Democrats Want To Retreat; President & Soldiers Want to Win
I couldn’t think of a more appropriate and yet sad posting as December 7th (Pearl Harbor Day) comes to a close across the United States.
Sgt. Trevor at The Will To Exist brings the contrasting platforms on the War on Terror in full focus by highlighting the difference between the strategies of the Democrat National Chairman (retreat and defeat) and President Bush (victory and democracy).
Two different parties, two different men and two different outlooks. Which one do you prefer? As a soldier, I’m certainly not going to support the guy who tells me that it was all for nothing, let’s get out while the getting is good. All those deaths were meaningless. All those shattered limbs for nought. All you soldiers who fought, sweated, cried and worried in the dirt of Iraq – it doesn’t matter. All those children you passed candy and toys too – abandon them. All the water pipes you laid, all the generators you installed, all the buildings you built – abandon them. The Iraqis you trained – say goodbye, they’re on their own. Terrorism has won. The head choppers and their ilk are just too persistent for us.
Or, I could support the guy I didn’t vote for, President Bush, who despite all the things I disagree with him about, has my respect in this matter. Despite the long hours here, despite that fact that my feet hurt every day and I have a knot in my back the size of Texas. Regardless of the loud booms and the bags under my eyes. Despite missing my wife terribly and wishing I was someplace else half the time.
You can’t come to the game and then throw down the ball halfway through, give the bird to your teammates and walk off the field. Because that is what losers do.
It is also what appeasers do. I thank God everyday that for whatever reasons Al Gore and John Kerry did not become President and I didn’t have to worry at night that my life and the life of my friends and families are in the hands of a liberal President.
After Pearl Harbor, we didn’t immediately invade Japan. We strategically went after Germany in the European Theater. Those that still don’t realize the significance of taking the war to Iraq after September 11th must also have their heads in the sands about the implications of this Third World War that was thrust upon us beginning in 1979.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
24 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Great headline.
America’s future, including the War on Terror, is just too important to let the Democrats get away with their sick B.S. Keep telling it like it is!
Today I read about Murtha saying something like, the insurgents in Iraq are insurgents, with hardly any foreign al Qaeda terrorists. He should tell that to the families of the Iraqi hospital children whom the terrorists blew up recently, or the gangs of Shia Arab civilian workmen they routinely attack.
Murtha’s new claim also contradicts the standard Left talking point that the Afghanistan and Iraq wars have only bred more and more al Qaeda terrorists. But, as we’ve seen again and again, the Left isn’t bothered by gross self-contradictions.
The current crop of Democrats is not ready to govern, period. The American people grasped that in 2002 and 2004, and I hope they do again in 2006.
Comment by Calarato — December 7, 2005 @ 10:54 pm - December 7, 2005
Hey dude, how dare you smear the Democrat Party!!! Unlike Republicans and members of the armed forces, they’re all patriots and would never, ever, never, ever support a cut and run strategy. Instead they are in favor of a highly sophisicated and nuanced plan which involves, as Mr Murtha has outlined for us, not a retreat but “an over the horizon, immediate redeployment ” to “nearby bases in Kuwait and Okinawa”. These are places from which, as Dr. Dean has told us, we can much more effectively fight Zarqawi in Iraq than from within Iraq itself. Thank god, (oops goodness) for the Democrat leadership of these and other patriots such as Pelosi, Kennedy and John F. Kerry. Otherwise, the only alternative would be the quaint and totally unattainable Bush plan that calls for completely ridiculous and outmoded outcomes like “victory” and “democracy”.
Comment by Bobo — December 8, 2005 @ 12:02 am - December 8, 2005
So when do we call a spade a spade and a liberal a traitor?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 8, 2005 @ 1:19 am - December 8, 2005
When you can prove, through logical argument, that it’s so.
I’m sure that some extreme Leftists are as anti-American as you say. I’m equally sure that many less extreme Leftists are simply misguided and confused.
Comment by Calarato — December 8, 2005 @ 7:10 am - December 8, 2005
So what is the President’s plan on winning this war? He can’t really use his own experience in the military (speaking of “running”), so throwing on a flight suit and giving a canned speech to a canned audience is not working….. what is the plan?
Comment by Just Askin' — December 8, 2005 @ 9:49 am - December 8, 2005
#5 your comment was totally devoid of 1 original thought…..you prove once again as to why liberals lose elections
Comment by nuyorker — December 8, 2005 @ 10:11 am - December 8, 2005
Since, Just Askin’ brings it up The White House Strategy for Victory in Iraq is Located Here. Now, let me ask, what is the left’s strategy for securing Iraq after an American retreat? What is the left’s strategy for preventing stateless terrorists to turn Iraq into a vast training ground, as they did in Somalia and Afghanistan? Does the left have a plan, or do they have nothing but snarky, asinine criticism?
The open calls for surrender on the part of John Murtha, Howard Dean, and Nancy Pelosi are disgusting, but not surprising. The Democrats act as if defeat in Iraq will be a victory for their party. Their model is Vietnam, a defeat for the United States, but a huge victory for the left. And while the left celebrated their victory, Pol Pot slaughtered millions. But it all worked out well, because Hollywood made a movie about Pol Pot’s genocide and it won three academy awards. And, in the end, isn’t that really the important thing?
Comment by V the K — December 8, 2005 @ 12:19 pm - December 8, 2005
Hah hah hah hah hah hah hah
JustAskin, you just revealed how spectacularly ignorant you are. (Look up the word ‘ignorant’ and think about how its definition applies to your comment objectively.)
If The National Strategy for Victory in Iraq cited by V is too taxing for you, consider some shorter resources, such as:
- Fact Sheet: Training Iraqi Security Forces
- Setting the Record Straight: Democrats on an Artificial Timetable in Iraq (which lists a few elements of America’s plan in Iraq by way of rebutting something else).
- Or really any of the President’s speeches on Iraq in the last 2 years.
And if you’d prefer a Democrat’s (a Senator’s) evaluation of the Administration strategy coming from his own first-hand visits to Iraq, see this article.
Comment by Calarato — December 8, 2005 @ 12:52 pm - December 8, 2005
I think that to call what the Democratic party is doing in the War on
Terror a “strategy”, gives it more dignity than its worth. They don’t have anything. It’s just white noise punctuated by the occasional loud braying of a donkey or two.
Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — December 8, 2005 @ 1:03 pm - December 8, 2005
Question for #5 (feel like I’m on the dating game). Since you bring it up, what is Howard Deans’ experience in the military? And no, skiing doesn’t count. At least Bush has SOME experience in the military. Oh, scratch that. Apparently flying military planes in a military reserve doesn’t count for military experience. And if Bush’s lack of experience disqualifies him from making military decisions, then what gave Clinton (who I voted for) the qualifications to lead the military in anything?
Comment by sonicfrog — December 8, 2005 @ 3:00 pm - December 8, 2005
What do u mean win???? You can’t win the fight on terror – Terror has been around for 1000’s of years….its not one army/military in one place – an easy enemy to spot. ..and they don’t wear uniforms. How can you win a war on terror – when you NEVER know where, or what your enemy will do next??? To claim you CAN win a terror war is historically false! Now saying this does not mean – I want our troops to die, WE ALL SUPPORT the TROOPS – we do not have to support BUSH’s Illegal war.
Comment by JRC — December 8, 2005 @ 3:04 pm - December 8, 2005
I will point out that this country has a proven history of its military serving and bowing to the civilian authority. That this in fact is one of things that our military is rightly proud of. It was a different tradition in other places where the military usually served the King. Or served themselves and made a King. So a lack of military service must never be a disqualification for public office or for a voice of authority.
Do not forget that many of our “founding fathers”, such as John Adams, never fired a shot in the War of Independence.
And that at the conclusion of that war, a number of George Washington’s officers proposed pulling a coup and making him King. When Washington learned of this he immediately quit and rode away in disgust.
The military service argument argument is really one that should not be made. Besides, it’s not as if Dean doesn’t have plenty of other bad qualities to choose from for criticism.
Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — December 8, 2005 @ 3:26 pm - December 8, 2005
After Pearl Harbor we didn’t actually have the means of invading Japan. That wasn’t even an option at the time. Nevertheless, you are right, we did concentrate on Germany first.
Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — December 8, 2005 @ 3:29 pm - December 8, 2005
#10 In some sense all war is illegal. In some sense all war is legal. I think that some people have very strange ideas about the law, who makes it, and what makes it legitimate.
Indeed… what makes Saddam’s court trial legitimate?
Quite frankly, it’s the ability to enforce, that is *force*, that is the ability to force the enforcement of the law is the only thing, really, that legitimizes it. Might makes right. That’s reality.
Can we *win* against terror? Not completely. Terror is a tactic, after all. But we can win against the forces of darkness… if you want to put it that way. It amazes me how small the “illegal war” folks tend to think. Iraq was necessary, and if not Iraq then some other country but Iraq was an excellent choice. To “win” against terror, against the people waging war against the ideology of the West, against freedom and equality and McDonalds, Hollywood and spike heels, it’s necessary to actually *wage* that ideological war. It’s utterly and absolutely necessary to achieve victory in Iraq, which will be expressed by true freedom, self-rule, and prosperity, right smack in the center of the middle east.
And amazingly enough, the nay-sayers are convinced that the People of Iraq, the diverse religious and ethnic groups, tribes, clans, are incapable of doing this and that the US must fail in our attempts to civilize these benighted people.
From the sounds of things the Iraqi people are doing marvelously at adapting to the rather novel concept of a government made up of multiple voices. We will most certainly win this battle in the WOT. And this victory is already having positive effects in the region so dominated by oppressive States. The simple *fact* of the victory will transform what people believe is even possible. Not the least of whom will be those liberals who are *supposed* to be so much about believing in “the people.”
So far they don’t believe Iraqis are capable of entering the modern age. It leads a person to wonder why not.
Comment by Synova — December 8, 2005 @ 4:06 pm - December 8, 2005
#10 — Yeah, you say you support the troops, then call them criminal accomplices in the same sentence.
Comment by V the K — December 8, 2005 @ 4:36 pm - December 8, 2005
If you don’t support the mission, you don’t support the troops.
That’s what troops have told us here in the past. (I did not come up with it.)
Why would it be true? Because if you don’t support their mission, then by definition (of not supporting it), you are basically hoping they don’t succeed.
In war, they’re giving everything human beings can give. The worse they do, the more likely they are to get killed. And the more FALSE questions are raised about their mission, the worse they do.
Note: Constructive questions about their mission, and where America should go once they win – and they ARE winning – is fine. It’s just that the hallucinatory lies of MoveOn.org, and the shocking backstabbing of the current Democrat leadership, aren’t that.
Comment by Calarato — December 8, 2005 @ 4:54 pm - December 8, 2005
It is indeed difficult to reconcile “supporting the troops” with “but they have no legitimate reason to be there,” when “but they have no legitimate reason to be there” is exactly the rationale terrorists use when killing our troops.
Someone once told me that the word “but” is a signal. Everything in a sentence that comes before “but” means “this is what I’m supposed to say” and everything that comes after “but” means “this is how I really feel.” I think of this whenever a liberal says “I support the troops, but they are accomplices in Bush’s illegal war for oil and the freedom fighters have a legitimate right to resistance.”
Comment by V the K — December 8, 2005 @ 5:47 pm - December 8, 2005
So when I say, “I don’t question Kerry’s patriotism, but I question his judgment” is that the same thing?
But the thing is, I really don’t choose to question his patriotism (and do question his judgment).
Comment by Calarato — December 8, 2005 @ 6:18 pm - December 8, 2005
Obviously, it’s not a universal rule. It works fairly often when discussing politics.
Comment by V the K — December 8, 2005 @ 7:12 pm - December 8, 2005
#10
For starters you could take a stand that no other liberal seems capable of and prove that the war is illegal. What? Kofi Annan said so? Yeah. He’s the same ass clown who swore neither he nor his son had anything to do with Oil For Fools.
Secondly, do you reccommend that we sit back and allow terrorism to happen since you seem to think nothing can be done about it?
#17
Why not question a team killing fu**tard’s patriotism?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 9, 2005 @ 6:37 am - December 9, 2005
Because questioning his judgment is more than sufficient.
There is enough to question there alone, without the discussion being sidetracked into imponderables.
At the end of the day, neither you, nor I, nor anybody else has sufficient Godlike knowledge of Kerry’s internal state to question his patriotism validly.
His external behavior MAY indicate true anti-Americanism or lack of patriotism in his heart. Or – It may not. It’s not an argument you can never prove or “win” (even if you presently think otherwise). You only make yourself a hateful windbag, when you try.
And it derails the discussion or dialogue from the argument that you CAN prove – namely, the inappropriateness or destructiveness of specific statements and policy positions of his.
Long story short: Questions of proportionality, suffiency, and overreach all come in. They in turn may create questions about your own propriety and effectiveness.
Comment by Calarato — December 9, 2005 @ 9:26 am - December 9, 2005
Sorry, “sufficiency”.
And (typo higher up) “It is an argument you can never prove…”
Comment by Calarato — December 9, 2005 @ 9:36 am - December 9, 2005
I like the RNC’s summation of the Democrat position on Iraq: “Retreat and Defeat.”
Comment by V the K — December 9, 2005 @ 12:43 pm - December 9, 2005
I feel like I should offer one more caveat.
If a person says (plainly and specifically) “I hate America” or “I want America to lose in Iraq”, OK, it’s time to question their patriotism.
I haven’t heard Kerry or Murtha do that – another reason I don’t question their patriotism.
Mama Moonbat has done it though – quotes like the second item – sometimes in the form, “I want the freedom fighters to win in Iraq”. She tells us her internal state, or what she wants. By her own statements, she is an Axis Sally type of person, or a traitor.
So I guess I’m saying, question people’s patriotism when you have clear statements of their loyalties, from them. We’re not there with Kerry and it is enough to simply question his awful judgment.
Comment by Calarato — December 9, 2005 @ 1:21 pm - December 9, 2005