Gay Patriot Header Image

WaPo Goes All Napoleon Dynamite On Democrats

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 9:31 am - September 29, 2006.
Filed under: 2006 Elections,War On Terror,World War III

Gosh!  You Dems are such idiots!

Democrats are citing the intelligence estimate as proof that Iraq has been a catastrophe. Those among them who prophesied four years ago that an invasion would provide new recruits for al-Qaeda’s cause can justifiably claim some vindication. But the report also poses problems for Democratic leaders such as House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) and Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), who say the solution in Iraq is an early withdrawal of U.S. troops. The report supports Mr. Bush’s contention that Iraq is now a central front in the war on terrorism; it says “perceived jihadist success there would inspire more fighters to continue the struggle elsewhere,” while defeat would mean that “fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.”

The larger thrust of the report goes well beyond Iraq or the cacophony of the midterm election campaign. It says “the most powerful weapon in the war on terror” over time will be not military success in Iraq or the capturing and killing of al-Qaeda leaders, but “the Muslim mainstream.” The vast majority of Muslims are likely to reject the extreme political solutions proposed by al-Qaeda and its allies, and they will be more likely to do so if “democratic reform efforts in Muslim-majority nations progress” and entrenched problems of “corruption, injustice, and fear of Western domination” are alleviated.

The U.S. mission in Iraq since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein has been largely aimed at those goals, in one of the Muslim world’s most important countries. It should be little wonder that the effort, like U.S. promotion of democracy in Lebanon and within the Palestinian Authority, has provoked an extremist backlash. Were it to retreat altogether from the Middle East, the United States could probably reduce the number of Islamic extremist recruits in the next five years. Yet any careful reader of the intelligence estimate will find it hard to conclude that the war can be won that way.

The Surrendercrats are smacked upside the head by one of their own.  Gotta love it.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Share

22 Comments

  1. I know this isn’t on topic, but there isn’t any open thread, so:

    http://washingtonblade.com/2006/9-29/news/localnews/gravesite.cfm

    I know someone will quickly find a way to blame this guy for wanting to uphold his partner’s wishes, but this story really is sad to hear. All this time and effort spent fighting with his partner’s parents even with this will that was so meticulously prepared. It shows that for all the talk of “all gays need is a will! That’s it!!!” things usually don’t work out quite that easily.

    Comment by Carl — September 29, 2006 @ 10:23 am - September 29, 2006

  2. “SurrenderCrats” –perfect.

    Support terrorism –Vote Democrat.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — September 29, 2006 @ 1:07 pm - September 29, 2006

  3. It shows that for all the talk of “all gays need is a will! That’s it!!!” things usually don’t work out quite that easily.

    Two points, Carl:

    1) There is no will that cannot be challenged or appealed in court

    2) Our legal system requires that people be allowed to file frivolous and pointless lawsuits, even if the odds are that they will fail, through all levels of appeal.

    3) This happens to straight married couples as well — as can be seen in the Terri Schiavo affair, and numerous others that don’t make the papers.

    I particularly like your attempt to scare off criticism by claiming that anyone who does is “blame(ing) this guy for wanting to uphold his partner’s wishes”.

    I don’t particularly care.

    Marriage would not have solved this couple’s problems; the parents still would have had the right to contest and sue, not just the will, but the marriage itself. Remember how the parents in the Schiavo case used Michael Schiavo’s girlfriend and other examples to prove how he was an unfit husband?

    The other interesting thing is that I bet we will never see the outcome of this case publicized, either from you or from the Blade.

    Why? Because the legal odds are heavily stacked in favor of the couple. The chances of that will being overturned are somewhere way to the left of nonexistent.

    As a result, this case will no longer play into your victimization fantasies, nor will it provide you the sympathy points you want.

    And that’s exactly why you’re publicizing it — not because you care about the outcome or the people involved, but because you think you can exploit it for victim points.

    Do you honestly think the public doesn’t know that you play these games, Carl? You whine about how everyone hates you, how everyone’s a bigot, how if you could marry, this would never happen — for things that every married couple can face and that several have. Your credibility is ZERO in this matter, and that’s why amendments and laws to ban gay marriage pass with flying colors.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 29, 2006 @ 1:39 pm - September 29, 2006

  4. NDT,
    Are you saying we should not have sympathy for that guy?
    Its a story that the gay community should not ignore. Yet as usual, you try to sweep the consequences back into the closet.

    Comment by keogh — September 29, 2006 @ 2:23 pm - September 29, 2006

  5. Keogh, just in case you missed it:

    I particularly like your attempt to scare off criticism by claiming that anyone who does is “blame(ing) this guy for wanting to uphold his partner’s wishes”.

    I don’t particularly care.

    In short, I already pointed out that you and yours were going to make that kind of statement — and I still don’t care.

    The facts are the facts. You can try to link my telling the truth about a situation and making a rational evaluation to not being sympathetic to their problem, but your only intent in doing so is to obfuscate, spin, and perpetuate your victimhood.

    Furthermore, I see your “sympathy” as being the same “sympathy” of a pimp offering a pretty young homeless or drug-addicted woman a place to stay; your interest is less in her situation than how you can exploit it to your advantage.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 29, 2006 @ 2:36 pm - September 29, 2006

  6. I stil favor a pull out. despite what the NIE says. what can isay I’ve learned from republicans. I accept the part of it i agree with, which is all of it, and not hte parts i don’t which is the stay the course thing there.

    Comment by lester — September 29, 2006 @ 4:00 pm - September 29, 2006

  7. Can someone please translate #6 into English? It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — September 29, 2006 @ 4:47 pm - September 29, 2006

  8. Afghanistan and, more importantly, Iraq are an actual attempt to address “root causes” to defeat Islamic terrorism. We aren’t at war with a nation, we’re at war with an idea, which is life would be great if only people worshiped Allah correctly. Islamic extremism. It blames the West and our decadence for all problems and sets up an Islamic utopia of pious men and virtuous women if only Islam is followed *better*. It’s not tyrants that make life hell, so let’s just have a better tyranny, one based on the Prophet’s commands, and it’s all going to be good.

    We *need* Iraq. It’s not a case of our obligation to fix what we broke (though that argument is useful at times) we *need* Iraq because the thing that puts us at risk most is that life in the middle east sucks. To a large extent the reason for this actually *is* oil since tyrants can support themseves and their goon squads without the consent of the people. It really doesn’t matter in any real way to those in power how miserable their people are. But they still need scape goats and that tends to be us.

    Combine a sucky life with us for scapegoats and the sucky life *over there* starts to impact our safety *over here* directly and catastrophically.

    We need Iraq, more than anything in the world, to NOT be sucky. It matters a whole heck of a lot. And I wish, I truely wish, that those who weren’t all hot for military action would at the very least think of some ways that they could promote the non-suckiness of life in Iraq, of democracy and civil rights in Iraq. This should be an incredibly easy sell to people who believe in liberal ideals.

    But it’s not, and the argument seems to be almost entirely that Iraq can never become non-sucky because Iraqis are not capable of living in anything other than a tyranny. And if there is a non-racist, non-bigoted idea for believing that is the case, I don’t know what it is.

    Comment by Synova — September 29, 2006 @ 5:09 pm - September 29, 2006

  9. THANK YOU, Synova. As usual the voice of reason and intelligence!

    Comment by GayPatriot — September 29, 2006 @ 5:45 pm - September 29, 2006

  10. I don’t particularly care.-

    Apparently you did, given the long response.

    -Do you honestly think the public doesn’t know that you play these games, Carl? You whine about how everyone hates you, how everyone’s a bigot, how if you could marry, this would never happen — for things that every married couple can face and that several have. Your credibility is ZERO in this matter, and that’s why amendments and laws to ban gay marriage pass with flying colors.-

    NDT, can you tell me WHERE I mentioned gay marriage in my post? There are other things like civil unions or domestic partnerships. And those are supported by a majority of the public, so your “the public sees through you” line doesn’t work there.

    Can you also tell me how many married couples have had to deal with relatives trying to overturn a will because parents want a child moved to another gravesite?

    You seem to be reading tons and tons of your own opinion into this. I wasn’t trying to get “victim points”. I wanted people to see this because it’s an example that wills aren’t enough. I hope you don’t think that posting on this site somehow = trying to send a message to the whole of the American people. Many of the people who read this blog are probably gay, or gay-friendly conservatives. Not some mass of America that is against gay marriage.

    I’m sorry you got upset about what I posted, but you are the one who brought up gay marriage, not me.

    Comment by Carl — September 29, 2006 @ 8:06 pm - September 29, 2006

  11. What I didn’t care about, Carl, was the fact that you and your fellow puppets were going to trying to claim that I had no sympathy for Graf when I injected a little reality into the discussion.

    NDT, can you tell me WHERE I mentioned gay marriage in my post?

    Right here:

    Olive said the experience has given him a new appreciation for activists seeking full marriage equality for gays.

    “Our relationship was supported by so many,” he said, “but it never occurred to me how important it is that the law supports us.”

    If the couple had been legally married, Olive said, he wouldn’t be talking about a court battle. He’d be talking about how much he misses his husband.

    In short, nice try. Next time I suggest you READ what you quote.

    I wasn’t trying to get “victim points”. I wanted people to see this because it’s an example that wills aren’t enough.

    There’s one small problem with using this as an example of that.

    A Maryland court, which has jurisdiction over the dispute because Groff’s will was signed in the state, heard the case Sept. 25 and 26. A ruling is expected in October.

    In short, the court hasn’t invalidated the will or ruled against them.

    And the odds are highly likely that it won’t.

    The proof will be the fact that neither you or the Blade will follow up on this story — because announcing that the court upheld the will, as it most likely will, doesn’t fit your victim fantasies.

    Many of the people who read this blog are probably gay, or gay-friendly conservatives. Not some mass of America that is against gay marriage.

    Unfortunately for you, Carl, this is not the place where the usual gay activist attempts to exploit peoples’ emotions and lie to them, versus honest dialogue and admittance of facts, will work.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 29, 2006 @ 11:01 pm - September 29, 2006

  12. -Right here:-

    That was the linked article. I didn’t say anything about marriage. I don’t believe gays need to get married in order to have rights. Civil unions or domestic partnerships are fine by me.

    -And the odds are highly likely that it won’t.-

    The case has already gone further than the living partner expected, according to the article. Most of the time, if a heterosexual couple had a situation where one of them died and wanted to be buried somewhere, that person’s parents usually wouldn’t file a suit and try to drag up their body. If they did, the case usually wouldn’t get very far.

    -Unfortunately for you, Carl, this is not the place where the usual gay activist attempts to exploit peoples’ emotions and lie to them, versus honest dialogue and admittance of facts, will work. –

    If that’s the case, then we seem to agree that my comments were not the big con job on the public that you thought they were. They were based on an article I thought people here would be interested to read.

    Comment by Carl — September 30, 2006 @ 1:38 am - September 30, 2006

  13. Those among them who prophesied four years ago that an invasion would provide new recruits for al-Qaeda’s cause can justifiably claim some vindication.

    So what was the excuse before? What was the excuse when Clinton was in office? What was the excuse when we ran away from the Mog?

    I stil favor a pull out. despite what the NIE says.

    We know. You favor tucking tail and running away just like Mogadishu and for another 9/11 style attack. Our troops won’t be dying in Iraq anymore. They can die (wholesale) at home with their families. Or they can die fulfilling Murtha’s wet dream in Okinawa.

    But it will be all Bush’s fault. You’d gladly see America destroyed just so your liberal overlords could asscend to their “rightful place” power (assuming the Imams of America would let them).

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 30, 2006 @ 4:44 am - September 30, 2006

  14. I don’t understand why some runfrom the descriptive term liberal or leftist. And now I don’t understand why some run from the descriptive “cut and run”. Be honest, be forthright, be proud.

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — September 30, 2006 @ 12:55 pm - September 30, 2006

  15. synova- planting the seeds of democracy in iraq in order to combat terrorism won’t work any better than NAFTA helped us fight illegal immigration. in both cases the problem was compounded. besides, we were TOLD we were going to war with iraq because of WMD and “non debateble” (rumsfeld) connections to al queda, who had still very recently done 9/11.

    Comment by lester — September 30, 2006 @ 2:16 pm - September 30, 2006

  16. bush and rumsfeld and cheney and every republican on the internet who isn’t actually in Iraq have cut and run from their duty to serve.

    Comment by lester — September 30, 2006 @ 2:18 pm - September 30, 2006

  17. Um, this country has a VOLUNTEER MILITARY. The draft was eliminated more than 30 years ago.

    Comment by Attmay — September 30, 2006 @ 4:54 pm - September 30, 2006

  18. And, of course, Democrats like lester who were whining that draft-dodging was an honorable thing when Clinton did it……..

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 30, 2006 @ 5:55 pm - September 30, 2006

  19. But Synova, the current administartion is doing a piss poor job at fighting the war and securing Iraq.
    How can you defend the job they have done?
    Your Republican love, blinds you to the reality on the ground.

    Comment by keogh — October 1, 2006 @ 1:39 am - October 1, 2006

  20. But Synova, the current administartion is doing a piss poor job at fighting the war and securing Iraq.
    How can you defend the job they have done?

    Because it looks pretty damn good in the context of the Democrat plan of leaving Saddam in power and allowing him to systematically imprison, torture, murder, and starve millions while thumbing his nose at the world and funding suicide bombers to attack the US and its allies in the Middle East.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 1, 2006 @ 1:50 am - October 1, 2006

  21. #15

    It amazes me, moLester, that al-Qaeda was in every other country BUT Iraq. Further, it seems odd that liberals favor denying freedom to Iraqis.

    Hell, who am I kidding. The liberals favor denying freedom to AMERICANS who oppose their right of power.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 1, 2006 @ 6:04 am - October 1, 2006

  22. that gay- but it didn’t work. the idea was to reduce terrorism by exporting democacy to iraq. in #15 i compare it to how NAFTA was supposed to cut down on illegal immigration. it’s more obvious that NAFTA has failed in that, but I just can’t buy that Iraq has done the opposite: cut down on terrorism. that americans haven’t been hit since 9/11 woud appear to prove it has, but i think it just means the thing al queda is doing now is fighting in Iraq. They aren’t in afghanistan either and we are there. I don’t think that’s because they think it’s okay we’re in afghanistan.

    my point is the globalist explanation put forth by synova is a terrible argument because iraq has failed as an experiment of that nature. Plus, we were told the war was about al queda links and WMD.

    Comment by lester — October 2, 2006 @ 5:32 pm - October 2, 2006

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.