Founding Father Calls To Us Today
Last September, I reflected upon the need we have for a “modern day Thomas Paine.”
Perhaps we don’t need a new Thomas Paine….we just need to recall and reflect on the man who even today represents the soul and conscience of the American experience. (Inspiration to reprint these words come from Tom Delay’s post at Redstate.com tonight following the President’s speech.)
The Crisis by Thomas Paine – December 23, 1776
THESE are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated.
The future of America is at hand.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
71 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I wish with all my heart that this escalation will work and the troops can come home. I don’t believe it or expect it, but I’ll build Bush a statue myself if it works. What a terrible situation.
Comment by torrentprime — January 10, 2007 @ 11:40 pm - January 10, 2007
You should not be wishing for the troops to come home.
You should be praying for their strength in carrying out their worldwide mission to kill terrorists and bring stability and democracy. The War On Terror will not end with Iraq ending….. the Islamic fascists will wage the war in another spot.
Al-Qaeda and Iran are not wishing for their troops to come home. They are wishing for the complete destruction of American and Western liberal democracies.
When will some of you people get that into your thick skulls?
Comment by GayPatriot — January 10, 2007 @ 11:53 pm - January 10, 2007
Right on, Bruce.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — January 11, 2007 @ 12:21 am - January 11, 2007
Well, Bruce, I won’t tell you what to pray for and you don’t tell me what to pray for.
I believe whole-heartedly in the mission you speak of; I simply don’t believe we’re doing it the right way nor have the right man or men at the helm of this war. I think we’re going backwards, and that nearly every decision Bush has made has helped the enemy rather than us.
But I don’t want to debate the war or its handling here. Rather, let me join you in whatever solidarity we can find in hoping for a successful outcome in Iraq, be it by the escalation starting now or another as-yet-unknown solution. You see Bruce, those you hate so passionately do want the US to win. We just think the US is currently making every mistake possible along the path to that victory and putting that goal a little father out of reach, every day. But I have no doubt we’ll win.
Comment by torrentprime — January 11, 2007 @ 12:32 am - January 11, 2007
You see Bruce, those you hate so passionately do want the US to win.
It’s hard to find evidence of that. Winning is defeating the enemy, not handing Iraq over to them so the REAL bloodbath can begin.
We just think the US is currently making every mistake possible along the path to that victory and putting that goal a little father out of reach, every day.
Well let’s see…first, we have to change the regime in Iraq. Then when a Republican actually does it, it’s a bad idea. Then libs scream “quagmire” before we have boots in-country. Then they whine and complain because there’s not enough soldiers there, now we’re going to be sending too many. We get daily updates of how many U.S. soldiers have died, but not one whisper of how many of the enemy has died.
We hear incessantly about how our prisoners are treated, but the libs DON’T GIVE A SOLID D*MN about how their prisoners are treated. Bush says stay the course, libs say we need “a new direction”. Bush proposes “a new direction”, but the libs want to stay the course by opposing the “surge”.
Add to that the libs and their little ho-bags in the media have LIED to the American people about just about everything that’s happened. The libs have flip-flopped all over creation. Just be honest and tell us that liberals just oppose everything because Bush is for it. Don’t lie to us and tell us otherwise. Don’t try to convince us that libs give a CRAP about the U.S. military. We’re not as stupid as you hope like hell we are. Nor do we forget what libs say and do.
If libs want us to believe that they really care, they need to shut up and show it. As it is, we ain’t buying it.
But TGC, you’re just being divisive!
That’s the way I, and many others see it. If the truth hurts, too bad.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 11, 2007 @ 1:57 am - January 11, 2007
If lefties – whom I seriously doubt Bruce hates, BTW – wanted the U.S. to win, they would have a plan for U.S. victory in Iraq and elsewhere.
It is that simple.
Comment by Calarato — January 11, 2007 @ 9:49 am - January 11, 2007
“lefties – whom I seriously doubt Bruce hates, BTW – wanted the U.S. to win, they would have a plan for U.S. victory in Iraq and elsewhere.”
Uncomfortable fact for you:
The left HAS proposed plans for victory.
Its just convenient for you to ignore them
Comment by keogh — January 11, 2007 @ 10:25 am - January 11, 2007
And what, pray tell dear 401k, is that plan?? Nobody seems to know what it is – not even Pelosi, Reid et al.
Iowa Gov. Vilsack was on Hannity & Colmes last night and when asked THREE TIMES (twice by Hannity, once by Alan’s fill-in – some DNC chick who actually looks feminine) what the Dhimmicrats’ plan for success in Iraq was, HE COULDN’T SAY.
So if you are that all-knowing and all-seeing, why aren’t you in Congress? Oh, that’s right – you are merely part of the problem.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — January 11, 2007 @ 10:55 am - January 11, 2007
Uncomfortable fact: the left HASN’T proposed plans for victory.
keogh, we already went over this on December 30, when you couldn’t name a single element of a Left plan for American victory in Iraq, other than troop increases that the Democrats last night were loudly and proudly rejecting.
QED.
Comment by Calarato — January 11, 2007 @ 12:12 pm - January 11, 2007
Cal, I also seem to recall John “Herman Munster” Kerry wailing throughout 2004’s campaign that “I haaaaave a plaaaaaan to end the war.” Funny enough, though – he couldn’t name a single concrete platform of his plan. Nor could his voters.
O/T – RIP for Yvonne DeCarlo who passed away yesterday. She made being a vampire mom look SO cool.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — January 11, 2007 @ 12:41 pm - January 11, 2007
#10 – I do recall a few concrete elements of Kerry’s plan that he finally gave in 2005 (after his losing campaign). They consisted of (a) things the Bush Administration was already doing in Iraq, plus the one new element of (b) calls for withdrawal by the end of 2005 (or later, 2006).
I think President Bush did a good job last night of explaining why premature withdrawal will be a disaster, only creating a situation farther down the road where America would have to return to Iraq – with a much higher death toll.
Comment by Calarato — January 11, 2007 @ 12:57 pm - January 11, 2007
here is some facts Cal –
Fact 2003 – Biden (and other dems) called for more troops in Iraq
Fact is Sept of 2003 Biden called for a plan to have accountable Iraqi governmental Aid program
In 2004 Kerry called for us to “Clear out the Sunni Triangle”
In 2002 Tom Lantos (California Rep) demanded that the Admin reevaluate strategy in Afganistan to focus on outlaying areas.
In 2002 Biden had a Plan for more UN troops in Afghanistan to be sure the Taliban would not resurge
– He wanted them to have a tougher ROE (you should’ve liked that Cal)
In 2003 The Dems tried to stop using deficit spending to pay for the war and it was rejected by the repubs
In 2006 Murtha wanted us to disengage from the policing and become a training and Quick Reaction force
In 2006 Biden has called for lessening the power of the central gov and give provinces more autonomy in Iraq
Any of these would have been better than “Stay the Course” or “Surge”
QED? – Indeed
Comment by keogh — January 11, 2007 @ 1:19 pm - January 11, 2007
#11 P.S. And conversely, I have yet to see any lefty (Democratic Senator or otherwise) explain how withdrawal achieves American victory.
Some, like Murtha and the DUmmies, mumble nonsense to the effect that the American presence intensifies the “insurgency”, which they choose to mis-perceive as a nationalist brown-people uprising against America. For that to be true, the factions in Iraq would have to be primarily interested in killing Americans, not each other. And that is untrue. Only 2 of the many factions are primarily interested in killing Americans, both driven by outsiders: (1) Mookie’s militias, driven by Iran, and (2) al Qaeda in Iraq. The Kurds, the moderate Shia, and now even the Sunni tribal elders are all demanding that America stay long enough for the Iraqi democratic project to be a success.
Contradictorily, other lefties claim that all is lost because because Iraq is a hopeless, full-scale civil war. Again, that is belied by many facts. But if it were true, then withdrawing NOW – before putting down the factions in the alleged civil war – is exactly the last thing America should do. It would result in killing in Iraq on an unimaginable scale, and only force America to return to Iraq later with much more death.
#12 – Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt! Wrong answer!
To be precise: Answering the wrong question. keogh, the year is 2007. The question, again, is What is the Left’s plan today for American VICTORY in Iraq?
Again, past calls for troop increases don’t count because Democrats today oppose troop increases. Plus, if half the Democrats are calling for troop increases while the other half are calling for total withdrawal, that is no plan. Plus, re-positioning our troops to Okinawa isn’t victory!
And to say that certain Democratic calls for troop increases “would have been better than a troop surge” is just absurd. I mean, ROTFL 🙂 A troop increase is a surge. A surge is a troop increase.
Bad, bad try, keogh.
Comment by Calarato — January 11, 2007 @ 1:32 pm - January 11, 2007
Additional Paine quotes:
It is not a field of a few acres of ground, but a cause, that we are defending, and whether we defeat the enemy in one battle, or by degrees, the consequences will be the same.
–Thomas Paine
We fight not to enslave, but to set a country free, and to make room upon the earth for honest men to live in.
–Thomas Paine
Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it.
–Thomas Paine
Iraqis fatigued by decades of tyranny might agree.
Comment by DoorHold — January 11, 2007 @ 1:37 pm - January 11, 2007
So, after keogh’s useless detour, let’s reset:
What – can anyone tell me, I pray – is the Left’s plan TODAY, for AMERICAN VICTORY in Iraq? Or for the War on Terrorism generally?
Comment by Calarato — January 11, 2007 @ 1:40 pm - January 11, 2007
You omit the fact more troops were called for in 2003 when it would have done a lot of good.
Is that convenience or just ignorance?
Further,
“Plus, re-positioning our troops to Okinawa isn’t victory!”
We both know that wasn’t the plan.
Since, you want to distort their plans to fit your political prism,it is impossible for you to understand that Dems have been showing the way to victory for quite some time.
Comment by keogh — January 11, 2007 @ 2:03 pm - January 11, 2007
Kindly permit me to repeat the question:
keogh, please check your wall calendar. Is it the year 2007?
keogh, when you are going to answer my question??????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Further,
Ummmm…… we both know that WAS Murtha’s plan. You brought up Murtha.
Comment by Calarato — January 11, 2007 @ 2:17 pm - January 11, 2007
So, after keogh’s useless detour, let’s reset:
What – can anyone tell me, I pray – is the Left’s plan TODAY, for AMERICAN VICTORY in Iraq? Or for the War on Terrorism generally?
Comment by Calarato — January 11, 2007 @ 2:18 pm - January 11, 2007
if you hear some loud clanging, it is the new lower level of Hell being constructed for Bush and his neo con advisors.
should have fired him on 9/12.
Bush is a worse enemy to America than al queda.
Comment by lester — January 11, 2007 @ 2:56 pm - January 11, 2007
the plan to win the war on terror is to pull out of ythe middle east and to stop supplying Israel with weapons.
their is no plan for victory in Iraq. The plan is for defeat. not for america, but bush and the neo cons. the victory will be for the american and iraqi people
Comment by lester — January 11, 2007 @ 2:57 pm - January 11, 2007
Actually, lester, America’s worst enemy isn’t either Bush or al-Qaeda; it’s people like you who hate Bush so much that you’ll aid al-Qaeda in killing Americans.
For instance, Democratic Party spokesperson Cindy Sheehan, endorsed by Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Boxer, whose organization sent insurgents hundreds of thousands of dollars to purchase weapons and supplies to build IEDs.
Why? Because it was anti-Bush.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 11, 2007 @ 3:28 pm - January 11, 2007
Keep pressing, Calarato…awesome!
I am still waiting to know what the Dem plan is TODAY for victory in Iraq and the Global War on Terror.
And it their plan is withdrawal from Iraq, then I want to know their assessment of the effect… And how they would continue the War on Terror after a defeat in Iraq?
Al-Qaeda won’t end the war after a Democrat defeat in Iraq. They will most likely expand their Terror War.
So what is the plan by the Dems for that?
I want to know.
Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — January 11, 2007 @ 3:51 pm - January 11, 2007
according to the GAO report YESTERDAY, half of the ied’s in iraq come from munitions dumps from saddam era that our generals stupidly decided not to guard in the rush to take baghdad.
what organization sent money to the insurgency to buy IED’s lol are you crazy?
besides, al queda is a bit player in iraq. it’s a shiite sunni rivalry that has been going on for centuries. and we’re in the middle of it. or rather, Bush and the poor souls he keelhauled into it
Comment by lester — January 11, 2007 @ 3:57 pm - January 11, 2007
#2 lol al queda and Iran aren’t wishing for anything other than for the US to get the hell out of the middle east. and they are absolutely right we should. all we do is feed dictorships and create wars and death there.
Comment by lester — January 11, 2007 @ 3:58 pm - January 11, 2007
A lot of question marks up there Cal…
The 2003 comment was in response to the near end of your post #13 Yet you tried to be cute,
And a plan for Iraq has been outlined by both Biden and Murtha in 2006.
But those plans don’t fit into your rightist prism so you say on post #12, just as my cute niece says, “those don’t count”
Cute again.
Further still just as my cute niece does, when she doesn’t like the answer, she ignores it and asks the question again.
Super-duper cute
All of this my friend, makes you very cute but also as my cute niece often is,
Look a tad puerile
Comment by keogh — January 11, 2007 @ 4:25 pm - January 11, 2007
what organization sent money to the insurgency to buy IED’s lol are you crazy?
Nope.
Code Pink, the leftist Democrat organization endorsed and supported by Barbara Boxer, Howard Dean, and Nancy Pelosi, sent $600,000 to the insurgents in Fallujah in late 2004.
And leftist keogh, you insisted that Murtha never wanted to run from Iraq and redeploy US troops there to Okinawa.
Your witness, Calarato. 🙂
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 11, 2007 @ 5:09 pm - January 11, 2007
But Murtha also said,
Kuwait’s, Qatar, and Bahrain
Or do those “don’t count” too
Comment by keogh — January 11, 2007 @ 5:23 pm - January 11, 2007
Let’s see. Earlier, keogh said:
He presented them side-by-side with a scattershot of conflicting, contradictory Democratic “plans” for Iraq going back to 2002; no indication (at that point) that he considered them the Left’s 2007 plan for American victory. But – Now, keogh says:
From which I am apparently meant to infer, or guess, that those 2 suggestions are indeed the Left’s 2007 plan for American victory.
So let’s review. According to keogh, the plan in essence is:
(1) withdraw all combat troops from Iraq, per Murtha;
(2) on our way out, knock the central government and make sure power devolves to the provinces, per Biden;
(3) and yet, for some strange reason, retain thousands of trainers in Iraq – and as well, Murtha’s “quick reaction force” over on Okinawa (thanks NDT). Umm… for what?
I mean: trainers for what government? (What will be left after points (1) and (2) are implemented?) or for what militias? And a U.S. force reacting to what? Or with what objectives?
But there you have it, folks. As put forth by keogh, the Left’s ***2007*** plan for ***American victory*** in Iraq and in the War on Terror.
Well, at least we finally got one. Now… Does it make any sense to you? (Or is it not, in fact, just Retreat & Defeat?)
Comment by Calarato — January 11, 2007 @ 5:45 pm - January 11, 2007
lol they sent humanitarian aid to fallujah. so did the coalition provisional authority.
the dem plan for victory in the war on terror is divestiture. look it up. it’s the only way. and maybe lob a few shells at the saudis on the way. and gather up what we gave israel so they can’t cause any more trouble
Comment by lester — January 11, 2007 @ 5:45 pm - January 11, 2007
i.e., can any serious person remotely consider it a responsible plan for victory? Is it a plan at all?
Comment by Calarato — January 11, 2007 @ 5:47 pm - January 11, 2007
#27 – keogh, get real. Why would your “Kuwait’s, Qatar, and Bahrain” entertain 100,000 or more American troops on their soil, after seeing us sell out the Iraqis?
That’s not too far from what Murtha was asked… which is why Murtha said “Okinawa.” Specifically:
Which is nuts. Truly, only a Lefty could entertain crap like that for 5 seconds.
keogh, that’s a question (return to the top of this comment)… in addition to my other questions about your plan:
Comment by Calarato — January 11, 2007 @ 5:54 pm - January 11, 2007
Ha!
How cute!
First unify the republicans and try to get them all agree on the same plan….(Graham, Warner, Bush, McCain all have put forth varying plans)
Then I’ll work on the dems…
zany Cal, just zany…
Comment by keogh — January 11, 2007 @ 5:58 pm - January 11, 2007
what’s the republican plan? All I heard last night was deluxe stay the course.
How do republicans think we should mend the millenia long suni shia rivalry? within 6 months.
Comment by lester — January 11, 2007 @ 6:00 pm - January 11, 2007
And once again, you’re back to stonewalling… evasion…
But again: Thank you for finally at least TRYING to put up a plan (and letting us see how Retreat & Defeat it is).
Comment by Calarato — January 11, 2007 @ 6:03 pm - January 11, 2007
From Wikipedia:
The name “Code Pink” itself is a play on the Bush Administration’s Department of Homeland Security’s color-coded alert system. In keeping with the name, participants at Code Pink events normally wear pink. While the group is initiated and led by women, men are welcome to participate at both the local and national level.
CODEPINK began on October 2, 2002, on Gandhi’s birthday, and in November they launched a 4-month vigil in front of the White House that culminated on March 8, international women’s day, with a 10,000-person march.
Along with other groups, they gave over $600,000 worth of supplies to the residents of Fallujah in 2004.
That would be $600K worth of SUPPLIES…please correct your untruthful statement NorthDallas30.
Comment by EekAMouse — January 11, 2007 @ 6:05 pm - January 11, 2007
lester, the Republican plan is to create a native, democratic government in Iraq that can sustain, defend and govern itself. For details, see here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/01/20070110-3.html
Or here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/iraq/2007/iraq-strategy011007.pdf
Or to add some intelligent analysis and intelligent concerns / questions, see here: http://billroggio.com/archives/2007/01/the_new_iraq_strateg.php
On a strategic level, the plan is:
On a tactical level, a short-term – repeat, short-term – surge in U.S. troops under General David Petraeus is needed to pacify Baghdad.
Sidebar to keogh: See now? That is what answering someone’s question looks like.
Comment by Calarato — January 11, 2007 @ 6:09 pm - January 11, 2007
#33 lester – Stay tuned – I have composed an answer for you rich with links and specifics – and I think the links are making the spamfilter kick it out – up to Bruce to make it appear; I have an e-mail into him about it.
Comment by Calarato — January 11, 2007 @ 6:19 pm - January 11, 2007
#32 – #34 – Oh and keogh, P.S.: I didn’t unify the Murtha and Biden plan elements; YOU did.
Again, #25, “a plan for Iraq has been outlined by both Biden and Murtha in 2006…’
If you’re not happen with that being your proposed plan; YOUR job to propose something else, then.
Comment by Calarato — January 11, 2007 @ 6:53 pm - January 11, 2007
The point dear cal is that indeed the left have presented plan for victory.
In fact as you concede, several have been outlined.
– as indeed it is up to Bush to pick the one to follow.
unless of course you again want to announce that they
“don’t count” because through your rightist lens, you can’t see their vaule
Comment by keogh — January 11, 2007 @ 7:24 pm - January 11, 2007
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt! Wrong answer. The points are:
(1) The Left have no plan, and few practical suggestions, for American victory in Iraq and elsewhere, in 2007 and beyond.
(2) When challenged, you are unable to cite any coherent or responsible plan. All you can do is list contradictory, fragmentary, and often impractical suggestions (let us say) from the past – 2002, 2003, 2004, maybe 2006.
(3) When further challenged, you did grudgingly provide a 2-sentence semi-plan, unifying Murtha’s and Biden’s highly impractical suggestions from 2006 – which, on still further challenge, you more or less disowned.
Long story short: You’re floundering. Something awful.
President Bush last night presented a coherent, detailed plan for American victory in Iraq, and I have posted links which I am waiting for Bruce to get past the spamfilter.
Comment by Calarato — January 11, 2007 @ 7:41 pm - January 11, 2007
Oh, and – meanwhile, others here of the isolationist Left such as lester (who claims to be a Libertarian, but that’s a discussion for another time), don’t even bother with an incoherent semi-plan; they openly admit they want U.S. defeat in Iraq. (see #20)
Sad.
Comment by Calarato — January 11, 2007 @ 7:51 pm - January 11, 2007
“Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt! Wrong answer”
What does that even mean??? Seriously, its like you scripted a macro for that or something…and it only makes you appear puerile.
“President Bush last night presented a coherent, detailed plan for American victory in Iraq,”
He presented A plan. Just as, Biden has done, Kerry had done, Murtha has done and others. We are 11 days into 2007, 2006 is hardly the past, gets some sense. (Which sums up your points 1,2,and 3)
Because you are a rightist, you happen to agree wholeheartedly with Bush’s plan and you think there are flaws in the dem’s plan.
–congrats on your lemmingship
Let’s leave this debate as “you disagree with dem’s plans for victory.” Because that is where we are.
Comment by keogh — January 11, 2007 @ 10:35 pm - January 11, 2007
PS
I understand why you suddenly feel the need to demand that 2007 is a clean slate…Its because you finally realized that policies that we have been implementing are failing and we are losing the war.
Comment by keogh — January 11, 2007 @ 10:46 pm - January 11, 2007
Keogh & Lester-
Please stop embarrassing yourselves with your excuses for the Democrats who want America to fail.
Come back when you will answer the question — WHAT IS THE PLAN FOR VICTORY.
Otherwise, don’t bother commenting on this thread anymore. You are just digging yourselves deeper with your evasion.
Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — January 11, 2007 @ 10:53 pm - January 11, 2007
[Commenter has been repeatedly banned for violating community terms of conduct.]
Comment by hank — January 11, 2007 @ 11:03 pm - January 11, 2007
[This commenter has now been banned for repeated violation of community terms of conduct.]
Comment by Patrick (gryph) — January 11, 2007 @ 11:19 pm - January 11, 2007
So hank, what’s the deal? Did you ever apologize to Bruce for getting nasty on this blog, last June or so?
Comment by Calarato — January 11, 2007 @ 11:19 pm - January 11, 2007
#42 – Still wrong, keogh.
First, I DON’T agree wholeheartedly with Bush’s plan. As far as me being a “rightist” or whatever… That’s just your rhetorical construct. I’ve never been involved with the Republicans. I was a supporter of drug legalization and an activist for gay marriage, for example, back in the early 1990s – probably long before you found it fashionable.
But keogh: tell yourself whatever you need to, to continue evading the facts that
(a) the Left don’t have coherent or practical ideas for American victory against Islamo-fascism; not surprisingly, because
(b) many on the Left don’t want it.
Comment by Calarato — January 11, 2007 @ 11:42 pm - January 11, 2007
Bruce
Its OK
After years of running with the mantra: “We are winning!, Blame the Media!, They just are not reporting the Good News!” and “Blame the left”
Your political messiah admits his policies that YOU have supported have led us to failure.
Now when Dems talk about “political solutions” you and your ilk can only fall back on “you want us to fail”
In fact there have been countless solutions proposed by dems.
You just have chosen to ignore them.
Comment by keogh — January 12, 2007 @ 12:13 am - January 12, 2007
Along with other groups, they gave over $600,000 worth of supplies to the residents of Fallujah in 2004.
Hate to break it to you, Eek, but this is what Code Pink themselves admits:
The two women, joined by grief and a hope that their sons’ deaths were not in vain, are part of a delegation that left San Francisco on Sunday headed to Jordan with $600,000 in cash, food and supplies including medicine, antiseptics, sutures and blood pressure readers.
Why you lefties defend Medea Benjamin and Cindy Sheehan, I have no idea. Both of them support US troops being killed to bring about, as one of their leftist counterparts put it, “a million Mogadishus”. And they’re horribly racist; ask them, and they’ll gladly tell you that the Iraqis deserved what they got under Saddam.
It should be no surprise to anyone that Democrats like Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, and Howard Dean support them.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 12, 2007 @ 12:26 am - January 12, 2007
“I’ve never been involved with the Republicans”
I surely did not mean to offend you by seeing your rightist tendencies and thinking you were a repub.
I too would be annoyed for being called republican.
What could be worse!!
🙂
Comment by keogh — January 12, 2007 @ 12:27 am - January 12, 2007
I don’t know…. perhaps being an apologist for terrorists and rooting against your nation?
Comment by GayPatriot — January 12, 2007 @ 12:31 am - January 12, 2007
#52 – you are right.
Let’s start a new game:
“Whats worse than being a republican”
so far you are in the lead.
Comment by keogh — January 12, 2007 @ 12:37 am - January 12, 2007
I too would be annoyed for being called republican.
What could be worse!!
Being a defeatist liberal.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 12, 2007 @ 1:17 am - January 12, 2007
keogh, once again you get it wrong.
I was never annoyed at being called Republican or “rightist”. I was honestly just trying to help improve your orientation to reality. (Fruitlessly?)
Just the same way as, you know, I have my own reservations about Bush’s plan for Iraq… but I’m willing to take a step back from that and praise him for at least having one, which the Left doesn’t. And to try to help you understand that as well. (Again fruitlessly)
Comment by Calarato — January 12, 2007 @ 1:29 am - January 12, 2007
(i.e., when I say “I am not a rightist”, picture me saying it just factually or FYI – not with annoyance. It’s true that I find a lot more to respect among the people who are rightists, than leftists.)
Comment by Calarato — January 12, 2007 @ 1:30 am - January 12, 2007
Oh – and as for these magical, wonderful “political solutions” the Democrats have for Iraq, that would happen magically if only we pulled our troops back to Okinawa (Murtha) and weakened the central government (Biden) –
WHAT THE HELL ARE THEY? Do tell.
In other words, keogh:
You re-opened it.
Comment by Calarato — January 12, 2007 @ 1:38 am - January 12, 2007
(I know the Iraq Study Group wants to basically sell out democracy in Lebanon to Syria, as an appeasing bribe to hopefully get Syria to be nicer in Iraq. And I know the Iraq Study Group wants to basically let Iran have nuclear weapons, as an appeasing bribe to hopefully get Iran to be nicer in Iraq. Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt – wrong answers both!)
Comment by Calarato — January 12, 2007 @ 1:42 am - January 12, 2007
Cal, you’re operating under the misguidance that libs give a F*CK about the U.S. more than re-establishing their birthright of power.
Who cares if we suffer more 9/11 style attacks. They don’t. They’ll joyfully entertain a United Caliphate of America and suck raghead c*ock hoping they can retain their control.
MoLester said what Keogh doesn’t have the balls to say. He summed up the liberal idea perfecthly.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 12, 2007 @ 5:49 am - January 12, 2007
Ask a question, get an answer, don’t like the answer, say “don’t count”, ask again
In effect, your pattern is essentially how Iraq has been messed up from the get go.
Bush asked questions, heard answers, didn’t like the answer, asked again, didn’t like answers, Asked again, didn’t like answers, etc etc etc
All the while he claimed we were winning and no change was necessary so he ignored the many dems plans for victory.
Here we are a day or two after he announced we are losing, his policies were mistakes, and suddenly you feel the need to find new answers.
Yet you are still in the Bush pattern of only listening to your own ideas.
To quote Cal
“Sad”
Comment by keogh — January 12, 2007 @ 10:15 am - January 12, 2007
ND30…it helps if you have at LEAST at little bit of reading comprehension. There was NO $600K in CASH…There was $100k in cash and $500k in supplies. Where am I pulling these amounts from? From the link you supplied…maybe you should actually read what you post.
Comment by EekAMouse — January 12, 2007 @ 12:15 pm - January 12, 2007
Unfortunately, Eek, you previously said the following:
That would be $600K worth of SUPPLIES…please correct your untruthful statement NorthDallas30.
Since you already got it wrong once by denying there was cash involved, are you really sure you want to go down that pathway? How about dealing with the fact that this leftist group is giving cash and supplies to terrorists who are trying to kill US soldiers?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 12, 2007 @ 1:45 pm - January 12, 2007
NDXXX, old debate “game” tactic there by EekAMouse… when an intellectually dishonest debater is unable to refute the central argument of the opponent, then they try to whittle away at the opponent’s credibility by pointing out seemingly factual errors that are irrelevant.
For instance, the issue of CodePink giving terrorists $600k in support. Whether it was all in cash or not is immaterial to the notion that CodePink supports terrorist groups who are professed enemies of America and our allies.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — January 12, 2007 @ 2:05 pm - January 12, 2007
NDT/MI-Matt, Maybe I’m misreading the article, or just supremely naive, but it seemed to me that the cash/supplies/food whatever were being donated to families/refugees, not terrorists…
Comment by HotMess — January 12, 2007 @ 2:22 pm - January 12, 2007
It probably hasn’t occurred to the leftist nitwit that $500,000 the terrorists don’t have to spend on food and medical supplies is $500,000 they can spend on IED’s and ammunition. Not too mention that the supplies will primarily help patch up terrorists so they can go back to killing Americans.
But, as Matt pointed out, once you’ve staked out a morally indefensible position, all that’s left is to nit-pick over details.
Comment by V the K — January 12, 2007 @ 2:54 pm - January 12, 2007
bruce, calarato- I’m not a democrat, but there is no possible victory, therefore there is no plan for one.
the plan is to leave.
your plans for “victory” are meaningless . If they were any good we would have tried them sometimes in the last FOUR YEARS
you don’t get any more chances.
again, the plan is “NO PLAN”
Comment by lester — January 12, 2007 @ 3:49 pm - January 12, 2007
If you leftist Democrats, lester, would just say that our army is so incompetent, is so powerless, is so helpless, that there is no possible way we can win in any conflict, as you clearly believe, then I’d applaud you for being honest.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 12, 2007 @ 4:18 pm - January 12, 2007
our army is so incompetent, is so powerless, is so helpless, that there is no possible way we can win in any conflict
Comment by lester — January 12, 2007 @ 5:04 pm - January 12, 2007
Lester, why do you let him bait you?
Comment by HotMess — January 12, 2007 @ 6:32 pm - January 12, 2007
he is my good friend
Comment by lester — January 13, 2007 @ 10:24 am - January 13, 2007
Like I said, applause for honesty. 🙂
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 13, 2007 @ 10:01 pm - January 13, 2007