The Internet home for American gay conservatives.
December 9, 2005 by Bruce Carroll
December 9, 2005 at 11:43 pm - December 9, 2005
How many times do I have to say this. It’s not retreat, it’s immediate over the horizon redeployment!!!
December 10, 2005 at 12:33 am - December 10, 2005
Same song, same verse.
December 10, 2005 at 12:34 am - December 10, 2005
You can polish a turd all you want, but it’s still a turd.
V the K says
December 10, 2005 at 9:10 am - December 10, 2005
The Democrat Response: “The Republicans are distorting what we said. Pulling the troops out of the warzone isn’t a retreat, it’s a ‘strategic redeployment.’ Giving the enemy exactly what they want isn’t surrender it’s… it’s… it’s… um, Bush lied!”
December 10, 2005 at 10:44 am - December 10, 2005
So nice to see Dean, Boxer, Kerry exposed, just by quoting them! 🙂
December 10, 2005 at 2:38 pm - December 10, 2005
How DARE anybody quote these elitist snobs.
December 10, 2005 at 3:12 pm - December 10, 2005
Many questions to ask: How on Earth did we get to the point in this country where our own elected and public officials (e.g., Dean, Murtha, Pelosi, Kennedy, Kerry, etc.) openly advocate for our unconditional and immediate SURRENDER to the enemy? Has the Democrats’ Bush Derangement Syndrome really become so overwhelming that their total opposition to Bush, the man, has morphed into something much more sinister and – to be honest – threatening to our nation’s very security? Don’t they understand that we need to fight the enemy on THEIR turf so we don’t have to do it on ours??? And don’t they appreciate what their wreckless statements are doing to hurt the morale of our soldiers while only emboldening the Islamofascists that are trying to kill them? Are they complete and utter idiots or do they just hate George Bush so much that they’d rather see our military under his Administration defeated in war?
The White Flag of surrender is an entirely appropriate symbol to represent the current state of the Democrat Party in America. It used to be a harmless Crybaby but apparently they weren’t content just to be sore losers…they now have to actively oppose the war efforts of their own nation. I fully expect within a year’s time they will all have converted to Islam and will be walking around the floor of the Senate wearning suicide belts and chanting “Death to America! Allahu Akbar!!!” Appropriately, they should all be rounded up and sent to languish in Gitmo – if not something much more severe.
Hello Moto says
December 10, 2005 at 4:15 pm - December 10, 2005
Probably should have juxtaposed Kerry’s remarks with audio recording from his anti-Vietnam war days “cut off limbs … generally ravaged the countryside …”
December 10, 2005 at 7:25 pm - December 10, 2005
The Dems are in a panic because, on some level, they know Iraq is about to become a success.
Norman Podhoretz just wrote an article on this, but I was telling it to Bruce/Dan in private e-mail 3 weeks ago 🙂
Just look at the political milestones the Iraqis are ticking off like clockwork – sovereignty June 04, constitutional writers elected Jan 05, constitution written Aug 05, constitution approved by voters Oct 05, and first government under constitution, about to be elected next week.
Those milestones don’t just happen in a vaccuum, or by themselves.
They happen because outside the Sunni Triangle – and even inside – the war against the terrorists has been going much better than the media lets on.
They happen because the people of Iraq are stepping up to the plate and we were right to liberate them.
They happen because Iraqis are slowly but surely taking over their own security – tens of thousands of trained or re-trained native policemen and soldiers each month. (Please, please, somebody say “But they only have one battalion!!!!!!!!!!!!” so we can debunk it and show how little you know.)
They happen because the Iraqi economy is booming, and polls show 70-80% of Iraqis saying their country is headed in the right direction.
They happen because Bush has insisted that every stick to the schedule / milestones.
What does that mean for Dems? Answer: The days of their myths are numbered. Right now is the Dems’ last chance to wreck everything (by provoking a panicky, ill-considered style of withdrawal) and so make their Vietnam “narrative of doom” come true.
If they can’t make us blow it in the next 3-6 months, historians will ultimately condemn them and their Vietnam-inspired worldview, and consider Iraq a crucial positive turn in the War on Terror.
December 10, 2005 at 9:04 pm - December 10, 2005
You’re operating under the assumption that liberals give a damn about America or the military.
Jack Allen says
December 10, 2005 at 10:40 pm - December 10, 2005
Kerry showed his colors when he came home from Vietnam. And it’s scary to think that but for Ohio the guy might be president. If he’d been elected he would have betrayed the Iraqi people before the last dance at the inagural balls.
December 11, 2005 at 4:59 am - December 11, 2005
Interestingly, it wasn’t that long ago that the liberals were carrying on because Bush 41 didn’t keep his word to the Iraqi people. Now they demand that Bush 43 do the same.
The Iraqis are another item on a long list that the libs want to give the finger to.
Ted B. (Charging Rhino) says
December 11, 2005 at 3:44 pm - December 11, 2005
Fret not, St. Hillarybeast will put the spine back in the Democratic Party as she revenges herself on her feckless husband’s political fellow-travelers and liberal apoligists. And to the thunderous applause at the 2008 Democratic National Convention she’ll display Nancy Pelosi’s head in a Pike as retired military officers and NCO’s support her acceptance speech and a metal band belts-out “I’m Not Gonna Take This Anymore”.
December 11, 2005 at 7:11 pm - December 11, 2005
I don’t like Hillary much but I have to say that she’s not dumb. Not even a little bit.
I know I’ve said that the next presidnet almost has to be a Democrat but I think there’s the smallest chance that the anti-war crowd will manage to block her nomination and if they do, the Republicans may have a chance after all.
December 12, 2005 at 2:41 am - December 12, 2005
Why does the next President almost have to be a Democrat?
If Bush can get to 51% with all the media against him actively, surely a Guiliani or McCain or Rice can get to 51% as well, if not 55%.
And as you say, if the Democrats continue on the path they’ve been on the last 2 years, 2008 will surely be another “national security” election.