It seems that now even in the majority, Democrats are less interested in governing and just as interested in posturing as they were when they were in opposition. A few days ago, Bruce noted how John Murtha (with the apparent support of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi) is attempting to use surreptitious means to block the president’s policies in Iraq while pretending to do something else. Now, some Democrats appear to be more upfront about their goals, “drafting legislation that would effectively revoke the broad authority granted to the president in the days Saddam Hussein was in power, and leave U.S. troops with a limited mission as they prepare to withdraw.”
Yet, even as Democrats posture to please their base — and even as the war appears unpopular, recent polls indicate that Americans remain opposed to “(a) surrender, (b) losing, (c) defeat and (d) compelling the troops do any of them same.” Well over half of the voters surveyed in one poll “stand behind the President in Iraq because we are at war.”
With their proposed legislation, Democrats seem eager to undermine the president’s authority. They seem more interested in damaging him politically than in promoting the national interest. As the president said last month about his critics (and I noted in this post), “They have an obligation and a serious responsibility therefore to put up their own plan as to what would work.”
Instead of their relentless posturing with non-binding resolutions and legislation that the president is sure to veto, Democrats need to make clear that they stand for something besides opposing him. If they want to retain their majority status, they need to put forward policies which show their commitment not to pleasing the angry elements of their base, but to moving the nation forward.
Only two months into their Congressional majority, Democrats are resembling the GOP after more than a decade in power, not working on substantive legislation, but instead offering meaningless bills to please that base. If the Republicans can capitalize on the Democrats failure by returning to the party’s principles and articulating those principles in responsible legislative proposals (and that’s still and open question), they could well return to the majority in next fall’s election.
But, until I see more signs of a congressional GOP commitment to principle, I will continue to despair at the state of our national legislative politics, with representatives and Senators more eager to score partisan points than to present ideas and author legislation which promote the national interest.
UPDATE: Jules Crittenden thinks that the Democrats’ move to limit the mission of US troops may well serve as a “is a shot in the foot that will drive Americans farther from” the left. (Via Instapundit” He’s got lots more good news — and some bad news, so as Glenn would say, just read the whole thing“!
I’ll give the Senate Dems credit for (now) being more up-front about their intentions, and proposing a resolution that would be binding.
It is up to Republicans-plus-Lieberman now to find their balls and keep supporting the troops… firmly. Let’s hope.
I also read where Harry GReid is working on legislation that will only allow US soldiers to shoot at combatants who are verified to be members of Al Qaeda. Meanwhile, American troops will be restricted to non-combat functions while the details of our surrender in Iraq are worked out.
Meanwhile, BOTW has another report on the cleanest, most honest Congress in history…
Will the hack Democrat shills who defended Air Pelosi and Harry GReid step up to the plate this time and criticize one of their leadership?
#3 – Don’t count on it, V.
Regards,
Peter H.
Remember, Pelosi herself, despite her screaming and wailing demands that people who are caught committing campaign finance fraud should immediately resign from leadership and Congress….excludes herself.
Suddenly I’m seeing her dolled up like Lina Lamont, screeching “”People”? I ain’t ‘people.’ I am a – “a shimmering, glowing star in the Congressional firmament.”
#3:
Absolutely. I agree with this Kos diary that thinks Hoyer’s sense of ethics in this case “stinks.” I’ll be letting the Dem leadership know about it too.
In other words, Dan, rubber-stamp whatever Bush wants. That was the approach of the last GOP controlled Congress, not this one. The Dems do have a plan: transfer full authority and responsibility for Iraq to its duly elected government by following an appropriate timetable. You and Bushco may not like it but it’s a plan that Americans support. Yes, Bush may veto it or the Repubs may find some way to keep it from being debated but we who oppose the continued occupation of Iraq support the effort to end the occupation and will make sure the electorate in 2008 knows full well who supported it and who didn’t.
Ian, you’ve already made it clear what the Democrat “plan” is — twice.
Once here:
The American people understand that the leading contenders for the GOP nomination all support the war and all support the escalation. Differences on tactical details won’t register with the voters. If Iraq turns around, the GOP contenders will benefit, if it doesn’t, then the next President will be a Democrat and the Democrats will strengthen their control of Congress. It’s really very simple.
Then again here:
People are talking 18 months for the escalation to either work or not but I think we’ll know well before then. That puts it in the middle of the election season and if the escalation has failed then the GOP will be the focus of all the anger thereby benefitting the Dems.
The rantings of Pelosi, Reid, and Murtha make this obvious. They want to stop ALL troop deployments. They want to cut ALL troop funding. They want to prevent US troops from engaging ANYONE. This is not an “appropriate timetable”; it is flat-out sabotage and an attempt to cripple our armed forces to the point at which success in Iraq is impossible.
Because you and they think that will help you seize power.
Your own words convict you, Ian. Your lies and spin to the American people are slowly unraveling as you and your fellows like keogh cackle and clap over the possibility of Iraq collapsing, because in your twisted minds the attainment of political power is all that matters.
“They want to stop ALL troop deployments. They want to cut ALL troop funding”
Exactly. Because they don’t think there is a Military Solution to Iraq.
As both Murtha, and the Speaker have said over and over, only a Political solution will bring about victory. Only through a timetable will the Iraqis get their shit together.
Thanks for making the dems points more clear.
War *is* politics… or rather “diplomacy by other means” or whatever the heck that quote is.
The falacy of lofty announcements that the solution is not a military one, is that it assumes the straw-man that what is being proposed is a military solution. The “political solution” or the “diplomatic solution” is not exclusive of the inclusion of the military as a tool to get the job done.
This is what is wrong with the general Dem attitude about the military. It is viewed as some other separate, different, thing. It’s not. Yet the assumption that any use of the military excludes other approaches is there, always. The charge that those advocating military use are rejecting any other method is there, always.
So, obviously, no non-military solution need even be attempted until the military is out of the picture. During the time the Dems were in the minority they needed to do nothing at all. During the time they are in the majority they don’t have to do anything until they remove the military.
Sweet.
Stupid, but sweet.
So are they really that dumb, or just more interested in political gain than a good outcome in Iraq?
#9: I have only stated how this will all unfold. We progressives are going to try to halt the escalation and set a timetable to bring the troops home from Iraq so we can concentrate on the real war against jihadism. That Bushco and the Republick Party is intent on escalating the war will likely result in our being stymied from redeploying the troops. Fine, the timing will be perfect for the American people to decide in 2008 what they want for the future: unending incompetently planned Republick Party wars that will bleed this country into ruin or the smart Democratic Party blend of diplomacy and military action against our real enemies.
Ian, I think I missed the part where anyone on your side admitted to anything remotely resembling “the real war against jihadism.” Who, exactly, might that be and how is the plan to fight that “real war” presented?
As for redeploy… to where? Where is that “real war” located?
Inquiring minds want to know. 😉
Ian, let me explain this clearly; given that you and your fellow leftists, during the four years you knew bin Laden was in Afghanistan, knew he was planning attacks against the United States, and knew, as you now hysterically claim, that he was the largest imminent danger to the United States in existence…..did squat to stop him.
You won’t fight jihadism. You’ve already demonstrated the fact. You’ll simply sit there and suck your thumb until thousands of Americans are killed, then blame the other party for not being proactive. And then when they ARE proactive, as was the case in Iraq, you’ll do everything in your power to sabotage them.
Where, Synova?
Okinawa, of course. Murtha needs all the troops he can muster to roust the Japs out of their emplacements.
And as long as Queen Nancy gets her airliner, she doesn’t care what war Murtha is fighting.
Once the Dems have completely emasculated the commander in chief, it will be interesting (and frightening) to see how well President HR Clinton or President Obama do handling threats to our interests with ankle biters like John Murtha sniping day and night at them.
Too bad the lefties won’t consider the fact that future threats will be more dangerous becuase of what we fail to do now. Of course, profiles in courage like John Kerry will be nowhere in sight if the peaceniks turn out to be wrong.
Would we be in the mess we’re in now if George HW Bush had finished off Saddam in ’91? If Bill Clinton would have crushed Al Queda after the first WTC bombing? If Ronald Reagan would have hammered Hezbollah after the Beirut bombings, etc?
I cannot understand how lefties round the world will work tirelessly to undermine resistance to the Islamists that would have their heads (literally) in an instant if they could.
#13:
Afghanistan for starters. The news media here ignores the situation there and the problems the NATO forces are experiencing solely because Bush wanted to move onto his vanity war in Iraq. Even the Brits are sending more troops to help in Afghanistan. Canada is fed up and could leave by 2009. And if Bush attacks Iran, no NATO government will be able to support the US and stay in power.
#16 – It’ll be different then, Robert. The media will suddenly be on the President’s side… assuming that President is pro-abortion.
The destructive leaks of vital national security programs by the media will not only stop, the media will suddenly find them inexcusable. Massive new – and very likely unnecessary – civil rights violations and government powers will be hailed as vital, etc. We already saw it under Clinton in the 1990s.
Admittedly, it might not quite happen overnight, until a terrorist attack with massive new casualties. And the fact that the attack will have been caused (permitted and/or stimulated) by their weak, confused policies of appeasement will become one of those things that only a racist, fascist monster would ever mention. Assuming they don’t actively (mis)blame it on Bush.
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt! Wrong answer.
YOUR media ignores the situation there. I.e., your stupid, drive-by media and other sources. The media I read have reported on Afghanistan continuously for years.
Oh and by the way…
After the Taliban / al Qaeda fell in Afghanistan… al Qaeda fighters dispersed to these places primarily:
1) western Pakistan
2) IRAQ
3) IRAN
4) horn of Africa
If you are such a great anti-terrorist, Ian – then logically, you should have some kind of appreciation for the anti-terrorist fights in all of those places.
Not just Afghanistan. (Which is largely clear of terrorists, until and unless they cross the border from Pakistan. Which they will soon, as they do each spring.)
#19
Well, Sneaky Cal, gotta wonder why the Brits are sending in more forces. Maybe so Karzai can be more than the “Mayor of Kabul.” Your dismissal of the threat in Afghanistan demonstrates that you’re not to be taken seriously. BTW, do you know the meaning of “for starters?” Perhaps it’s an idiom with which you’re unfamiliar.
I’d add to Calarato’s list, at the very least, Indonesia. I’m assuming “horn of Africa” includes Somalia.
That’s the thing, you know. (For some value of “you”.) “The real war against jihadism,” is a war against a concept that has no relationship to national borders… it’s not geographically defined yet it *must* be fought in some geographical location or another. NO nation qualifies in any greater degree than Iraq qualifies. (Not even the threat in Iran which is not at all the same in nature being a conventionally expressed inter-national dispute, including their interferance in the internal affairs of their neighbor, in which the actor, Iran, is a State rather than a non-national organization.)
Several places, several localities, likely equal the qualification of Iraq as a geographical location to fight “the real war against jihadism” but Afghanistan is not one of them. Afghanistan isn’t completely stable and suffers from economic dependancy on the opium trade, local warlords and remnant al Qaida, and we should stay there and we should continue to support that country, but it’s just not all that relevant to “the real war against jihadism.”
The misfortune of Afghanistan is that it just isn’t very important. We really didn’t *have* to do anything there but destroy it to achieve everything that can be achieved there. That we chose to stay, and our allies chose to stay, and we continue to fight the seasonal battles and continue to hope for good things for the people in that country, has everything to do with altruism and little to nothing to do with the difference for *us* between what happens to *us* if Afghanistan becomes a nice place to live and what happens to *us* if we just keep our cameras pointed down and simply rebomb when necessary.
We gain in charma and brownie points by contiuing in Afghanistan because it’s the morally right thing to do, but we don’t gain any ground against the larger trend toward jihadism. (Or whatever the heck anyone wants to call it.)
Ian, you get more and more amusing.
Canada is fed up and could leave by 2009.
Do you even know how many troops Canada has in Afghanistan, Ian?
Opposition leader Stephane Dion promised to withdraw Canada’s 2,500 troops from Afghanistan in early 2009, if his party wins national elections, expected soon.
Meanwhile, you try this whine:
The news media here ignores the situation there and the problems the NATO forces are experiencing solely because Bush wanted to move onto his vanity war in Iraq.
Oh really?
Try some facts, leftist.
Security for Afghanistan now falls mainly to a 31,000-member NATO-led force, which includes some 12,000 US troops. Another 11,000 US troops are pursuing separate counter-terrorism and training missions.
But NATO has had trouble finding countries willing to contribute troops for Afghanistan, and some member nations have placed restrictions on what their troops can do, often keeping them out of combat roles.
In other words, it’s not the US that’s causing troop shortages — it’s the leftist countries that you Democrats insist should be setting our foreign policy for us who are refusing to send troops and refusing to fight.
But of course you, Ian, being a good Democrat and servile leftist, would never even presume to tell those other countries to step up to the plate. Instead, you lie and spin and blame the Bush administration, instead of your fellow leftists who are either so inept or so cowardly that they’re scared to death of fighting jihadists.
Thank God, Murtha is trying to block the powers and contain the damage of this aggressive, imperial president. Anyone who doesn’t support Murtha is a traitor and guilty of treason against the Republic!
#20 – And once again, Ian demonstrates he can’t read.
Regarding Afghanistan, I specifically pointed out that Taliban / al Qaeda terrorists threaten it when they:
Ian then said:
and characterized my warning about the upcoming threat to Afghanistan as “dismissal of the threat”.
Ian’s own article link answers his question though, if he bothers to read it. It’s the same as my warning about the threat to Afghanistan; namely, the added troops are needed to deal with the:
Ian – Really. Come. On.
Can you read at all?
Oh and P.S. – Bill Roggio, for the past year or more, has been doing great coverage of how the Taliban / al Qaeda nasties were able to regenerate themselves from inside Pakistan. He has been way ahead of the media curve.
Please read http://billroggio.com – regularly and often.
#21 – Synova, you’re right. Indonesia.
Also there is an al Qaeda threat in the Phillipines, but it was already active before the Taliban fell. I think it was active before 9-11, for that matter. I was trying to focus on the top few places that the Afghanistan / al Qaeda set had fled to.
#22 – Synova, I disagree a little in the following way. I think that if all we did with Afghanistan was periodically re-bomb it, it would ultimately become too much of an al Qaeda safe haven again. They’d just find a way to survive the re-invasions or re-bombings. We really have to get the locals engaged as active allies, and to do that, we have to help the locals build better lives. So I do think it’s a requirement, not just a nice-guy thing.
P.P.S. –
Science H. Logic – I almost let Ian’s usual hand-waving tactics distract me! Ian, you have in no way dealt with this point:
Well, Ian?
#25 re:#22 I think it would make a difference inside Afghanistan and far less of one outside Afghanistan. Could hiding places be established? Likely they could. The country was rubble when the Taliban invited Bin Laden to make his base there but he wasn’t hiding. He was active therefore we knew exactly where he was and where his bases were. Having moved to Pakistan we can’t find him but he *also* can’t *do* anything to speak of. A few fighters base there, from what you’ve said. Do the national borders actually mean anything to the people who live in those mountains?
I suppose that conditions there make some difference in the overall picture but less, I believe, than the impact of the sanctions on Iraq after 1991, just to name one thing. Every single day of those sanctions we were accused of murdering Iraqi children, of murdering *Arab* children. Frankly I don’t think anyone in the middle east particularly cares what happens to Afghani children (or Kurdish children either).
In a way it’s a horrible thought and I’d like to be wrong about it but I really do think that we could have bombed anything remotely suspicious in Afghanistan until the middle of this century and we’d feel less negative impact from it in relation to jihadist elements than resulted from our decade of sanctions on Sadam.
#23: The resentment in other NATO countries towards Bush Iraq policies is fueling the problems with the NATO forces in Afghanistan. You belittle the Canadian effort but are apparently ignorant of the fact that those troops are in the thick of the fighting and not hiding out in safe zones. The fact remains that the US led a coalition to Afghanistan over five years ago then almost immediately shifted its focus to Bush’s vanity invasion of Iraq. There is much to criticize in how NATO is operating in Afghanistan but one can’t help but think how much better it would have gone had we kept our focus there.
Cuz other nations can’t be expected to do anything but act in petty response to how they feel about the USA.
#17 and #20 — Kudos, Ian! Couldn’t have said it better myself
#13 — “As for redeploy… to where? Where is that “real war” located?
Inquiring minds want to know”
Answer: As Ian stated above, Afghanistan. Also in Pakistan and the northern territories between the two countries. This is where bin laden is, and where most of the al-qaeda cells are located. These are the primary locations where the WOT SHOULD be fought (you know, the countries where the Taliban has regained control — It’s been on a news report or two lately). Other secondary but significant locations may include Saudi Arabia and Syria.
Sheesh! Such short attention spans. Maybe some of you should check into that new prescription drug for adult ADHD. Must be all that red paint rhetoric that erases right-winger memories. Ya think it might contain lead? ‘-)
Keeping our forces there would have just excused the Euros doing even less. The key problem is the absolute uselessness of Europe as an ally. Hundreds of thousands of American dead and billions spent saving Europe from Nazis to be followed by an unprecedented commitment on our part in effort and money to keep them safe from the Soviets as well as protecting much of the pacific for their own benefit for trade as ours and the first time we need them to make an actual commitment that may not necessarily benefit them financially and all they can do is stall, bitch and place conditions on thier help.
You just keep on being good liberals and taking the side of the parasites while condemning your country yet again. Naturally, its nothing their doing wrong – its all Bush’s fault. Now that’s a charge you never hear from the Left, do you?
#27 – Synova – It’s more than a few fighters basing in Pakistan by now (2007). The rats have been breeding and recruiting. The new spring offensive (coming up) is expected to be the worst in a long time.
No and yes. They’re “tribal areas” and people ignore the borders. But, if U.S. or NATO forces crossed the theoretical border into Pakistan, you can bet there would be hell to pay. (Largely from leftists; I doubt not Ian.)
So there’s a double standard, that has basically given the jihadists safe havens in Pakistan. Prez Musharraf is between a rock and a hard place. The jihadist tribal areas are largely independent, i.e., a threat to Pakistani sovereignty. But huge swaths of Pakistani intelligence are pro-Taliban / pro-jihadist (and have been for a decade or more), and don’t want Musharraf to act. He has mainly been trying to pretend the problem doesn’t exist.
Again, http://billroggio.com is great for info on Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq and many other topics – just start reading a few back articles.
I do need to read more Bill Roggio.
It really is nice, Calarato, to have a discussion with someone who understands what it *means* to move into Pakistan and why and what sort of fall-out there would be.
I’d take other people far more seriously if they displayed the same understanding.
Perhaps ndtovent can discuss the political result of a US move into Pakistan, or, lets say for kicks and giggles, Saudi Arabia.
We progressives are going to try to halt the escalation and set a timetable to bring the troops home from Iraq so we can concentrate on the real war against jihadism.
U.S. Constitution be damned.
Fine, the timing will be perfect for the American people to decide in 2008 what they want for the future:
The American people, despite what your media wants you to believe, do NOT want us to lose. Americans will NOT tolerate failure. They do NOT want us to “redeploy” and they do NOT want the liberals to cut off their funding. They do NOT want a bloodbath that they know Iraq will be if we cut and run.
And here’s one tidbit for you to chew on Ian:
You told us in another thread something to the effect that you want to do whatever it takes to get a liberal in the WH. You had better find some Lieberman types because the American people will NOT tolerate or vote for a candidate that gives us or takes glee in another micromanaged disaster. Nor will they tolerate a candidate that stomps on the backs of our soldiers for political power.
The democrats are marching down the road to political doom ASSuming that disaster and failure is what the people want. I say keep marching. Presidential candidates won’t be able to pull an 06 where they don’t stand for anything. They won’t be able to shut each other up and hide out for weeks prior to the election. Suck on that.
#30
This is where bin laden is, and where most of the al-qaeda cells are located.
Is that where the DNC sends their lying points e-mails? Seriously. I’d be mortified if our country’s enemies sounded like me. Doesn’t it bother you that al-Qaeda and the DNC sound indistinguishable?
Or are liberals incapable of comprehending that?
The resentment in other NATO countries towards Bush Iraq policies is fueling the problems with the NATO forces in Afghanistan.
Are you dense, Ian?
Security for Afghanistan now falls mainly to a 31,000-member NATO-led force, which includes some 12,000 US troops. Another 11,000 US troops are pursuing separate counter-terrorism and training missions.
But NATO has had trouble finding countries willing to contribute troops for Afghanistan, and some member nations have placed restrictions on what their troops can do, often keeping them out of combat roles.
This has nothing to do with Iraq. It has everything to do with a) the cowardice of leftist-dominated countries and b) the knowledge that their puppets in the United States like you will never hold them accountable for it.
You babbled earlier about the importance of fighting jihad. But you make excuse after excuse for why you and your fellow leftists refuse to pick up a gun and do it.
Is that because you also think the rise of the Taliban would help the Dems regain political power — so you’re now going to support that and sabotage Afghanistan as well?
And it looks like Iran has got Ian and his leftist ilk pegged:
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Friday Iran should not show weakness over its nuclear program, a day after Tehran ignored a U.N. deadline to stop nuclear work which the West says could be used for making bombs.
“If we show weakness in front of the enemy the expectations will increase but if we stand against them, because of this resistance, they will retreat,” he said in a speech in northern Iran, Iran’s ISNA news agency said.
Or if that wasn’t enough, one of Iran’s leaders slipped and let us know that he was still feeding Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Murtha talking points:
Iran said Saturday the United States was not in a position to take military action against it and urged Washington and its allies to engage in dialogue.
“We do not see America in a position to impose another crisis on its taxpayers inside America by starting another war in the region,” Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki told reporters.
You should thank them for giving you political cover, Ian.
37, 38, NDT, so we still should be listening to what the clowns of Iran say, as if it has any meaning?
The Administration needs to decide on the best strategy for winning the war on Terror, and hopefully is not using the useless garbage trumpeted by Iranian officials in any way, and play some silly opposite game with Iran. I have at least that much faith in our President.
For those that really think this rhetoric has any meaning above zero and has basis in reality, why do you think these clowns are showing their cards?
I think of it this way, Pat; Hitler outlined every single thing he was going to do well in advance of doing it.
Everyone laughed him off, called him a clown, didn’t think he had the will or the power to do it.
And then he did.
What Hitler realized was that his biggest ally was Europe’s patent war-weariness. World War I was just a few years past, and the events therein had been so seared into the consciousness that people didn’t want to believe such a thing could ever happen again.
And they didn’t.
“Hitler would never REALLY launch a war, or kill all the Jews”
“We can’t afford a war right now — better to just give Hitler a few things, then he won’t ask for anything more.”
“Hitler’s not the problem; it’s just warmongering politicians and arms makers trying to start a fight so they can profit.”
To the last, look up Senator Gerald P. Nye sometime, and you will be shocked by the parallels.
The so-called “Senate Munitions Committee” came into being because of widespread reports that manufacturers of armaments had unduly influenced the American decision to enter the war in 1917. These weapons’ suppliers had reaped enormous profits at the cost of more than 53,000 American battle deaths. As local conflicts reignited in Europe through the early 1930s, suggesting the possibility of a second world war, concern spread that these “merchants of death” would again drag the United States into a struggle that was none of its business. The time had come for a full congressional inquiry.
To lead the seven-member special committee, the Senate’s Democratic majority chose a Republican—42-year-old North Dakota Senator Gerald P. Nye. Typical of western agrarian progressives, Nye energetically opposed U.S. involvement in foreign wars. He promised, “when the Senate investigation is over, we shall see that war and preparation for war is not a matter of national honor and national defense, but a matter of profit for the few.”
Over the next 18 months, the “Nye Committee” held 93 hearings, questioning more than 200 witnesses, including J. P. Morgan, Jr., and Pierre du Pont. Committee members found little hard evidence of an active conspiracy among arms makers, yet the panel’s reports did little to weaken the popular prejudice against “greedy munitions interests.”
The investigation came to an abrupt end early in 1936. The Senate cut off committee funding after Chairman Nye blundered into an attack on the late Democratic President Woodrow Wilson. Nye suggested that Wilson had withheld essential information from Congress as it considered a declaration of war.
If you read the history of American isolationism between the World Wars, it looks extraordinarily like it does now. Keep in mind the fact that isolationism was so powerful that the United States did not enter the war until we were directly attacked on our own soil; we were willing to let continental Europe, the Middle East, an enormous portion of the Far East, and almost the UK be conquered and under the Axis command.
One wonders what it would have taken to make us act short of Pearl Harbor.
Hitler announced the Luftwaffe, which was a flagrant violation of the Versailles Treaty, years before the war ever started. He recreated the army, he built banned whatnot, he bullied and forced other countries into annexation to Germany, he started systematically erasing Germany’s Jewish population, and he announced this all to the public.
Why? By announcing this to the public, he was able to play off Nazi propaganda of how Germany was “unfairly treated” and how other countries were not respecting “her rights”, as well as see, other countries are weak, they will do nothing, soon we will ascend to that which is our glorious right, their repression will end, they cannot stand against us, and so forth.
In short, Iran is showing their cards because they know that the Democrats and their liberal allies around the world are so consumed by their insane hatred of Bush, that they will blame everything on him and sabotage/block/berate any attempts to do anything about it — right up to the point where Tel Aviv disappears under a mushroom cloud, at which point they will blame Bush for not acting.
And, secure in that knowledge, the Iranian leadership is feeding their population what they need to hear; our problems aren’t our fault, they’re the result of the Jews and the West, they’re trying to deny us our rights, our glorious destiny, see, they are weak, they won’t resist us, we can do what we want…..
#39:
Well Pat, to NDT it has meaning if he can use it to attack liberals. The increasing shrillness of the Iraq occupation supporters shows the desperation they must feel over their slavish devotion to an incompetent Administration and its disastrous foreign policy. Consider TGC’s rant in #35:
Why am I reminded of a spoiled child in the midst of a tantrum stamping its foot as it doesn’t get its way? Unfortunately, we also have a man-child as President and it’s time for him to be disciplined by the responsible adults in Congress. Get us out of the midst of the civil war in Iraq, head off the imminent war with Iran and refocus on the resurgent Taliban/al qaeda terrorist plotters.
LOL……”refocus on the resurgent Taliban/al Qaeda terrorist plotters”?
Sorry Ian, but just a few posts ago, you were whining and spinning about how it was unnecessary for other countries in NATO to send troops to Afghanistan and how they should be allowed to prevent the troops they do send from ever having to face combat.
If you won’t fight now, it’s rather a stretch for us to believe you’ll ever fight any time. Furthermore, as I’ve mentioned, you had four years between when the Taliban came to power and the end of 2000, during which time you claim to have known bin Laden was an imminent and incredible threat to the United States — and yet you did nothing.
Meanwhile, you’ve made it quite clear, as I’ve outlined previously, that your motivation is for the United States to fail in Iraq so you and your leftist Democrat friends can seize political power.
Purely for the record, I want to call out #7 above, as a possible example of V’s insightful comment here: http://gaypatriot.net/?comments_popup=2114#comment-398432
Perhaps Hoyer hasn’t been completely supportive of the war, but he’s been much better over time than Pelosi or Murtha.
Is it a mere coincidence, then, that Daily Kos — and Ian — are so eager to criticize Hoyer? (Even though his sins are not much different from sins proposed and/or committed by Pelosi and/or Murtha.)
#42:
Whatever are you smoking?!!!
#43:
Translation: he opposes it.
#45 – Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt! Wrong answer.
Hoyer has gone back and forth on the war. He is not “pure” by the Murtha / Pelosi of… whatever. Hence he must be purged by the rabid Kos puppets.
As recently as fourteen months ago, according to the New Republic,
I only grabbed that as a top search result because, Ian, it’s not my job to do your basic searching for you. Much more recently – just a couple months ago – we had Hoyer stabbing Pelosi and Murtha in the back (as they would see it) over the leadership election, and once again distancing himself and “Blue Dog” conservative Democrats from the Pelosi-Murtha radical, destructive position on Iraq.
So, point goes to me. Ian, we have yet to see you criticize a Democrat except ones who might want to win the war.
It looks like the Democrat-led House, Senate and President Bush agree with what I was saying earlier in this thread, about Pakistan being the problem with Afghanistan: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070226/ts_nm/pakistan_usa_report_dc_1
(Back on Hoyer… I shouldn’t have to say this, but with Ian you have to spell out everything… I am sure that Hoyer has said many anti-war things as well… My point was, and remains, that Hoyer “hasn’t been completely supportive of the war, but he’s been much better over time than Pelosi or Murtha.”)
Whatever are you smoking?!!!
Come now, Ian; if it WAS important, you wouldn’t have been spinning about how countries were completely justified in refusing to send troops to Afghanistan and, assuming they even sent troops, demanding they be kept out of combat.
If fighting jihadism was so important to you, you wouldn’t be making excuses for this. But you are, so we can only assume that fighting jihadism in Afghanistan is another lie you dreamt up to disguise your, Pelosi, and Murtha’s attempt to undermine and sabotage our fight against terrorism and jihadists in Iraq because you think doing so will give you political power.
Silly Ian. Do you think we believe that Democrats, who scream “war crime” every time a terrorist or Iraqi insurgent who takes innocent civilians hostage and/or blows them up is killed, cares one whit about the fight against jihadism?
#47, 49: Hoyer is now opposes the war which is what I said. You had to come up with some mealy-mouthed phraseology to try hide that simple fact. There are lots of people who have changed their minds on the war, even some conservatives like Sullivan and Congressman Walter Jones.
NDT, your penchant for purple prose combined lurid imagination and capacity to just make sh!t up suggests if your day job isn’t panning out you could always try a career in romance novels.
NDXXX, “silly” Ian is an apt phrase and when he writes: “Why am I reminded of a spoiled child in the midst of a tantrum stamping its foot as it doesn’t get its way?”
Hey Ian, I know why you’re reminded of that… you must have passed by a mirror lately.
NDT, I am not denying that what these clowns are saying is really what they intend to do. Maybe so. Maybe they have something else up there sleeve in addition. Or maybe they are also playing the silly opposite game too. And maybe they also make silly spreadsheets like conservative bloggers like to do about who supports the war, and who doesn’t, to buttress whatever silly garbage spews out of their mouths.
Basically you took what they said, which if true, as evidence that we should stay in Iraq. Suppose tomorrow, one of these clowns says the exact opposite, that they love the Republicans so much and hope they win the elections in 2008, so they can continue fighting in Iraq. Would you then determine that we should get out of Iraq?
Suppose tomorrow, one of these clowns says the exact opposite, that they love the Republicans so much and hope they win the elections in 2008, so they can continue fighting in Iraq. Would you then determine that we should get out of Iraq?
I think I’ll wait for that to happen first.
You see, Pat, what I cited with Hitler is a historical pattern. It happened. It exists. As is Iran’s and al-Qaeda’s penchant for telling us what they’re going to do, then doing it.
In short, I am going to go off the pattern created by what they HAVE done rather than reacting based on my speculation of what they MIGHT do.
#55:
Like when they say they will bleed America financially by a plan to “provoke and bait” the Bush Administration into invading and getting bogged down in wars in Muslim countries. Apparently, bin Laden figured it would be Afghanistan alone where Bush would get bogged down. Imagine how ecstatic he must be to not only have fairly free reign in the border regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan but to have the US bogged down in Iraq and also be rid of one of his principal enemies, Saddam Hussein.
LOL….again, Ian, did you read your source?
As part of the “bleed-until-bankruptcy plan,” bin Laden cited a British estimate that it cost al Qaeda about $500,000 to carry out the attacks of September 11, 2001, an amount that he said paled in comparison with the costs incurred by the United States.
“Every dollar of al Qaeda defeated a million dollars, by the permission of Allah, besides the loss of a huge number of jobs,” he said. “As for the economic deficit, it has reached record astronomical numbers estimated to total more than a trillion dollars.
Should we have not rebuilt, cleaned up the WTC site, or put in place new security precautions, on the grounds that that was part of al-Qaeda’s scheme to make us incur costs?
And by your logic, then, we shouldn’t be in Afghanistan, since they’re only “provoking and baiting” us to invade, and our being there is just playing into their plans to bankrupt us.
We knew you were supporting them in their opposition to the Afghanistan invasion, but it’s just nice to see it confirmed. 🙂
Oh, and just by the way, Ian….the United States is big enough and powerful enough that we CAN knock down bin Laden without having to worry about him pushing us to bankruptcy.
This isn’t the Clinton administration. Bin Laden can’t publicly do whatever he wants and depend on Democrats like yourself being too paralyzed by fear and too desperate to be liked by paid-off European leftists to survive.
We fight back now. And we mean it.
I wonder what the Priority of the Republicans were when Clinton was in office. Undermining the President, perhaps?
North Dallas Forty,
So, how are we going to magically bring down Bin Laden? Bush has tried and failed many times before. How many more civilians and soldiers will die to bring down a guy in a cave?