Victory In Iraq Means Victory Against Defeatist Left
January 17th, 2008 at 08:10pm Matt Margolis
As improvements in Iraq continue, the anti-war left have failed to force us to retreat, and thus are changing their strategy…
After a series of legislative defeats in 2007 that saw the year end with more U.S. troops in Iraq than when it began, a coalition of anti-war groups is backing away from its multimillion-dollar drive to cut funding for the war and force Congress to pass timelines for bringing U.S. troops home.
In recognition of hard political reality, the groups instead will lower their sights and push for legislation to prevent President Bush from entering into a long-term agreement with the Iraqi government that could keep significant numbers of troops in Iraq for years to come.
Remember what the Democrats a claimed they’d be able to do if they were in the majority. They said they’d get us out of Iraq. But they couldn’t. In the end, defeatism lost. It was their main priority as the majority. And they failed… as they’ve failed with so many other things on their so-called agenda… and it’s not just because Americans reject their liberal platform. It’s also because of their lack of leadership and incompetence.
Entry Filed under: Democrats, War on Terror
74 Comments
1. Christian Wright | January 17th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
Victory in Iraq?
What the hell are you talking about?
http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/johann_hari/article3336121.ece
Iraq has been one disaster after another from the lies to justify the invasion to the failed so-called surge.
The only thing Bush did was help Iran and recruite new members to the Taliban and Al Quada.
2. Eric T | January 17th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
This is a important thing to remember, the democrats wanted the history books to show American military forces surrendering to the terrorists. Leaving Iraq with no government and unstable, with nothing but Al Qaida to govern and control the countries resources, and rule over the region with terror.
Our President and his staff, against the polls and unpopularity of the war, made the right choice by finishing the mission and not leaving the people of Iraq in tyranny or chaos.
Something everyone should remember before electing a political party that wanted defeat and ruin for the U.S instead of doing what is right, when things became difficult and challenging.
3. Casper | January 17th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
My definition of “Victory in Iraq” is helping them create a stable government and bringing our troops home. Since when has the definition changed to keeping our troops there for the next 10 years?
4. AgentFear | January 17th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
“Victory In Iraq Mean Victory Against Defeatist Left”
What kind of neo-right, bat sh** crazy rhetoric is that?
You people are loons. Get outta my country now you traitors.
5. elmo | January 17th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
…In the end, defeatism lost.
No. Nearly 1000 Americans lost…their lives.
6. neocon | January 17th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
I had no idea AgentSmear was so sensitive.
7. js | January 17th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
So many blow hards.
The Demoncrats in Congress began demanding troop reductions the day they took over last January. The only thing they really accomplished was showing America that everything they promised was a pie in the sky lie. They said they were going to stop pork, what happened? Every major bill they passed was full of it.
They wanted America to lose in Iraq so they could sit back and say “Told ya so”. The worse thing, they wanted America to quit, to withdraw, to abandon everything good so they could be America’s favorite step child.
Fool us once, shame on you. Twice we are the fools. Time to say NO MORE DEMONCRATS. NO MORE LIES. Time to run the cowards out of town on a rail@!!
8. js | January 17th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
4. Casper | January 17th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
My definition of “Victory in Iraq” is helping them create a stable government and bringing our troops home. Since when has the definition changed to keeping our troops there for the next 10 years?
—————————————-
So why do we have troops in Germany? WWII ended over 50 years ago!!
Wake up. Feeble trash talk just dont mean much anymore.
9. Bigfoot | January 17th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
Iraq has been one disaster after another from the lies to justify the invasion to the failed so-called surge.
The charge that Bush lied to justify the invasion IS ITSELF A LIE. Quite a few Democrats also stated that Saddam had WMD, some before Bush even took office. In other words, they have said the same things for which they accuse Bush of lying.
The surge has resulted in a huge decrease in insurgent violence and resulting civilian bloodshed, the destruction of about 3/4 of Al Qaeda in Iraq (according to the Iraqi government), and other positive results, which Matt and Mark have previously posted. The charge that the surge has failed is hereby dismissed for lack of evidence. (And the johann hari link doesn’t work.)
Either way the liberals will win.
If we succeed in Iraq…the troops will come home.
If they succeed in forcing the troops out…the troops will come home.
I wouldn’t quite say that the liberals win either way. If we succeed, the troops indeed come home - as victors. This will mean the left’s worst nightmare - credit for a military victory going to Bush. They will be forced to either give credit to Bush, or try to spin the event to deny him credit. Either way, it won’t be pretty.
10. dickdee | January 17th, 2008 at 9:41 pm
I can’t wait for the victory parades. I’ll be their with signs standing near the demorat leaders on the sidelines explaining their undermining of those troops. I’m sure the parade of our finest will then be able to spot the true traitors and remember them as they return to civilian life. Couldn’t be much more fun than to watch them squirm under the heat of the true heroes disapproval. One in particular better not show and act like he was supportive…I’ll pass out their writings and will quote them as they wrote. But man, it will truly be the lefts biggest nightmare. Well, next to waking up on a plan with the Hildebeast acting as a lefty attendant telling you their is gravy out the left side of the plane.
11. Casper | January 17th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
js,
“So why do we have troops in Germany? WWII ended over 50 years ago!!”
Good question. Why do we? How long should we keep troops in other countries?
12. dickdee | January 17th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
their should be ‘there’ and plan should be ‘plane’ in a few spots, in case demorat denny k is reading this from pluto.
13. AgentFear | January 17th, 2008 at 9:48 pm
No President of the United States of America has been held in such contempt, such revulsion, on a world wide basis than the person we have in office now. The world is counting down the days until he smirks his last smirk in “leadership”.
I pray the world forgives us. I pray the world helps us. The damage he has done is seemingly incomprehensible.
Our economy will be left in shambles, our freedoms diminished, our reputation as a leader in humanitarian rights squashed.
You lemmings would follow this…this…anti-christ to the gates of hell.
I will not forgive you. You rat bastards. May you live in shame forever.
14. Christian Wright | January 17th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
“The surge has resulted in a huge decrease in insurgent violence and resulting civilian bloodshed, the destruction of about 3/4 of Al Qaeda in Iraq…”
Decrease in violence is due to that fact the ethnic cleansing has resulted in turning every city in Iraq into a Belfast with Shias on one side of the city and Sunnis on the other.
Iraqi’s hate Al Qaeda but joined them because they hate America more for the terror they brought to their country. The average Iraqi now looks back on the reign of Saddam with nostalgia because the Bush occupation is so much worse.
The only winners are Osama, Taliban and Iran.
15. js | January 17th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
6. elmo | January 17th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
…In the end, defeatism lost.
No. Nearly 1000 Americans lost…their lives.
———————————-
Actually, over 3k lost thier lives in the last 3-4 years in Iraq. Compared to all other wars America has been in, thats not much. Sure, everyone mourns the loss of loved ones, but check it out:
03-04, the Year we invaded Iraq,
112k people died in accidents, but you are not saying one word about how to prevent thier deaths.
30k more people died of drugs, both legal and illegal.
21k more died from alchoholism, yet you support the government for allowing the alchohol manufacturers to sell booze.
29k died from firearm injuries.
43k people died in motor vehicles.
13k people commited suicide too.
In the Civil War, 600k-700k people died in abou the same time period that we have been in Iraq, and in Vietnam, we lost another 60k over 10 years.
Me? Im gonna die laughting at the idiot that thinks we did such a bad job in Iraq.
16. liberalT | January 17th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
js - so having troops in Germany 60 years after the war is a good thing???
17. js | January 17th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
12. Casper | January 17th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
js,
“So why do we have troops in Germany? WWII ended over 50 years ago!!”
Good question. Why do we? How long should we keep troops in other countries?
—————————————-
Ill tell you why. Because we said we would. Thats all it takes. Americans are SUPPOSED to stand up and do the right thing.
18. js | January 17th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
14. AgentFear | January 17th, 2008 at 9:48 pm
No President of the United States of America has been held in such contempt
———————————
Actually, America itself is held in comtempt. The world can see whats happening, Democrats have disgraced this nation. We did what was right in Iraq. It only takes an idiot to gossip and spread rumors, Bush stood up for what was right.
19. liberalT | January 17th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
gd js - you are disgusting. I am sure it comes to great comfort to those who died and the family of those who died that there have been other wars where more people have died. I hope you keep that in mind if a family member of yours dies that some families loose more than one child. What is your problem
20. Reg Dwight | January 17th, 2008 at 10:02 pm
“So why do we have troops in Germany? WWII ended over 50 years ago!!”
We’re in Iraq, according to Bush, to bring peace and to keep the peace.
Do you think that U.S. forces in Germany today patrol the streets of Schweinfurt to keep warring parties of crazy ass German religionists from blowing up each others neighborhoods?
That has to be the dumbest argument I’ve heard: We can keep troops in Iraq because we kept troops in Germany. What a hoot.
Look, we had forces in Libya. They left. We had forces in France. They left. We had forces in the Phillipines. They left. We’ve pulled out of a lot nations that no longer wanted us. The day will come when Iraq says get lost too.
21. AgentFear | January 17th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
js,
You’re an idiot if you believe that.
“Me? Im gonna die laughting at the idiot that thinks we did such a bad job in Iraq.”
Please. Not soon enough for me.
You traitor
22. js | January 17th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
20. liberalT | January 17th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
gd js - you are disgusting. I am sure it comes to great comfort to those who died and the family of those who died that there have been other wars where more people have died. I hope you keep that in mind if a family member of yours dies that some families loose more than one child. What is your problem
——————————-
If exposing the truth is a problem liberalt, then I guess I gotta problem!!
The real fact is, you can multiply those numbers by 4, for the 4 years we have been in Iraq, and THATS THE FACTS YOU IGNORE to make your little prissy arse complaint about Iraq.
America stood for whats right by deposing the Bathists regime in Iraq. Your fiddly fart around and complain, but face it, most of the civilian casualties in Iraq resulted from hostilities the US Military wasnt involved in. Do you realize that Saddam Hussein would have KILLED MORE PEOPLE than that in the last 4 years? WAKE UP you liberal squeeze bag.
Lying by OMISSION make you look like a coward.
23. js | January 17th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
22. AgentFear | January 17th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
js,
You’re an idiot if you believe that.
—————————–
LoL.
Since thats coming from a liberal, I really dont care!!
24. liberalT | January 17th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
what? God js - stop embarrassing yourself
25. js | January 17th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
25. liberalT | January 17th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
what? God js - stop embarrassing yourself
—————————————————
taint nothing about the truth thats embarassed me son, now git off ta bed, its gettin late boy.
26. liberalT | January 17th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
look - of course less people died in this war than WWII. That is a simple fact and nobody is denying it. The fact is that you are trying to say in effect that that fact some how means that it isn’t a big deal. That is something I have a problem with. Yes you are probably older than me - so you have wasted more time on this earth than me- does that prove something?
27. js | January 17th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
03-04, the Year we invaded Iraq,
112k people died in accidents, but you are not saying one word about how to prevent thier deaths.
30k more people died of drugs, both legal and illegal.
21k more died from alchoholism, yet you support the government for allowing the alchohol manufacturers to sell booze.
29k died from firearm injuries.
43k people died in motor vehicles.
13k people commited suicide too.
Times 4. Yup. Figuring that some of them actually increased more than others decreased, Id say about 1 million Americans died in the last 4 years that we have been in Iraq. Do you notice something?
These little pricks think they actually are accomplishing something by complaining about the HONORABLE SOLDIERS who died in Iraq, for the people in the Iraq, in the name of FREEDOM.
You dont hear much about this 1 million Americans that died right here at home, and almost ALL OF THEM WERE PREVENTABLE. Hipocrites, liars, gossipers, rumor spreading liberals have no place complaining about what is going on in Iraq. They put on a circus, liberal tree hugging, save our troops, but they ignore a million preventable deaths right here in our borders.
One thing for sure, if we left Saddam Hussein in power in Iraq, he would have probably killed another million people too. He already kill 2 million. The Demoncrats would have liked that.
28. js | January 17th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
“The fact is that you are trying to say in effect that that fact some how means that it isn’t a big deal. That is something I have a problem with. ”
I have a problem with you putting words in my mouth. Only cheesy liberals play that game. Oh!! ya, I should have noticed your name…..
29. Jeremiah | January 17th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
That’s the problem with people like, liberalT…They’re all about PC and their rabid hatred of President Bush, whom for which they ignore that fact has saved their life time and time again.
They try to somehow justify they lie that Islam is a religion of peace even after they say such things as–May Allah rip out his spine from his back and split his brains in two, and then put them both bac, and then do it over and over again. Amen.
How in the world anybody could call Islam a religion of peace after hearing that is beyond me.
~ Jeremiah
30. Eidechsenkonig | January 17th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
///DO NOT APPROVE///
Listening to an unelected “President” say that the world is better off without Saddam is ludicrous because he was only wreaking havoc within his own country. He had no connection to al Qaeda, no Weapons of Mass Destruction (try to prove to me that they exist) and therefore he posed no threat to America. And bringing democracy to the Middle East will never ever work because Muslims don’t care about Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, etc. They care about Sunnis And Shi’ites. Bill Maher was brilliant when he pointed out that Paul Newman is 7 years older than Iraq. I am a German who has been living in America for 13 years and I am a strong supporter of the ideals that are here and shared among other major world powers. But your “President’s” racism and willingness to strip people of their individual rights to advance his own agenda is sickening. But not as sickening as the way that conservatives shamelessly support this agenda blindly. The unemployment and homeless rates rise. The economy continues to plummet. The dollar has fallen to a depth that was previously inconceivable. There is no energy policy. The education system is laughable. Crime has risen since Clinton left office. And healthcare is shameful. Clinton, in terms of being a President, was a god compared to W. As was Reagan, Bush Sr., Jefferson, Washington and even Nixon. All of these men, and others I didn’t mention, are 25-fold better than W. A member of W’s own staff said that what Clinton did was a textbook example of what to do in terms of fighting terrorism. As opposed to Operation Ignore, which is what W put into effect all the way up until 9/11. The economy soared under Clinton. And if you want an example of the way healthcare should be run, look at France. They have the best rated healthcare system. Doesn’t that just aggrivate you, conservatives? To hear that the French are better than America in something? Well, they’re better than America in just about everything. And what has W done about that? Nothing. Kerry would have done something. Gore would have done something. But that is all a moot point. I look on America as my second home. I love it almost as dearly as my first home. And I believe that this can be a great land once again. The first step is to put aside differences. Learn from the mistakes of the past. But if you wanna get blowjobs in the Oval Office, I have no problem with that. As long as you do the job. I don’t care if you are Conservative, Liberal, Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Socialist or Marijuana Reform. As long as those in charge work for the best interests of the people and not just the rich, and I can legally smoke marijuana, I welcome anyone to set this land back on the right course.
31. Rightlane | January 17th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
The future of the US will be decided in November. The issue is no longer Iraq; we’ve won there despite the best efforts of the left.
Now, it’s the economy stupid! High fuel prices, the dollar’s value in freefall, the sub-prime mortgage forfeitures costing lenders billions, slowing retail sales, a four percent increase in wholesale prices, interest rates close to all time lows leaving the Fed little leverage left to spawn investor confidence… are all very scary economic indicators that something wicked this way comes. It’s going to be painful. It’s going to hit before November.
The Republican Party’s going to take the brunt of the blame. When the democrats take over next January they’ll raise taxes further depressing the economy and accelerating the rate and number of jobs that will be lost here at home. Deficit spending will grow to unprecedented levels as the liberals attempt to ease the pain of the little man by providing universal health care and rewarding their friends with an all you can eat buffet of pork. These policies will result only in increasing the pain and will only serve to exasperated the problem by extending and deepening the recession.
I fear it’s going to be a long four years to 2012.
32. liberalT | January 17th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
js - you are possibly most obtuse commenter on this blog. Believe me - that is saying quite a lot. Your argument is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. You argue (or seem to imply) that its not a big deal that 3000 Americans died in Iraq because more died in the US during that time period.The fact that other people died in other ways has nothing to do with how many Americans died in Iraq.
What is wrong with you. Judge the action by itself not in meaningless comparisons with other numbers.
33. Eidechsenkonig | January 17th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
(Ed. Note: Long, pointless, leftwing rant entirely divorced from reality - deleted in order to keep the blog from getting too cluttered).
34. Web Smith | January 17th, 2008 at 11:46 pm
It’s not that they couldn’t. It’s that, after they promised to, they didn’t.
If the Democratic Congress wanted to stop the war, all they had to do was stop funding it. Everyone knows this.
Instead they continued to fund it and attach their pet projects to it. Pelosi went as far as to attach a $25 million contract for her husband to it.
This is why their approval level is so low and it’s why they won’t be re-elected.
35. Eidechsenkonig | January 18th, 2008 at 12:33 am
(Ed. Note: Comment deleted - complains about comment policy)
36. Jonathan | January 18th, 2008 at 12:59 am
Really?? You care to explain to this seventeen year old, just what the hell have we won? Cause I sure as heck don’t see a victory in this godawful mess.
37. Mark Noonan | January 18th, 2008 at 1:33 am
Jonathan,
Then you are partially excused due to your youth and inexperience…but even at your age it should strike you as odd that there’s not nearly as much reporting about Iraq as there was a year ago in the MSM…there isn’t, because there is “less” to report; this means, of course, that there’s less death and destruction over in Iraq. That, in the end, was 90% of what the MSM reported, partially because explosions draw viewers, partially because the perception of an awful mess harmed the GOP in general, and President Bush in particular. This whole issue of Iraq should train you usefully to tread with care in news reporting - even the best and most honest news reporting cannot tell you the whole story of what is happening. To get an approximation of the full truth, you need a wide variety of sources critical, laudetory and neutral covering the story from a variety of angles…only thus can you arrive at a reasonable picture of what is really happening.
Your perception of a mess is the result of you keying in on sensationalist reporting of the most lurid aspects of the campaign in Iraq - these lurid details have their place in the whole picture, but they are not even the main part of what is going on - never were, never will be. Far more important was the far less “sexy” aspects - the growing trust between American and Iraqi forces; the growing understanding by American forces of the internal dynamics of Iraqi life; the growing weariness of average Iraqis with the terrorists and other purveyors of violence…it was these forces, operating (as it were) underneath the explosions you saw on television which were driving the real story of Iraq, and now they are coming out on top, as fully expected by everyone who took the time in 2006 and 2007 to get the whole story.
It would also be useful for you to understand what a real military mess looks like - I suggest looking up an account of the first 24 hours of the Battle of the Somme in 1916 as an exemplar of a horrid mess in military affairs.
38. keefer | January 18th, 2008 at 5:03 am
js - you are possibly most obtuse commenter on this blog.
This from libretardTHC, who is definitely the most insignificant troll puke on this blog.
Does anyone besides the cows even give this child any attention?
39. bozo the neoclown | January 18th, 2008 at 5:44 am
js | January 17th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
“Actually, over 3k lost thier lives in the last 3-4 years in Iraq. ”
I love it when neoclowns try to make comparative:
“03-04, the Year we invaded Iraq,
112k people died in accidents, but you are not saying one word about how to prevent thier deaths.
30k more people died of drugs, both legal and illegal.
21k more died from alchoholism, yet you support the government for allowing the alchohol manufacturers to sell booze.
29k died from firearm injuries.
43k people died in motor vehicles.
13k people commited suicide too.”
HOW MANY DIED IN THE UNITED STATES OF IED’S EXPLODING ON THE SIDE OF THE HIGHWAY BUILT BY THE VERY PEOPLE WE’RE TRAINING?
then, you scream and cry how you “support the troops”…yeah, support them in having back to back deployments without any down time.
the pendulum is swinging in the country, js and it’s about to whack you and your kind in the back of the heads. When this happens, 99% of americans will the saying, “good riddance to back rubbish”
40. js | January 18th, 2008 at 6:31 am
I get so much amusement from such lame liberals. You boys are the bottom of the barrel, thats for sure. You little barbie dolls dont have a single solitary rebuttal thats worth addressing.
Not only that, but your ignorance of real world situations really reflects badly upon the American Educational system.
The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.
John F. Kennedy
41. plainjane | January 18th, 2008 at 6:57 am
I too am sadden by the fact Congress is unable to stop this Republican neocon insanity. Time after time we have seen bills passed by the House that would stop or slow this craziness killed by the 60 vote majority requirement in the Senate and President Bush’s veto.
You just know somewhere in Iraq this week one of our nation’s finest is going to die fighting in the Iraq civil war. Someone’s son or daughter will be killed by a roadside bomb planted by Sunni in an effort to kill Shiites for the sole purpose of regaining lost power. A young person who remembers what 911 was about and would jump at the opportunity to fight Bin Laden in Afghanistan and Pakistan. 1/20/09
42. Christian Wright | January 18th, 2008 at 7:17 am
You guys do know that Bush is paying and arming our enemies in Iraq to “Please, leave us alone,” don’t you?
Bush is being bullied. He is turning over his milk money every day so they will stop attacking our troops.
Meanwhile, with guns and money from the US, these Iraqi enemies get stronger. I guess he doesn’t care. It will be the next president’s problem.
43. navydad | January 18th, 2008 at 9:38 am
Bozo,
You forgot the over 9K American youths killed in violent crimes between 2005 and 2007.
Just thought the uninformed here should know that figure.
44. js | January 18th, 2008 at 10:30 am
42. plainjane | January 18th, 2008 at 6:57 am
I too am sadden by the fact Congress is unable to stop this Republican neocon insanity. Time after time we have seen bills passed by the House that would stop or slow this craziness killed by the 60 vote majority requirement in the Senate and President Bush’s veto.
————————————-
Which one might that be? The one that contained 800Billion dollars in Earmarks, or the one that only contained 120Billion?
Is it so odd? The US rejected shipment after shipment of cargo to Iraq before the invasion because the contents violated UN Sanctions. Its not different than the President Veto’ing huge, irresponsible spending bills hidden between quasi righteous purposes.
When will you liberals grow up and become responsible like everyone else in the world? Twisting the truth for sympathy by creating a conspiracy theory is as old as written history, but, as always, the core theme is made into a lie for purposes other than the truth.
45. Mark Noonan | January 18th, 2008 at 10:32 am
plain,
Bin Laden is dead.
46. Diana Powe | January 18th, 2008 at 10:43 am
Mark,
You love to highlight your self-educations as a military historian and theorist although you undercut it by making flat assertions of fact that you can’t prove (”Bin Laden is dead.” - Mark’s opinion). So, what is your reaction to the current entirely relatively low number of U.S. troops killed in Iraq (3,926 + 135 suicides) relative to the number of wounded (28,770) relative to the realities of modern body armor and combat medical practices that saves the lives of those who would have died under identical circumstances even a few years? What is your reaction to the military’s growing medical understanding of traumatic brain injuries suffered by soldiers who would have been killed in explosions a few years ago but who now don’t suffer obvious physical trauma because of improved technologies?
For instance, if the lethality of war wounds cited in this article from the New England Journal of Medicine in 2004 (http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/351/24/2471) stills holds true (10% in Iraq/Afghanistan vs. 24% in Gulf War I & Vietnam) then the number of American fatalities coming up on the fifth anniversary of our invasion of Iraq would be 7,847 ([3,926 + 28,770] X .24) if body armor and medicine had not improved. Do you think that might cause an increase in the 57% of respondents in a Gallup Poll from the first week of December that think that “…the United States made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq…”? Do you ever consider the long-term expenses of medical treatment for lost limbs, lost vision, traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder (which the military is still behind the curve on) which American taxpayers absolutely owe as a moral duty to these soldiers relative to what has been gained - a Shi’a Muslim-dominated country that is all but a client-state of Iran - in exchange? Do you think there is any level of public disapproval at all in polling data that should cause the President of the United States to change his behavior?
P.S. If my nephew, Lance Corporal J. D. Powe, comes back from Iraq either dead or permanently disabled you can rest assured that the “relatively low” number of U. S. casualites in Iraq won’t mean squat to me.
47. Diana Powe | January 18th, 2008 at 11:05 am
Mark,
I will agree with you on one thing. The Democratic leadership, especially your senior senator, has failed to confront the Administration. Senator Reid’s willingness to take telco money and then try to reward them by engineering the passage of retroactive immunity from civil liability means he might as well change his political affiliation to Republican.
48. NeoClown | January 18th, 2008 at 11:16 am
Iraq = No Honor.
49. Jeremiah | January 18th, 2008 at 11:33 am
The Democrat party has lost their way, just look at the comments, and you can clearly see - hehe hehe hehe hehe.
You can’t tell them anything, they just won’t listen.
It’s all about hate the President.
~ Jeremiah
50. Diana Powe | January 18th, 2008 at 11:52 am
Jeremiah,
It shows the level of your maturity that you would even post this juvenilia. However, I suppose it’s remotely possible that you were merely ignorant, rather than puerile, in referring incorrectly to the Democratic Party as the Democrat Party. Do you consider yourself a typical Republican in this behavior? Just wondering.
P.S. I don’t hate the current temporary holder of the office of President of the United States (368 days to go), however, I utterly despise his politics and have done so for 13 years since I have also had to endure his politics while he was Governor of Texas. As a human being, I wish him well, especially in his continuing his sobriety.
51. Diana Powe | January 18th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Politics that have led to such as this:
Canada is one of our closest political and cultural allies. Their government has backpedaled on this report, but the mere fact that, at any level of Canadian bureaucracy, the United States of America is lumped in with countries that might torture Canadian citizens is a problem that, at minimum, interferes with our worldwide diplomatic efforts.
52. Jeremiah | January 18th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Democratic Party as the Democrat Party
I call them the Democrat party, Diana, because there’s nothing Democratic about them.
If your name is attached to the Democrat party, then your name bears the Socialist Marxism that it has become. If they, the American people are going to put a Democrat in office in 2009? Then they will have a grand opportunity to over the course of the next four years to see where they came from and what their future will be, and they will be able to learn from the consequences that result from their decision.
~ Jeremiah
53. Joe | January 18th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
yeah yeah Jerimiah… they will see what their future will be and learn from the consequences… there will be earthquakes and volcanoes. The skies will open and streaks of fire will come shooting down. Yeah yeah… whatever.
Who are you trying to scare?
54. Diana Powe | January 18th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Jeremiah,
As I said…juvenilia with extra puerility.
“If they, the American people…”? You aren’t an American or Republicans aren’t Americans? Yes, if a Democratic candidate is selected by the American people (I guess you won’t be voting) then, yes, conceivably the country might have to suffer through all the economic prosperity and federal budget surpluses they had to endure circa 1992-2000 that is so unlike 2008. The horror…the horror…
55. Jeremiah | January 18th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
Yes, if a Democratic candidate is selected by the American people (I guess you won?t be voting) then, yes, conceivably the country might have to suffer through all the economic prosperity and federal budget surpluses they had to endure circa 1992-2000 that is so unlike 2008.
No, Diana, I WILL be voting. Regardless if they nominate a Democrat. The worst mistake the American people could do is to not vote. And it goes beyond the economic situation. Barack Hussein Obama becomes President and Jihad will be here.
But, I believe the people are smarter than to vote for a Democrat, or at least I hope they are. You can never tell what people will do.
~ Jeremiah
56. Diana Powe | January 18th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Brett,
Jeremiah is just providing a preview of the Republican’s potential double-play on Senator Obama. Be scared of him because he’s 1) black, and 2) his middle name is Hussein. We all know that makes him untrustworthy. It’s not like a noble, trustworthy name like Jeremiah. I mean, come on? Get with the program!
57. Jeremiah | January 18th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Brett Michaels,
There’s no use in me explaining. You know where you stand.
~ Jeremiah
58. Joe | January 18th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
If Obama does get the nomination, I can’t wait to see the fear mongering Republican machine come out with “Hussein” over and over and over again.
The people are not going to fall for it and it will just make them look like clowns.
“the jihad will be here”… Jerimiah you are the biggest clown on this site.
59. keefer | January 18th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Well, Joe, one of Hitlery’s surrogates is using “Hussein” already. Bob Kerrey.
I think Jeremiah is referring to some story going around about Obama, who smoked dope and snorted coke, attending a Madrassas(sp?) and studying the most extreme form of Islam.
Who knows or cares what he did as a kid; he’s now a member of some church in Chicago, whose pastor, Jeremiah Wright, promotes black separatism. Obama even uninvited Wright to attend his announcement of his presidential bid.
Obama’s carrying as much baggage as the next candidate, so be prepared for a wild ride, should he survive the Clinton attack machine…
60. neocon | January 18th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
I hope that Obama is the guy. Personally I consider Obama to be a very intelligent, personable man. But politically speaking he is an emprty suit with no experience at anything. Never having ran a business, never having any executive experience, and never making any real change in Congress (love the endorsement from Leahy) in his brief two years.
I would love to see Romney do circles around Obama in policy debates. Obamas platitudes just won’t suffice when the general comes around.
61. Jeremiah | January 18th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Joe,
Well, if Obama does get the nomination, and a complete oversight of his background. Not to mention his very Liberal agenda.
If you can remember, in 2004, when the Tsunami hit in indonesia and South Africa. In December ‘04 Colin Powell expressed hope that the aid we were giving those countries was going to turn the tide of anti-American sentiment in the Muslim world. However, the year before Powell made his statement that the South African mufti Ebrahim Desai, the imam of an “Ask the Imam” feature on a Muslim question-and-answer website, made a statement, which, if Powell had known of it, might have diminished his religious effect of the aid. A questioner asked if the West should receive praise from Muslims for sending troops to Bosnia and condemning the killing of Muslims elsewhere. Desai’s answer was brief: “In simple the Duffaar [unbelievers] can never be trusted for any possible good they do. They have their own interest at heart.”
Just his opinion. Yes, and would be unfair to dismiss him for his mean-spiritedness. We don’t take one persons opinion and then try to somehow justify that sole opinion as means to judge the entire people. But, OTOH, we can’t fault him for his mean spiritedness either, because his opinion is rooted in rich Islamic culture. What does the Quran have to say about it? The Quran tells believers “not to take for friends or helpers unbelievers rather than believers. If any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah; except by way of precauthion, that ye may guard yourselve from then:(Quran 3:28). Did Powell know that verse existed?
Now, since we know Obama has his roots in the religion of Islam, his father being a devout Muslim; he must have some connection with them, he can relate with their teachings–this, combined with he very Liberal leaning agenda, which stresses equal outcome for all, regardless of the implications the outcome on the majority as a whole. Thus, Muslims some 6 or more million in America will get special privileges under his administration.
That being the case, then most likely that Muslims will have an opportunity to take advantage of to wage Jihad. That’s just one of the possibilities.
But, is it a risk worth taking? If that’s what the American people want….Go for it!
This is America, where the most freedom on earth resides!!
~ Jeremiah
62. Jonathan | January 18th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
Translation: Barack Obama = raised Muslim (which is totally false, btw). Muslims = terrorism and jihad. Therefore, Obama = Muslim terrorists will follow us home and kill us all!!! It’s perfect logic!
Jeremiah perfectly illustrates the thinking of many ignorant, bible-thumping, brainwashed Evangelical Christians in America.
63. Jonathan | January 18th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
First, that’s completely, 100% bulls**t.
Second: That being the case, then most likely that Muslims will have an opportunity to take advantage of to wage Jihad. That’s just one of the possibilities. This is such an ignorant and hateful comment. Are you this freaking paranoid all the time?
64. Tractatus | January 18th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
Now, since we know Obama has his roots in the religion of Islam, his father being a devout Muslim; he must have some connection with them…Thus, Muslims some 6 or more million in America will get special privileges under his administration.
That being the case, then most likely that Muslims will have an opportunity to take advantage of to wage Jihad. That’s just one of the possibilities.
The great thing about comments like this is that they serve as a nice counterpoint for when Noonan starts spouting off about “divorced from reality” lefties saying stupid, untrue things. So, Noonan, any comment about the reliable GOP voting block/intellectual cesspool that is the Jeremiahs of the country?
65. Diana Powe | January 18th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
The Iraqi national security adviser speaks (emphasis added):
“Time to BEGIN work?” That was the primary justification for The Surge ™. The Iraqi Parliament took last August off for vacation. When is this work really going to start?
66. js | January 18th, 2008 at 11:11 pm
oh cmon sweety
we have had congress going for what, pert ner two centuries now, and every time power changes they come up with a new plan…
aint no different over there!!
67. js | January 18th, 2008 at 11:14 pm
Muslims have lied about islam from the beginning. Why would they change now, after almost 1500 years?
Obama has already lied about his Islamic history. Under Islam, its permissible to lie like he does, if it advances the cause and purpose of Islam. Would it advance the cause and purpose of Islam to have a person who was raised as a muslim elected to the White House?
Absolutely.
68. js | January 18th, 2008 at 11:18 pm
hey Jonathan, check this out;
www danielpipes org/article/5286
and then this;
www frontpagemag com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=1f297c14-c64d-41b1-aebb-e0325c823cd8
just put the dots back in
69. Faceplant | January 19th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
“Obama has already lied about his Islamic history. Under Islam, its permissible to lie like he does, if it advances the cause and purpose of Islam. Would it advance the cause and purpose of Islam to have a person who was raised as a muslim elected to the White House?”
And you call liberals dishonest? Where has Obama lied about his Islamic history. You people will believe anything.
70. Faceplant | January 19th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
“Now, since we know Obama has his roots in the religion of Islam, his father being a devout Muslim;”
Both his biological father, and his step father were raised Muslim, but became agnostics. The idea that his father is a devout Muslim is competely and utter B.S. that is easily disproved.
Like I said before, you will believe anything that Rush, and Hannity tell you to believe.
71. Faceplant | January 19th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
“If your name is attached to the Democrat party, then your name bears the Socialist Marxism that it has become.”
Yet you defend a President who says he has a right to ignore any congressional statute he damn well pleases. Ironic, isn’t it.
72. js | January 19th, 2008 at 11:04 pm
faceplant,
Mohammad said he never practiced Islam.
In Indonesia, his schoolmate said he did. His neighbors said he went to the mosque with his step day every day.
Any Muslim will consider him to be a Muslim Apostate. He was born to a Muslim father. That made him Muslim according to Islam. He went to a mosque at prayer call. He says he is Christian now, but that doesnt matter.
The punishment for apostacy in Islam is death.
No disput there.
73. js | January 19th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
You know whats really Ironic face?
All that and alot more are in those 2 links.
Its Ironic that would even challenge these facts.
Then again, your a liberal. Its like arguing with a knot in a rope. The knot say, rope untie me, im a knot. The rope replies, why, Ive got you where I want you. Just keep squirming….
74. Connecting News, Commenta&hellip | January 28th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
[…] below investor’s iraq forum - Last Updated - 7 minutes ago Request a Trackback Victory In Iraq Means Victory Against Defeatist Left As improvements in Iraq continue, the anti-war left have failed to force us to retreat, and thus […]