Thursday Open Thread on Congressional Surrender Vote
The White House reaction to the 218-208 Congressional vote last night effectively surrendering to Al-Qaeda in Iraq.
Seventy-nine days after President Bush sent Congress a request for emergency war funding for our troops, the House of Representatives has passed disappointing legislation that insists on a surrender date, handcuffs our generals, and contains billions of dollars in spending unrelated to the war.
Last November, the American people voted for a change in strategy in Iraq – and the President listened. Tonight, the House of Representatives voted for failure in Iraq – and the President will veto its bill.
Democrats have forced this process to continue for too long. The President calls on the Senate to quickly pass this legislation so the President can veto it and then work with the Congressional leadership on a clean bill that funds our troops while respecting the judgment of our military commanders and helping ensure the safety of the American people.
Have at it. You all know what I think of this Pelosi-Reid Surrender Strategy.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
48 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
I have tried to give serious consideration to the “Iraq is in a civil war therefore we need to get out” argument, but it just doesn’t bear up to scrutiny.
Point 1: is Iraq in a civil war? Well, yes, no, and maybe. Yes, because there are rival factions within the country fighting each other. No, because there is a legitimate elected government where all of the sectarian factions are already represented. No, also, because there is a significant presence of foreign fighters, and because the insurgents are being armed and supplied by hostile foreign powers with the intention of overthrowing the legitimate elected government. We have captured Iranian weapons and Iranian soldiers inside Iraq, along with Syrians, Palestinians, Pakistanis, Saudis…
Rhetorically, the civil war argument also doesn’t hold up. The left simultaneously shrieks, “There’s civil war in Iraq. People are dying. We need to get out” And “There’s civil war in Darfur. People are dying. We need to get in.” The only difference is the US has no strategic interest in Darfur, which brings us to point 2.
Point 2, should the US pull out and leave? Well, only if it is in our best interest to do so. To determine that, we have to answer the question, what happens if we do quit the field and let the enemies of Iraq’s elected government succeed in overthrowing it? We know who opposes the legitimate government, Islamo-fascist terrorists who blow up children and cut off people’s heads. So, we can predict from that how they will act when they take over. The Iraqis who stood with us will be slaughtered (which is exactly what happened when Bush 41 cut them off at the knees back in ‘91.) Al Qaeda and the other terror groups will be emboldened to strike at the west and will have an entire country as the base of their operations. Iran (our sworn enemy) will have greater power and influence in the region, because we would have demonstrated that the US is an unreliable ally who will abandon our friends to Islamo-Fascist aggression because of domestic political considerations.
So, the “it’s a civil war we should leave” analysis fails on all counts. It is not exactly a civil war, but more like an attempted coup d’etat financed, supplied, and manned by foreign terrorists. Leaving would be reckless and irresponsible, embolden terrorists, and threaten our national security.
That’s my analysis, lefties may feel free to now begin shouting T-shirt slogans at me.
Comment by V the K — April 26, 2007 @ 9:21 am - April 26, 2007
I still don’t understand why Iran isn’t getting more grief from us. Why aren’t we stirring up trouble for them in their own country with thier own dissaffected minorities (ethnic, religious, and political)? Give them something to really worry about.
Secondly, what are the insurgents doing in Iraq that Muslims aren’t doing in most every country in Asia and Africa? Lots of countries suffer terrorism through bombs, beheadings, and riots all year long and no one is calling India or Thailand a failed state.
Why are we so indifferent to terrorism in Nigeria or the Phillipines but are so despondent about terrorism in Baghdad? Yes its more intense in Iraq but surely the reason is obvious. Terrorists have satellites and cell phones and they hear and see everything that the Left is saying. They know carefully staged explosions, which take a minimal amount of effort to create, rattle the Dems and make our job harder.
Comment by VinceTN — April 26, 2007 @ 9:44 am - April 26, 2007
When will the madness stop? I can only hope and pray that the American people will wake up eventually, and that future generations will regard Pelosi-Reed-Liberalism’s track record of surrender to fascism (Islamic variant) with the horror it merits.
It would help, I think, if President Bush called them out more – bashing Pelosi/Reed in the moral terms they richly deserve to be bashed in. Leadership starts at the top.
Also, I hope it is not lost on our troops, which party they can count on.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 26, 2007 @ 9:50 am - April 26, 2007
[...] Original post by GayPatriot [...]
Pingback by Politics: 2008 HQ » Blog Archive » Thursday Open Thread on Congressional Surrender Vote — April 26, 2007 @ 10:03 am - April 26, 2007
What people don’t seem to realize is that Reid’s “war is lost” statement has broad consequences, because even the press in the Islamic world knows about the Dhimmicrats’ surrender statement.
Mr. President, please VETO this bill.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — April 26, 2007 @ 10:39 am - April 26, 2007
War is about one thing: making the enemy feel hopeless enough to give up.
Combat, killing, etc. are merely means to that end. People need to understand that soldiers are line workers producing a very specific product. We can call it “the enemy’s despair”. It’s difficult to produce and it takes time.
Reed is directly – and I mean DIRECTLY – sabotaging our troops’ work product. Would we put up with Reed blowing up Ford or GM cars – or putting sugar in their gas tanks, say – as they came off the line?
Reed is behaving as an enemy to our troops – even if they, in their strength and generosity, wouldn’t begin to consider him one.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 26, 2007 @ 10:49 am - April 26, 2007
sorry, Reid
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 26, 2007 @ 10:51 am - April 26, 2007
I like Bill Bennet’s take on all this… essentially, it’s one that encourages a rigorous, thorough debate from both sides of the aisle regarding what is at stake and the consequence of actions like NancyP’s and words like Harry gReid’s –as well as the actions of the Democrats in the House and Senate.
I think the WH ought to be welcoming the debate. I think the Democrats have overplayed their hand with conditions that can easily be portrayed as counter-productive on the WOT. It’s a lot of work to make that case “stick” with America, but it needs to be done expertly this time.
In the end, compromise will be accomodated. The Democrats will get their spending pork barrel items in a separate bill(s), the President will not have a timetable, funding of the troops will happen, State/Rice will kick up the diplomatic efforts in a visible, demonstrable fashion and each side of the debate will be able to claim “Victory”.
I even envision NancyP holding a press conference with Murtha and the two of them holding up their fingers ala TrickyDick in a “V” sign.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — April 26, 2007 @ 11:22 am - April 26, 2007
What is the goal of us policing Iraq?
Is it simply keeping Sunnis and Shiites from going at each other?
I have heard conservatives say we need to be tougher and Islam is the enemy.
If that is true, we would WANT the two sides to go at it
I have also heard that we need a strong democratic Iraq.
However, that will result in a country based upon Islamic Law with likely Sadr running the show.
Why do we want to help them achieve that?
Kurdistan is basically independent and will never be run by Shiites. Iraq will likely never be an ally and probably no friend.
Dems recognizing the reality on the ground and demanding a viable strategic change is the right thing to do for our country. (please don’t say that the surge is new, it is not)
The reality on the ground is our troops continued presence will not bring the result we want. Recognizing this pulling out, and waiting is the smart, pragmatic and right way to win the war…against Al Qaeda. Not Iraq.
Comment by keogh — April 26, 2007 @ 11:38 am - April 26, 2007
And so the slogan-shouting begins.
Comment by V the K — April 26, 2007 @ 11:51 am - April 26, 2007
#8 – Not to mention the usual cutting-and-pasting that has defined 401K’s posts on this blog. As our regulars say, “what a maroon.”
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — April 26, 2007 @ 12:31 pm - April 26, 2007
keogh, I’ll take a stab –although like VdaK and Peter, I wonder if it is worth any constructive end with you.
The goal is to provide enough support to suppress the violence so that all Iraqis can sort out their political, economic and social future. I love it that you know what’s going to happen between various contending political and religious groups –even though that sort of analysis defies the best and most knowledgeable experts on the region. You think wars are messy? Try helping a people take control of their political future.
Islam isn’t the enemy, keogh; your shorthand fails you. Radical jihadists operating as terrorists are the enemy of the Western world and Russia, Africa and Asia. Insurgents in Iraq aren’t insurging… they are terrorizing the Iraqi populace in a 3rd world styled blood lust and battle for ethnic domination. Are the terrorists 1-2% of all Iraqis? Is it 3-4%? Don’t the majority of Iraqis want stability, freedom, political sovereignty? I think the MSM’s insurgents are a small majority of all Iraqis… I think most people there and elsewhere in the MiddleEast want peace.
Frankly, on the question of Iraq as a democracy… not important to me. I want a stable, pro-Western govt to find root there, gain ground, prosper. That is in our national interest.
“Kurdistan”? Where the hell is that, Keogh? It’s the Kurdish region of Iraq and elsewhere that the Kurds reside… and have been doing very well under the supposed “American occupation”… but you really don’t WANT to talk about the successes in Iraq, do you?
Here’s the rub of it, keogh: the Democrats have played on America’s reluctant nature to wage war. The Democrats have worked systematically to undermine the troops, destroy American resolve, and aid America’s enemies abroad in order to gain political power.
At the end of the day, the truth is that the Democrats are more controlled by 1960’s era anti-war protesters and hardened anti-Bush zealots. It’s pushed Harry Reid and NancyP into a corner they’d have preferred not to go just 5 months ago… and like with the promise of NancyP that “impeachment” is off the table, promises by Democrats to support the troops have been forgotten. Just like the main lesson of VietNam: keep the bloody politicians out of managing a conflict and leave it to the military experts and their civilian oversight.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — April 26, 2007 @ 1:13 pm - April 26, 2007
Keogh’s statement does illuminate something, though.
On her trip to Syria and Lebanon, I was wondering why Pelosi only met with groups and governments that were genocidal towards Jews AND towards other Muslims.
Then keogh confirmed it; the Democrat “strategy” is to have Muslims kill each other by encouraging groups like Hamas and Hizbollah, who murder people at the drop of a hat for belonging to the wrong political faction or religious belief system, and governments like Syria and Iran, which do the same.
And keogh, you don’t want to fight terrorism. Those are the groups — like Hamas and Hizbollah — that you and Nancy Pelosi have endorsed and support. Obviously the intention is that these groups will function as your puppet organizations; after all, they are made up mostly of non-white people, and you intend to use them in the same fashion that you do groups that you consider “inferior” here in the United States — as your lackeys.
What I don’t think Veruca (Pelosi) realizes is that the only reason she’s still alive today is because the people involved realized that she was more useful as a propaganda tool than she was as a hostage or corpse. Why should they kill a stupid infidel woman, when said infidel woman supports them and will do everything in her power to give them exactly what they want?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 26, 2007 @ 1:27 pm - April 26, 2007
this war is lost. LOST. the surge is a disaster. why does bushco continute to spend $2BILLION A WEEK on this sectarian civil war. he needs to listen to the PEOPLE who made their thoughts very clear last november, that we want no further part of an illegal and immoral war.
bushco is a failed administration. it’s time for them to quit dragging the military and the entire country down the drain with them.
Comment by rightiswrong — April 26, 2007 @ 3:56 pm - April 26, 2007
What was far more immoral was leaving Saddam in place to commit genocide, build banned weapons, support terrorism, and systematically murder and imprison entire swaths of his population.
But, since it made billions in kickbacks and bribes for Democrats and their leftist allies in the UN and European governments, they didn’t care about a lot of “blood for oil”.
The twisted behavior of people like rightiswrong is obvious; they claim that taking bribes from Saddam and turning a blind eye to his behavior was “legal” and “moral”, but consider putting an end to the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of people and toppling a corrupt government that was funding worldwide leftists while committing genocide is “illegal” and “immoral”.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 26, 2007 @ 4:13 pm - April 26, 2007
Last time I checked, unleaded was going for $2.95 a gallon. Blood for oil, my a$$. Another libtard talking point that has been debunked.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — April 26, 2007 @ 5:25 pm - April 26, 2007
At least there are a couple of Repubs who put country before Bushco: Smith and Hagel. Now, the boy-king can have his tantrum, stamp his feet and issue his veto. And the Bush bootlickers in Congress will sustain the veto. Fine, it will be crystal clear to the American people who owns this disastrous occupation: Bush and the GOP including the Bush wannabes, Rudy, St. John and Mitt. And the American people will deal with these stupid thugs appropriately.
Comment by Ian — April 26, 2007 @ 6:14 pm - April 26, 2007
Yeah….just what exactly does the Nutty Left say to the question — “Where is the oil Bush went to war to steal?”
I suppose it is probably in Al Gore’s lockbox.
Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — April 26, 2007 @ 6:21 pm - April 26, 2007
And it will be also clear to Americans which party isn’t afraid of fighting terrorism; the Republicans.
As for “disastrous occupation”, Ian also seems to think the American public will forget who fought, kicked, screamed, and threw temper tantrums to prevent us from committing enough funds or troops to win; the Democrat Party.
But this is no surprise; as the Vice President ably pointed out, the Dem strategy is to collapse our armed forces by starvation, by systemically undermining them, and by begging terrorists and governments like Syria to attack them and drive up the body count.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 26, 2007 @ 6:45 pm - April 26, 2007
I just hope this means that all you supporters out there will get off your computers and off your duffs and volunteer for combat in Iraq if you believe in it so strongly.
Right or wrong, America’s support for this is growing smaller and smaller every day. You can’t fight a war, especially half-way around the world, unless you have the support of the citizenry behind you. The change in majority in congress is simply a reflection of the deisre for change by the American people.
Comment by Kevin — April 26, 2007 @ 7:46 pm - April 26, 2007
I just hope this means that all you supporters out there will get off your computers and off your duffs and volunteer for combat in Iraq if you believe in it so strongly.
Lead by example, Kevin.
You and your fellow Democrats insist you’re not surrendering, that you really want to fight the terrorists in Afghanistan; go volunteer.
After all, you insist that anyone who supports war and fighting should volunteer and go running to the front lines, and any reason they give for not doing so is just making excuses.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 26, 2007 @ 9:52 pm - April 26, 2007
You can’t fight a war, especially half-way around the world, unless you have the support of the citizenry behind you.
Which is hard when an entire political party has devoted itself to sabotaging the troops by cutting off their funding and second-guessing their generals, calling them murderers and baby killers, and meeting with terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hizbollah, and spreading racist statements about how the Iraqis are savages who are unfit for democracy.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 26, 2007 @ 9:54 pm - April 26, 2007
Loathsome – the word that describes Dingy Harry. In my mind, he’s running hard to replace Ted Kennedy as the sleaziest member of Congress.
The war is a fiasco (benefit of hindsight). But we (the US) went into Iraq based on the information available at the time. The same information available to the Dems. Hillary is on the record stating that her vote for war was based on personal discussions with people she trusted from President Clinton’s administration. (Actually, Hillary makes more sense than most Dems on Iraq – but that’s not saying a lot).
So we’re there and we have to win. If the libs get their way and we bug out leaving Iraq to the wolves (and all the other consequences), I can guarantee that Reid, Pelosi, et al won’t be anywhere in sight when the bill shows up. They’re not bog on accepting blame.
For the record, I DO question his patriotism.
Comment by Robert — April 26, 2007 @ 11:09 pm - April 26, 2007
Liberals are such immature children. Seriously. Is this the group you want in charge when terrorists come a knocking? The Brits asked Churchill to step up and take command when Hitler invaded Poland. When the crap hits the fan, the country will want the adults in charge. Our attention drifts so quickly in America. 9/11 seems so far away. Seems the Democrats forgot all too long ago. If a Dem happens to be in charge after the next attack that kills thousands, I hope I don’t undermine the President. Shame on the Democrats.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — April 26, 2007 @ 11:38 pm - April 26, 2007
Nobody ever said that it was. It’s been tried and it’s worked before. See Fallujah, Ramadi etc. In fact just before Bush instituted it, you’ll recall that the liberals DEMANDED it. As with the invasion, the libs supported it right up until the Republican president actually did it.
IOW, they were for it before they were against it.
So giving the finger to the Iraqi people, surrendering the field to al-Qaeda and letting the bloodbath begin only to have our soldiers go back into a deeper world of sh*t is the smart thing to do?
Thank God libs aren’t running this country. Make a note of this for next November.
Supposedly, the people made it clear that they want the war to end. So far, the liberals have made NO effort to make it happen anytime soon. THEREFORE, it can be said that the liberals aren’t listening to the voters either.
It’s interesting. The libs claim a mandate from the elections but they still don’t have the balls to follow through and cut off the funding. I say that the libs should grab their sacks and do it. See how much “support” you have.
Alternatively, how can a liberal douchebag oppose a war he/she/it has never served in? Can we count on you to sign up to help those poor Darfurians?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 27, 2007 @ 2:37 am - April 27, 2007
Now that the Democrats have demanded the US raise the white flag by October 1 and turn Iraq over to its new Al Qaeda overlords by next March, it’s on to the next order of business: expanding the civil liberties of terrorists held at Guantanamo.
So, Democrats cut off our own troops at the knees and then bend over backwards to coddle the terrorists that are murdering them.
Tell me again how Democrats are not undermining American security. Tell me again how Democrats support the troops.
Comment by V the K — April 27, 2007 @ 9:15 am - April 27, 2007
VdaK et al, good points as always. Maybe the Dhimmicrats will understand what the US is up against if they read actual accounts from Iraq that the MSM does not wish to report.
Then they would see that the “surge” is working. And for the record, you know that the plan is working if the Dhimmicrats are howling that it ISN’T.
King me. (Hat tip to VdaK on this new sign-off)
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — April 27, 2007 @ 10:08 am - April 27, 2007
“But we (the US) went into Iraq based on the information available at the time.”
Actually that is not the case. – That is just the line the cads on all sides use to cover their hinnies.
Anyone watch the frontline piece on the run-up to the war?
As more facts come out, history is gonna be rather hard on Bush….
#12 [Iraqi Kurds] have been doing very well under the supposed “American occupation”
Yup. And they surely won’t be ruled by a Shiite or Sunni when its all said and done. The fragmentation of Iraq has already begun. – Another example would be the Baghdad we tried to build.
“I think most people there and elsewhere in the MiddleEast want peace.”
I agree with you 100%, yet people still fight. The US military can’t and shouldn’t unilaterally police people in order to create peace. Unilateral peacekeeping rarely works.
“The question of Iraq as a democracy… not important to me”
What? This is a stated goal of our occupation and a stated goal of the military policing. And a pro-west dictatorship will be either short lived or more likely non-existent. We are “suppressing the violence” to allow for a fragmented Islamic state with close ties with Iran to emerge.
“Democrats have worked systematically to undermine the troops, destroy American resolve, and aid America’s enemies abroad”
Sigh…
How far have we gone in this country when advocating different strategies = treason?
So lets look at your charges:
“Undermine the troops” Like playing games with troop numbers, strategy, casualty reports, and intelligence? (All done by repubs)
“Destroying American resolve?” Like giving the American public false expectations of a simple victory, and playing transparent and divisive “who’s got the most patriotism” games? (Repubs again)
“Aid America’s enemies abroad?” Like torturing innocents thus destroying our moral credibility? Or working with Iran, or working with Syria to torture prisoners? Or sending congressmen and woman to their counties? (All done by Repubs)
Sorry, but that old dog just won’t hunt anymore. Its tired and worn out and just stares at the manure pit.
Comment by keogh — April 27, 2007 @ 11:25 am - April 27, 2007
How far have we gone in this country when advocating different strategies = treason?
Publicly pledging your support for terrorist groups and terrorism-supporting countries whose goals are to kill Americans, as Pelosi did a few weeks ago, is a different strategy all right.
Publicly supporting people who send hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash to terrorists to buy and build IEDs to use against our troops, as Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Howard Dean did for Cindy Sheehan, is a different strategy all right.
Publicly announcing that you have surrendered, as Harry Reid did last week, is a different strategy all right.
Publicly announcing that you are deliberately cutting off funding to hinder the troops and prevent them from carrying out their mission, as the Democrats are doing now, is a different strategy all right.
One wonders what would happen if Pelosi, Reid, and the rest of the Democrat Party stood up and made it clear that we are not weak, that we will fight, and that the Iraqi insurgency and the terrorist organizations that support it will go down in flames because of it.
But instead they’re flying around the Middle East promising its primary supporters that they’ll do everything in their power to stop US troops from fighting.
The fact that you support their deliberate and hateful sabotage, keogh, is no surprise; the fact that you support their pandering to and endorsement of genocidal terrorist groups like Hizbollah and Hamas isn’t either.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 27, 2007 @ 11:42 am - April 27, 2007
#27 – Okay, let’s talk about “lies” and the lying liars on the left.
The MSM dutifully reports as fact the false allegations by the Dhimmicrats that Bush lied about WMDs in Iraq, when as a worst-case scenario it was a simple mistake. Even George Tenet in his “60 Minutes” interview this weekend admits as such.
President Bush was properly relying on the virtually unanimous opinion of all major intelligence agencies in the United States and the world. For example:
*British intelligence said Saddam Hussein was trying to buy uranium in Africa.
*CIA Director Tenet (originally appointed by the Clintons) said it was “a slam-dunk” that Saddam had WMDs.
*The French also said that their intelligence service believed Iraq had WMDs.
*Russian President Vladimir Putin also said Russian intelligence believed that Iraq has plans for terror assaults in the US.
So Bush was only following the OPINIONS of those at the time of the liberation of Iraq from Hussein. (And we all know how much libs love to point to worldwide opinion polls when it suits their advantage.)
To lie is to say something you know at the time to be false. At the time, we thought it was true. We can’t go back and Monday-morning-QB it after the fact.
In fairness, though, it was not President Bush’s mistake, but that of the various intelligence agencies. So if you insist on saying Bush made a mistake, so did the Dhimmicrats who voted along with him – with access to the same intelligence in the House and Senate, though they’ve lied in denying that as well.
Though Bush clearly hadn’t lied, I still wonder why Dhimmicrats are all of a sudden bothered by a so-called “lying” President, since they habitually defended a habitual liar of their party who previously occupied the Oval Office – and his harridan of a wife who enabled him to lie. But I digress.
So there you have it in a nutshell. If Bush lied, then so did the Dhimmicrats.
Match, set, game. You lose. Try again.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — April 27, 2007 @ 11:55 am - April 27, 2007
The Democrats alternative strategy is surrender and capitulation. If they really cared about America and freedom, they’d propose a strategy for victory.
Comment by V the K — April 27, 2007 @ 11:59 am - April 27, 2007
Victory involves making other people upset, V the K, and may result in people resenting or hating the United States.
Victory also requires you to decide on a right and a wrong — which again, requires you to “judge” other people and be “intolerant”.
The Dems made it clear last night that they want to return to the glory days of Democrat diplomacy — where you can take American citizens hostage in our own embassy for hundreds of days while we twist ourselves into a self-flagellating pretzel, or where you can blow up our embassies, buildings, military apartments, and ships with the only penalty being a few cruise missiles — after you’ve been given three weeks to clear everything out of at where they’re fired.
There is a reason that every anti-American government and organization in the world — from Hizbollah, Hamas, Syria, and Iran, through al-Qaeda, France, Germany, and the British left — wants the Democrats in power. They — and the Dems — prefer when the United States is the rough equivalent of a man with an IQ of 50 and a billion-dollar trust fund who was willing to do or say anything for acceptance.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 27, 2007 @ 12:28 pm - April 27, 2007
“They — and the Dems — prefer when the United States is the rough equivalent of a man with an IQ of 50 and a billion-dollar trust fund who was willing to do or say anything for acceptance.”
Gee, I didn’t know we were talking about John Kerry. Go figure.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — April 27, 2007 @ 1:13 pm - April 27, 2007
keogh at #28, you HAVE to do a whole better than that, guy. The only manure pit anyone is staring at these days in the House Democrat Caucus and Senate Democrat Caucus rooms. Feeble, keogh, you’re as feeble as Harry gReid… you gotta get some reading comprehension lessons at the local junior college —-fast.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — April 27, 2007 @ 2:32 pm - April 27, 2007
Peter, he was talking about TeddieK… the guy who got kicked out of Harvard… twice.
Or wait, he was talking about AlGore… the guy who got kicked out of Divinity School.
Or wait, he was talking about…. LOL.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — April 27, 2007 @ 2:34 pm - April 27, 2007
Isn’t it funny that we can name rich Dhimmicrats a lot easier than we can name wealthy Republicans? So which one is really the “party of the rich?”
Gotta love it.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — April 27, 2007 @ 3:01 pm - April 27, 2007
#34 – Good one Matt.
Are you going declare “checkmate” anytime soon?
Comment by keogh — April 27, 2007 @ 4:15 pm - April 27, 2007
#37 – Boy, are you 0-3 today, 401K. Matt doesn’t say checkmate. I do. When it is warranted.
And in your case – it is not.
To quote Patrick Swayze as Vita Boheme in “Wong Foo,” I am hereby taking away all your princess points. (WAVE & BLINK)
Try to have a nice weekend.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — April 27, 2007 @ 4:43 pm - April 27, 2007
Bad news for Ian, Silly Person, and the rest of the lefties who think the polls are on their side:
* According to a USA Today/Gallup poll, 61% of Americans oppose “denying the funding needed to send any additional U.S. troops to Iraq,” and opposition is up from 58% in February. (3/23-25, 2007).
* A Bloomberg poll reveals 61% of Americans believe withholding funding for the war is a bad idea, while only 28% believe it is a good idea (3/3-11, 2007).
* A recent Public Opinion Strategies (POS) poll found that 56% of registered voters favor fully funding the war in Iraq, with more voters strongly favoring funding (40%) than totally opposing it (38%); (3/25-27, 2007).
* POS found also that a majority of voters (54%) oppose the Democrats imposing a reduction in troops below the level military commanders requested (3/25-27, 2007).
* A separate POS poll finds 57% of voters support staying in Iraq until the job is finished and “the Iraqi government can maintain control and provide security for its people.” And 59% of voters say pulling out of Iraq immediately would do more to harm America’s reputation in the world than staying until order is restored (35%); (2/5-7, 2007).
* An LA Times/Bloomberg polls reveals that 50% of Americans say setting a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq “hurts” the troops, while only 27% believe it “helps” the troops (4/5-9, 2007).
Comment by V the K — April 27, 2007 @ 5:55 pm - April 27, 2007
And more bad news for the Surrendercrats and their willing accomplices in the Drive-By Media: seems that Saudi officials busted a terrorist ring that was about ready to unleash a suicide mission.
Now maybe they’ll figure out that there really IS a war going on?? And that these people really DO want to kill all of us?? Sheesh.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — April 27, 2007 @ 6:06 pm - April 27, 2007
Bush’s war is going fine. Keep moving. Nothing to see here. Bush’s war is going fine. Fabulously, actually. Nothing to see here. Keep moving.
Yet most of the country disagrees. Miserable failure.
Comment by sean — April 29, 2007 @ 5:55 pm - April 29, 2007
LOL…and that’s why you and your fellow Democrats, sean, are flying around the Middle East begging terrorist groups and terrorist-supporting nations like Syria and Iran to attack our troops.
Then, when that hasn’t worked, you’ve tried to pass laws preventing our soldiers from being used against your terrorist allies and stripping them of funding.
Now you’re trying to collapse Iraq by yanking our troops out of it.
How do you feel about the fact that you’re now allied with terrorists and murderers who want to erase all Jews from the planet and think gays should be slaughtered?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 29, 2007 @ 7:32 pm - April 29, 2007
So if Iraq is “Bush’s war,” that means that Bosnia was “Clinton’s war,” right? And there was Haiti, Somalia, the aspirin-factory-bombing in Iraq…all of those are “Clinton’s wars,” too. Right?
As I recall, it was the Dhimmicrats who chanted all through the 1990s that “politics stop at the water’s edge.” What changed, hmm???
Sigh…you libtards make this so easy…
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — April 30, 2007 @ 9:59 am - April 30, 2007
The profound thinkers on this blog use terms like “Libtard,” “Dhimmicrats” and “Surrendercrats.” I expect I’m not the first to offer this observation but – don’t any of you feel like junior high bullies when you do that? I mean seriously, like? “Libtards?”
Wait till Buffy, Muffie and Brad hear you say that huh? But like can’t you actually grasp complexity? Becuase life actually is more various than these foolish terms allow.
Maybe among your own small clique they’re coin of the realm, but to anyone else it makes you all sound like cartoons. Are you serious when you say that this kind of language is an indication “the adults are in charge”? LOL.
Comment by acradia1 — April 30, 2007 @ 4:54 pm - April 30, 2007
Stick around, acradia, and you’ll get to hear language more to your liking — “Bushco”, “Bushitler”, etc.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 30, 2007 @ 11:22 pm - April 30, 2007
ND30, as you have probably guessed, the lower-case-libtrolls obviously have no sense of humor. That’s why they’re so upset about the truthful use of language like “Surrendercrats.”
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — May 1, 2007 @ 10:04 am - May 1, 2007
My point is that it’s just a completely idiotic misuse of language, it’s not a humorous coinage at all – it too manifestly stupid.
The intention behind these terms isn’t to make people laugh; it’s to turn your opponents into cartoons. A mind that does that is a mind that perceives the whole of life as a cartoon. (A foolish person, frankly).
Regards, etc.
Comment by acradia1 — May 1, 2007 @ 5:27 pm - May 1, 2007
#47 – “The intention behind these terms isn’t to make people laugh; it’s to turn your opponents into cartoons.”
And the DNC hasn’t done that to the GOP? Please. Look at how they have characterized Republicans since the Reagan era – “racist-sexist-bigoted-homophobes.” If anyone has been reduced to demonizing their opponents, it’s the Dhimmicrats. We’re just fighting fire with fire for once.
And if anyone has created a cast of characters worthy of being cartoonish, it is the DNC. Look who we’ve got so far in power: Reid, Pelosi, Kennedy, Frank, DiFi, Murtha just to name a few. Walt Disney couldn’t create caricatures like these if he tried.
Look at it this way – my words create a type of shoe. If you or anyone else wants to put it on and loudly announce that it fits, that is YOUR problem.
Plus, your comment in #44 regarding “Buffy, Muffie and Brad” shows exactly the type of thinking with today’s lefties. You are more concerned about how others perceive you than your own self-worth.
Rather than being self-assured and proceeding with a plan, you and your ilk are more worried about how our “friends” like China, Russia and France would react. With friends like that, who needs Dhimmicrats, er, I mean enemies? (Freudian slip there.)
Let me put it in terms you may understand: the GOP expects America to act like John Wayne – tough, in charge, under control and resorting to strong tactics ONLY IF necessary.
Dhimmicrats want America to be like Sally Field – screaming “You like me! You really like me!” and doing the happy dance while others laugh at us behind our backs.
Churchill once called us “the arsenal of democracy.” If that is the case, we have no need for the approval of others if we alone are carrying the torch.
Regards (and no etc. cause I’m done),
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — May 2, 2007 @ 11:22 am - May 2, 2007