Gay Patriot Header Image

Wouldn’t It Be Nice…

….if this were the case?

[W]ouldn’t the honorable thing be for the Democrats as a party basically to say, “This administration has made tragic mistake after tragic mistake in Iraq. We oppose this surge. We don’t think it will work. But we really, really hope it does work. We will give it a year and anything we can do at the margins to help make it work, we will.”

The politics would probably even make sense with the broader public, since the Democrats would get the credit for opposing the surge if it doesn’t work, while seeming surpassingly bi-partisan and high-minded in the meantime. But, of course, I’m naïve. We are way beyond this being a possibility for all sorts of reasons, including that the Democratic base would go crazy. Never mind…

We live in times where it is easier for the now-governing party in Congress to loudly protest that they are “for the troops” and that they are patriotic… but show it by undermining the troops and the Commander-In-Chief in a time of a global war against America.

Al-Qaeda is always planning the next best way to kill American civilians by the thousands… while Democrats are always planning the next best way to subvert (directly or indirectly) our war effort against the enemy.

Speaker Pelosi and Leader Reid…. as a refresher, here is the definition of honorable:

1. having personal integrity: guided by, or with a reputation for having, strong moral and ethical principles

2. deserving or gaining honor: worthy of or winning honor, respect, recognition, or glory

3. morally upright: upright and moral in intent

It is a characteristic your party seems to have forgotten beginning in the mid-1990s.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Share

17 Comments

  1. [W]ouldn’t the honorable thing be for the Democrats as a party basically to say… “We will give it a year and anything we can do at the margins to help make it work, we will.”

    The heads of 500,000 Kossacks, Code Pinkers, and George Soros would simultaneously explode.

    But, yes, that would be the honorable thing for the Donks to do. It would also be honorable for the Donks to confirm qualified judicial nominees and not block them for purely ideological reasons. It would also be honorable for the Donks to include Republicans in the legislative process, instead of locking them out. It would be honorable of the Donks to apply the same standards of ethics to themselves as they demanded be applied to Republicans.

    It would also be nice if I had a pony and a solid gold toilet, but it’s not in the cards, is it?

    Comment by V the K — January 12, 2007 @ 3:43 pm - January 12, 2007

  2. I had serious misgivings about invading Iraq before we went in and I’m now convinced it was the wrong decision. However, I’m all about winning now that we’re there. Why weren’t more troops sent in earlier — delayed shock and awe? Why did it take a midterm election loss to make a troop surge the new rallying cry? Doesn’t a much-publicized increase send the message to the enemy that our will is weak and our troops are tired, thus encouraging them to redouble their efforts? Doesn’t this embolden our enemies here in the U.S. (Pelosi, Kennedy, et al.)? Wouldn’t a gradual increase be smarter, allowing for party unity while preventing the media and electoral event we’re now watching? Sorry, guys, but Bush is tone deaf. We can be thankful that Clinton gave us the GOP congress and I blame the Bush administration for giving us the ass congress. And I think the Dems lost those qualities around the time of, oh, when the fish lost its bicycle. My $.02.

    Comment by HardHobbit — January 12, 2007 @ 3:48 pm - January 12, 2007

  3. Hobbit — Welcome.

    You make very very good points. I’m as frustrated with Bush as I am angry at the traitorous behavior of elected Democrats.

    Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — January 12, 2007 @ 4:33 pm - January 12, 2007

  4. Peggy Noonan had a column that spelled out both Hobbit’s and Bruce’s points perfectly:

    http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — January 12, 2007 @ 4:41 pm - January 12, 2007

  5. Really?
    Bush has had free hand to run this war since its inception.
    His policies have resulted in the situation as it is now.
    What has he done to deserve unmitigated trust?
    Petraeus was the darling of the NYT during the early stages of the war and if its not to late, he could do some good.
    But my god…part of the problem with Vietnam is the congress gave the pres a blank check to make more mistakes and get more deeply involved in a bad situation.
    History has taught us its their duty to debate the plan and monitor its progress.

    Comment by keogh — January 12, 2007 @ 5:33 pm - January 12, 2007

  6. I see 401k is cutting and pasting away as usual…

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — January 12, 2007 @ 5:36 pm - January 12, 2007

  7. […] Jawa Report: Iraqi’s Reaction To Teh Speach Texas Rainmaker: The Reality-Based Democrats Gay Patriot: Wouldn’t It Be Nice… […]

    Pingback by The Thomas Chronicles » Propaganda and more propaganda — January 12, 2007 @ 7:10 pm - January 12, 2007

  8. G’day,

    This is my first comment and I’d just like to point to the original definition of “Honor”. It’s “the rigorous adherence to the obligations of Truth.”

    Truth compells action. When you see a truth, you are compelled to act on it; at the very least you are to look at it squarely and not hedge.

    This idea may be antiquated, but it isn’t for me.

    Comment by Thomas Nguyen — January 12, 2007 @ 7:17 pm - January 12, 2007

  9. keogh writes: “But my god…part of the problem with Vietnam is the congress gave the pres a blank check to make more mistakes and get more deeply involved in a bad situation.”

    Unless you mean the Democrat Congress and Democrat Prez Johnson, you’d be wrong about lessons keogh. The usual #1 lesson we all learned about VN was NOT –that’s NOT as in “don’t do it” and “don’t let it happen”– to let civilan authorities like Congress or the WH play out the war and micromanage it.

    That’s the critical lesson. Today in Iraq, there are rules of engagement that are so PC and concilliatory to native interests, the military can’t act in the manner they should have been doing all along.

    The only blank check that Bush got was in the 20 nanoseconds after 9-11 when the Democrats were afraid of being true to form and anti-military, sneering partisans. Just ask LurchKerry or TeddieK.

    Bush has had a blank check in Iraq? Since when? During the buildup? During the invasion? The 6 wks after the invasion?

    Go back and read the OpEds. Go back and listen to the field reports from the embedded newsreaders. If that is your idea of a blank check keogh, it bounced on arrival.

    Bruce is dead on right. It would be nice for the Democrats to find some honor –but political greed on their part prevents it.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — January 12, 2007 @ 9:17 pm - January 12, 2007

  10. yes, more laughable rhetoric. 12 years of republcian led congress and 6 years of Bush clearly haven’t worked, to say nothing of the fact that kick ass George hasn’t found Osama Bin Laden. Sorry folks, but it’s time for a good spanking; you’re like the theif who isn’t sorry he did wrong…only sorry he got caught.

    Comment by Kevin — January 12, 2007 @ 9:40 pm - January 12, 2007

  11. #2
    Why did it take a midterm election loss to make a troop surge the new rallying cry?

    No. It took an increase in “insurgent” attacks over late summer. Remember how there was talk, early last summer, about drawing down?

    Doesn’t a much-publicized increase send the message to the enemy that our will is weak and our troops are tired, thus encouraging them to redouble their efforts?

    No. It says that we’re sending reinforcements and we’re going to really start kicking your as$.

    Doesn’t this embolden our enemies here in the U.S. (Pelosi, Kennedy, et al.)?

    Can you name one thing Bush could do that wouldn’t? I guarandamntee you that if he had announced we would be out of Iraq by the end of the week, the libs would have gone apesh*t spicey gonzo. There would have been much wailing and gnashing of teeth that Bush doesn’t care about the Iraqi people etc.

    Wouldn’t a gradual increase be smarter, allowing for party unity while preventing the media and electoral event we’re now watching?

    You mean do what would make the libs happy? Screw ’em! It’ll never happen. The point is to secure Baghdad as soon as possible, not make you or anybody else feel warm and fuzzy inside. Besides, it’s the libs politicizing the Iraq Theater. We shouldn’t base our national security with what makes them happy.
    No matter what they may want you to think, they are NOT the commanders of the U.S. military.

    Sorry, guys, but Bush is tone deaf.

    Well whatever. He’s also the only one in Washington willing to stand for our victory.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 13, 2007 @ 1:48 am - January 13, 2007

  12. #10 – What are you implying? That by not catching OBL, we have lost the WOT?

    Let me clearly remind you of what Shrillary and Nazi Pelosi said before the midterm elections: that even if we DID catch OBL, it would not matter because “Iraq is a quagmire.” You can Google that if you wish.

    So you can’t have it both ways. And frankly, your repeated attempts to try and state a valid and coherent argument seems to be beyond your mental capacity.

    Checkmate.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — January 13, 2007 @ 2:27 pm - January 13, 2007

  13. Kevin still thinks OBL is the only terrorist in the world and if we catch him all terrorism will be ended forever? What a maroon. He must think geo-politics is like a James Bond movie and OBL is just a supervillain, and all we need is one guy to seduce a woman in OBL’s organization, then she’ll help him break into OBL’s secret fortress and kill him with a big explosion.

    I do have to congratulate him on avoiding the extermination squads for another year.

    Comment by V the K — January 13, 2007 @ 3:18 pm - January 13, 2007

  14. “This administration has made tragic mistake after tragic mistake in Iraq. We oppose this surge. We don’t think it will work. But we really, really hope it does work. We will give it a year and anything we can do at the margins to help make it work, we will.”

    OK. Nice. But what happens at the end of of the year and we find that this surge was just another of this administration’s mistakes? What do you say to the thousands of dead soldier’s family about another mistake? What does the country do then?

    Comment by Horace Kirkman — January 14, 2007 @ 11:36 pm - January 14, 2007

  15. #14 – But what if it does work?

    If you insist on preparing yourself for defeat, you will lose every time.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — January 16, 2007 @ 3:47 pm - January 16, 2007

  16. Who is the “enemy?” Saddam Hussein and Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11 you f’n idiots! This is a diversion and a waste of our young and our resources. When we leave, the Iraqis will take care of any remaining al-queda in iraq. We need to refocus on Afghanistan NOW. You repukes are so obsessed with being vindicated for this colossel mistake that you’ll blame anyone and everyone for it besides bush and yourselves! The sad truth is that the only way for Iraq to reconcile is for us to lose.

    Comment by michael — January 16, 2007 @ 4:21 pm - January 16, 2007

  17. #16 – A prime example of the hysteria caused by Bush Derangement Syndrome.

    I rest my case.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — January 17, 2007 @ 4:46 pm - January 17, 2007

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.