  47. Yorkshire: All I can say is??????????????????

    Yeah, that was my reaction too, when first Sharon, then Dana, told me that they pay attention to what al-Qaeda says when deciding how to vote, and Dana tells me he’s absolutely convinced that al-Qaeda are honest advisers and Americans can trust them.

    Pretty much just: ???????????????????????????????????? in fact.

  48. Eric, I salute you for your service, but the troops that you have mentioned, who think that the war should go on, are the minority.

    Well, I do appreciate that. And I genuinely believe that Bush is going to win this thing and beat the terrorists. He may not have the rhetoric of a Vince Lombardi, but he has the same heart and guts.

Comments are closed.