Joe Klein feels the hate

Posted by: ST on January 9, 2007 at 9:39 am

Time Magazine columnist Joe Klein is feeling the hate from the left these days. He’s against the Iraq war, against the idea of a troop surge, and can’t stand the administration. Well then, what’s the problem? you may ask. Here it is: he wants us to win in Iraq. He’s also very critical of war plan critics in the press, like the NYT’s Paul Krugman. Klein wrote yesterday:

I’m afraid I’m going to get cranky about this: The Democrats who oppose the so-called “surge” are right. But they have to be careful not to sound like ill-informed dilettantes when talking about it.

The latest to make a fool of himself is Paul Krugman of the New York Times, who argues that those who favor the increase in troops are either cynical or delusional. Mostly the latter. Delusional neocons like Bill Kristol and Fred Kagan, to be precise. But what about retired General Jack Keane–whom Krugman doesn’t mention–and the significant number of military intellectuals who have favored a labor-intensive counterinsurgency strategy in Baghdad for the past three years? They are serious people. They may be wrong about Iraq now, reflexively trying to complete a mission that has been lost, but they are not delusional. They may be wrong about Iraq now, reflexively trying to complete a mission that has been lost, but they are not delusional. The counterinsurgency doctrine they published in 2006 is exactly what the U.S. military should be doing in places like Afghanistan.

[...]

Liberals won’t ever be trusted on national security until they start doing their homework.

Check the comments to that post. It would seem that Klein committed numerous “nonos” with the anti-war far left: 1) he attacked liberal icon Paul Krugman, 2) he slammed liberals for not being more informed on the issue, and 3) he wants us to win the war in Iraq.

In a follow-up post last night, Klein responded to his critics:

The illiberal left just hates it when I point out that the Democratic Party’s naivete on national security–and the left wing tendency to assume every U.S. military action abroad is criminal–just aren’t very helpful electorally. The fact that I’ve been opposed to the Iraq war ever since this 2002 article in Slate just makes it all the more aggravating. But it’s possible to have been against the war and to hope for the best in Iraq. I’d bet that the overwhelming majority of Americans who now oppose the war are praying for a turn for the better in Iraq. Listening to the leftists, though, it’s easy to assume that they are rooting for an American failure.

And so a challenge to those who slagged me in their comments. Can you honestly say the following:

Even though I disagree with this escalation, I am hoping that General Petraeus succeeds in calming down Baghdad.

Does the thought even cross your mind? As for me, it’s easy–I’ve been rooting for U.S. success ever since the invasion because, after the overpowering arrogance and stupidity that led to this disaster, we owe some peace and stability to the Iraqis and the region.

Klein’s just hit on what so many anti-war leftists (including certain members of Congress) don’t want to admit: they don’t want us to succeed in Iraq. Success in Iraq would not just be a victory for America, but also for President Bush’s policies in the war on terror, and that doesn’t sit well with the Bush-haters in the Democratic party who have portrayed him as a bumbling, inept Commander in Chief.

Back in December of 2005, I quoted a post of Steve Verdon’s at Outside the Beltway, which I thought summed up what the anti-war Democrats’ attitude on Iraq perfectly. Verdon wrote:

Frankly, the Democrats tactic of saying we can’t win in Iraq strikes me as precisely the wrong approach to the problem. If the Democrats “win” on this one the result is that we lose. We lose in Iraq and we quite possibly degrad[e] our ability to prosecute the war on terrorism in other parts of the world. Maybe that is what the Democratic party leadership wants, but it doesn’t look like a very good strategy for making the U.S. safer…which ironically is one of the Democrats complaints about invading Iraq in the first place.

He was right then, and even more right today. If America loses in Iraq, the Democratic party ‘wins.’ Klein is clearly a liberal, but he nevertheless pushes and hopes for American success in Iraq. It’s not about party to him, it’s about winning. Unfortunately, all too many other Democrats don’t hold his position and equate being an advocate of winning in Iraq (in spite of being against the war) to being a Bush shill.

It’s a sad commentary on the state of the Democratic party who are now, unfortunately, the new majority in Washington, DC. The only way they ‘win’ on the issue is if we lose in Iraq. Think about it.

Related: Speaking of anti-war Bush-haters, check out this imbeach, I mean, “Impeach Bush” rally held a few days ago at San Francisco’s Ocean Beach. Note how the word “Bonfire” is outlined in red in the first pic :-? (Hat tip: See-Dubya, guest blogging at Michelle Malkin’s)

Flashback:

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Trackbacks

132 Responses to “Joe Klein feels the hate”

Comments

  1. jay k. says:

    nc cop…
    you put up an amazing partisan display. i admire your loyalty, if not your logic. but let me ask you straight up…your president has been wrong about every single thing in this invasion and occupation. in four years he has arguably attained his short term goals, and has attained none of his medium or long term goals. what makes you think he is now able to make the right decisions necessary to “win” this thing? why will he now be able to attain his goals when he has not to date?

  2. jim says:

    When they want to cut and run, they don’t want us to win. This is not rocket science.

    Let me explain to you just a few ways in which you are wrong.

    a) what you refer to interchangeably as Leftists, Liberals and Democrats are not one group. Not even several groups. Basically what you refer to seems to be some unthinking melange of everyone whose political spectrum is to your Left.

    b) so for you to say, and apparently believe, that all these different people want the same thing, is just absolutely logically impossible, and to be clear, absurd.

    c) as you can tell from the recent polls, most of the US wants the US to pull out of Iraq, and thinks that we should never have invaded in the first place.

    So, by your reckoning, most of the US wants the US to lose and hates the US.

    Really. Just ridiculous.

    Reasonable conclusions can be drawn from how people act and what and how they say things.

    And everyone always thinks their own opinions are reasonable. No one ever really thinks they’re wrong. WHich is why we have and need courts, and have and need science – to weigh actual evidence.

    To point you back to your own argument – if you think it’s wrong how those you call “Lefties” accuse the Bush administration of only being interested in oil, then YOU should stop accusing entire sections of America of wanting America to lose.

    In other words, stop complaining about how OTHER people are being wrong and unfair – and look at what’s coming out of YOUR mouth. That you can control.

    You can greatly lessen the amount of unthinking reflexive blame that’s going on in the country, and in your own personal environment. You can resolve not to accuse anyone of anything without specific words-or-deeds evidence. You can improve the world, literally, starting with yourself.

    I myself personally do my best to do this, and I’ll tell you it has honestly improved the quality of my life.

    Try it on, seriously.

  3. sanity says:

    …your president has been wrong …

    I am curious Jay k, are you an American?

    If so, then he is your president also.

    Just because someone is from a different party does not mean he is “that parties” president. Same held true for Clinton, even though I wasn’t overly fond of the man, he was my President, because I was an American, and he was the President of the United States at the time. Same holds true when it is the opposite case.

    The position he holds is President of the UNITED STATES, not president of which ever party he is associated with, be it democrat, republican or 3rd party (libertarian I beleive).

    It irks me to no end to hear such blatant ignorance come out of mouths of Americans when I hear talk like this.

    But one thing I will grant, it hasn’t been the UNITED states in some time. United in what? Unfortunately that is a sad question to ask.

  4. Roderick says:

    NC Cop: Ok, then. What should we do about it? It seems, as usual, Bush haters have lots of complaints or “concerns” but no solutions.

    Roderick: The Nunn-Lugar program that started in 1991 and “has stimulated and facilitated Russian actions that have secured nuclear weapons and materials against theft or loss, the $400 million”

    Unfortunately Bush has decreased funding of this program in 2005.
    LINK

    NC Cop:I don’t recall anyone ever saying that Saddam was the one and only source of terrorists obtaining a nuclear weapon, perhaps you can find someone who did? Does that mean we shouldn’t deal with a single threat, because we can’t deal with all of them at the same time?

    Roderick: We have already spent half a trillion dollars and 3000 Americans have been killed to get rid of Saddam (who was just hanged). The Army is at the breaking point and troops don’t even know why we are there yet you’re saying that we act as if Saddam wasn’t the only threat?

    We’ve shot the whole ball of wax and we don’t have anything in reserve.

    NC Cop: Not at all. But it’s difficult to boost an economy when people are blowing things up all over the country. It’s more important to try and get the insurgency under control then investing in businesses that may get blown up.

    Roderick: And you think that sending in 20K more troops is going to stop things from being blown up.

    Bush and his people should never have dissolved Saddam’s army but out of sheer arrogance and hatred that is what they did. Now they have a bunch of mercenaries on their hands.

    NC Cop: Interesting, you decry Bush for changing strategies and yet bash him for not changing strategies, all in the same post. Even for a Bush hater, that’s a new one.

    Roderick: Where did I say that Bush was changing strategies?

    The only thing he is changing is the body count of American troops by adding 20,000 more to the meatgrinder.

    NC Cop: What had we been doing with Saddam for twelve years since the Gulf War?

    If you have read some of my previous posts you would have seen the link to the UNICEF report that twelve years of sanctions to “contain” Saddam had killed 500,000 children alone. Apparently an acceptable alternative to war for the democrats. Odd considering how “concerned” those same democrats seem to be for the Iraqi people.

    Roderick: And how many people have been killed during the chaos since we invaded?

    Around 600,000 Iraqi civilians by some estimates and then they will have to breath dust and plant in soil that will be contaminated with depleted uranium forever.

    NC Cop: Wow, still stuck in pre-9/11 thinking. They didn’t need any army or air force or nukes to kill 3,000 Americans on 9/11. Terrorists did that. Saddam had a training facility at Salman Pak which was destroyed by U.S. forces.

    LINK

    Notice the part about training in an airplane fuselage on how to hijack planes. Unless, of course, you believe them when Iraqi govt. officials claimed it was for “anti-” terrorism training.

    Roderick: LOL. That sounds the story about the mural depecting the burning Twin Towers on 9-11 supposedly found in Iraq.

    So the hi-jackers on 9-11 trained in Iraq to fly planes or to crash them into planes?

    I thought these guys trained in Florida.

    Did I miss something?

    Let’s assume that these were indeed Al-Queda training facilities please tell me what would make them any different than Al-Queda training facilities in say Indonesia or the Phillipines?

    Did Saddam wave his wand over the land so that whoever trained there would be extra special evil?

    NC Cop: And you guys seem to think that ignoring a problem and hoping it goes away should be central to foreign policy. How many times will it take before you realize that you can’t ignore threats? In WWII, isolationists decided what was going on in Europe wasn’t our conern, until we were bombed at Pearl Harbor. How might history have been different if the whole world, including the U.S., had stood against Nazi Germany when the invaded Poland in 1939? How many millions might have been saved?

    In Vietnam, we decided it was time to “cut our losses” and get out. How many millions were slaughtered by the communists after we left. I guess since they weren’t Americans, it didn’t really matter.

    Roderick: Wow now you have resorted to revisionist history.

    Extrapolating on your thinking the U.S. should have sent troops into Dufar last week but we haven’t because we pick and choose our battles based on our national interest.

    NC Cop: In Korea, we decided it wasn’t worth the price to defeat N. Korea, just driving them out of S. Korea was enough. Now we have a communist, nuclear armed N. Korea with a very dangerous man in charge.

    Roderick: And you think that if we had that trouble wouldn’t have surfaced elsewhere.

    I guess you forget that the U.S. helped create both Saddam and Bin Laden of course that is when both of them were our b*tches. When Saddam got the big head and decided to invade Kuwait and threated ‘our’ oil we put the smackdown on him.

    After we assisted Bin Laden in driving the Soviets out of Afghanistan we kicked him to the curb.

    NC Cop:In the first Gulf War, we decided it wasn’t worth it to take Baghdad so we stopped short and went home. Sanctions have devestated the country and killed hundreds of thousands. How many might have been saved had we finished the job?

    Roderick: LOL. You better stop because you are starting to sound like one of those bleeding heart ‘libruls’

    You guys will use any justification to prop up this mess. Sad, very sad.

    NC Cop:In Somalia, we turned tail and ran as soon as we took some casualties. Somalia turned into an Al Qaeda stroghold and our retreat has been used by Osama Bin Laden as propoganda on how to defeat the U.S.

    Roderick: Blame Bush Sr for Somalia because that was his big f* you to Bill Clinton and America after he lost in 1992.

    NC Cop: So now, it’s time to cut and run from Iraq.

    Roderick: Ummmmmmmm, I guess you conveniently forget all of those peace protests leading up to the war.

    People like ‘liberal’ Middle East experts like Juan Cole tried to warn people like you that this was going to be the outcome but either your pride, hatred or fear allowed you to get sucked into Bush’s lies and I guess you have too much pride to admit that you were duped.

    NC Cop: What was it you said about doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result…..oh yes, it’s the sign of stupidity.

    Roderick: No the sign of stupidity is that you won’t/can’t separate a war based on agression from one based on ideology.

    Vietnam was all about communism vs. capitalism and battle we are now in is radical Islam vs. the West and both were/are ideological wars and neither can be solved by military means.

  5. Baklava says:

    jay k. This has been addressed before. Respectfully, It might do you well to hear the perspective instead of ingorning it.

    You wrote, “in four years he has arguably attained his short term goals, and has attained none of his medium or long term goals. what makes you think he is now able to make the right decisions necessary to “win” this thing?

    The president does not micromanage. He has given objectives to the Department of Defense and the Department of State and the Congress. Each one of these entities carry out the mission in different ways with appropriations, purchasing, execution of the war, reactions to enemy combatents, situations on the ground, etc. All the while leftists and journalists hoping helping the enemy win with aid and comfort etc. We are up against a situation where neighboring countries do not want to see a democracy and some inhabitants do not want to see a democracy.

    Does that make the objectives unnattainable? Maybe. Does it make the objectives hard to attain. Yes. Does it necessitate removing troops and creating a humanitarian crisis? Responsible people would say no.

    The false accusations you level are not based on reality or working knowledge of how the president nor the Department of Defense, State and Congress have operated or have been a part of. What every leftist posting here have accused of failure has basically been calling our military, troops and generals in the theater incompetent.

    I submit to you respectfully that you can’t point to ANY war that has been prosecuted without “mistakes”. Was that WW2 jayk? Was it WW1? Has there ever been a war without mistakes? No. War is rife with tragedy and loss of life and a goal to achieve objectives. The objectives are not achieved until achieved. The failure is only a failure if objectives are never achieved.

    Leftists in this country are and have been ensuring that objectives will not be achieved and are therefore working against the best interest of this country. Or… what would you suggest is the best interest of this country – following through with creating a humanitarian crisis? You will be disagreed with there and you will be opposed. You will not convince everyone of your thought of best interest NO MATTER HOW CONDESCENDING you treat us who disagree with you. Accept what is is. That we disagree with you and you will have better conversations with us. Are you interested in better conversations?

  6. PCD says:

    I have found that fans of the Daou Report are the most dishonest people on the internet. I put a post on there where I mentioned a point about liberals who have equated Bush with Hitler. I was challenged on it and I provided the proof with many links, but as usual with true believing liberals they ran for the hills rather than acknowledge that they were wrong or liars.

  7. jim, I really don’t need “how to” debate/think tips from you. You really should work on your own deficiencies in those areas before trying to lecture other people on what you feel are theirs.

  8. NC Cop says:

    Roderick,

    It’s obvious that you have no concept of history or facts. I have shown, through history, what has happened when we continually ignore threats. If you think that this has been a success, then I wish you luck in your little fantasy world.

    I have shown through facts, that Saddam was involved in terrorism, a fact you have apparently laughed off. It is obvious that people like you want to wait until we are attacked and then respond. Which I guess is ok with you, as long as nobody you know is hurt.

    Your facts, though, are quite laughable. 600,000 casualties? What Bush hating, liberal, website did you get that from?

    In case you missed my previous posts, I spent 14 months in Iraq and lost my legs in an IED blast, so do me a favor, before you tell ME what is going on in Iraq please take your little liberal, highly evolved sensibilities, and go to Iraq. To say our Army is at a breaking point is the most ignorant thing I have ever seen. Is it because the almighty Murtha said so? Try thinking for yourself or at least do your own research. Don’t let others tell you what to think.

  9. trrll says:

    “When they want to cut and run, they don’t want us to win. This is not rocket science.”

    No, it is an elementary logical fallacy, known as a “false dilemma.” An equally dishonest leftist might reply, with equally validity, “The right wing wants us to lose as many American lives as possible before our inevitable loss in Iraq.” A more honest individual from either the right or the left would at least acknowledge that there are serious disagreements and valid arguments as to whether any kind of meaningful “victory” in Iraq is possible at this point.

    “Well, there’s that and the fact that liberals are doing exactly what Osama Bin Laden said America would do. Does it bother you to be part of Al Qaeda’s plan for victory???”

    This is a guilt by association fallacy of the “How can you like cats? Everybody knows that Hitler was a cat lover!” variety

    An equally dishonest leftist might point out that every time the right wing emphasizes how much danger America is in from al Qaeda and radical Islam, they are promoting fear and terror, and ask whether it bothers you to be a partner in al Qaeda’s campaign of terror.

  10. NC Cop says:

    Oh and Roderick, I cut and pasted this from another thread. Please take note of the Marines message to their “liberal rescuers”, enjoy:

    I read a fantastic aritlce on Iraq in the November 2006 issue of Maxim magazine, I know, I know, it’s MAXIM!! The article, however, was about a former Hollywoood agent who went to Iraq for a few months to see what was really going on. He spent time with the Marines in and around the Triangle of Death. He has some great stories. He starts out by saying:

    “In my former life I was Oscar-winning director Steven Soderbergh’s agent and manager. I co-owned a prosperous talent agent firm, I lived in a four story mansion and somehow sucessfully stumbled through the whorehouse called Hollywood. I was an indoctrinated hardcore liberal.

    “When I bought a new Hummer H2 back in 2002, I ordered a custom license plate that read US WINS. I wanted people to have a reaction, usually negative, and then examine their thinking? Would it be so bad to win this war?”

    Then he gets really good!

    “I could give two f***s about WMD’s. There were much more important reasons to topple Saddam-terrorism being one of them. The root cause of terrorism are the lack of capitalism, the lack of democracy, and the lack of education.”

    This guy’s name is Pat Dollard and he made a documentary of Marines in Iraq called Young Americans. I’m going to try and track it down and watch it. The article is a very interesting as it comes from somebody who was ACTUALLY THERE!!!!! Perhaps our wonderful new Congress should read it, especially those dems who have never set foot in Iraq.

    Dollard gets blown up more than once and barely gets out alive, but he realizes what’s at stake. The best part is near the end when he says:

    “The average Marine was proud to be there doing his job. I have tape after tape of marines telling their liberal “rescuers” to go f**k themselves. They knew what they were doing there, that they were keeping Iraq from turning into a terrorist state that would have made Afghanistan under the Taliban look like Disneyland”

    God, I love the Marines!!!!!!!!!!!!

    It’s a shame more people can’t get past their hatred of Bush or their own political aspirations to see what this guy saw.

  11. NC Cop says:

    This is a guilt by association fallacy of the “How can you like cats? Everybody knows that Hitler was a cat lover!” variety

    Ok, I stand corrected. THAT’S the most ignorant thing I’ve ever read!!!!

  12. I’m not being dishonest, trrll. I’m telling the truth, something you guys can’t handle. Again, Joe Klein was right, although I suspect the problem is a lot more widespread than he thinks it is.

  13. - Careful NC, you’re getting close to using that dirty of all dirty words to SecProgs, (no they’re not classic Liberals, they are brain washed new-wave soft Marxists/Socialists), “Patriotism”.

    - “….and ask whether it bothers you to be a partner in al Qaeda’s campaign of terror.”

    - This coming from a group whose “surrender weasel/hate America first” mantra is openly supported by Al Qaeda’s leadership. A perfect example of the “Mother of all projection” from the fevor swamp cultists of the “delusional community”.

    - So. does it bother you SecProg cultists?

    - Bang **==

  14. jim says:

    You really should work on your own deficiencies in those areas before trying to lecture other people on what you feel are theirs.

    What’s funny about this, is that it is exactly what my point to you was.

    I’ll state my point another way:

    When you give a blanket condemnation of American to your political Left as someone who wants America to lose, you are being completely illogical.

    Now, please show me your superior debating skills, and show me how I am wrong.

  15. Um, I never claimed to have ‘superior’ debating skills, jim. I merely asked for you to work on your own, instead of lecturing me on mine.

    Please move on and get back on topic.

  16. jim says:

    I am on topic. Here’s what I’m responding to:

    Klein’s just hit on what so many anti-war leftists (including certain members of Congress) don’t want to admit: they don’t want us to succeed in Iraq. Success in Iraq would not just be a victory for America, but also for President Bush’s policies in the war on terror, and that doesn’t sit well with the Bush-haters in the Democratic party who have portrayed him as a bumbling, inept Commander in Chief.

    You are accusing members of Congress of wanting the US to lose in Iraq, and have thousands of soldiers’ lives go for naught, solely because they want Bush to be embarrassed.

    I am pointing out to you, among other things, that
    a) a majority of the US shares the wish for us to leave Iraq, within a year – do they also want the US to lose to embarass the President?

    b) you are ascribing thoughts and motivations to Congressional Democrats specifically, and everyone against the war in general, which are deliberately evil. And you are doing this with absolutely no evidence in word or deed.

    c) if you don’t like it when people accuse Bush and the GOP of things without evidence, then you should not accuse Democrats of evil things without evidence in word or deed.

  17. No you’re not. You’re lecturing me on how to think and my debating style when I’ve asked you to stop. This is the last warning.

  18. Angryflower says:

    “Guess what? I think conservatives want to eat anchovies on their pizza because they’re gay.

    Now, none of you would come out and SAY this…but I know what you’re thinking. And really you’re not fooling anyone. “

    What a stupid analogy. Reasonable conclusions can be drawn from how people act and what and how they say things.

    I think your conclusion that the left wants us to lose is more a refusal on your part to address their concerns in a manner that would validate them. I suppose the same could be said for the left.

    If I say the right wants to kill as many US troops as possible, would that offend you? Would you feel it’s accurate? I don’t but I could demonstrate it by your words and actions. I don’t think framing your conclusion in the way that you did really accomplishes anything.

  19. Baklava says:

    Show us your debating skills Jim. Respond to this post for jay k. :-"

    Would love to know what war was prosecuted without “mistakes”…. especially.

  20. Angryflower says:

    - So. does it bother you SecProg cultists?

    Irony called, wanting you to buy his new book.

  21. Baklava says:

    Angryflower wrote, “to address their concerns in a manner that would validate them.

    But leftists in this thread have said the war in Iraq is “unwinnable”. Their only conclusion moving forward is that we accept defeat and remove troops causing a humanitarian crisis.

    How would you address their concern? We do not “feel” as they do and in fact think that they are aiding and comforting the enemy with their rhetoric.

  22. trrll says:

    “This coming from a group whose “surrender weasel/hate America first” mantra is openly supported by Al Qaeda’s leadership. ”

    An your trust that al Qaeda is being honest and telling the truth about who and what they support is based upon what? Your personal conviction that they are all-around good guys who would never intentionally try to mislead us?

  23. Big Bang Hunter says:

    - So then trrll, the sum total of your defense against the statements, in pure fact, of the very words you use in almost every post, comes down to “Oh…. well if the enemy is supporting our counter cultural positions, then you can be sure there’s a conspiracy in there somewhere”.

    - So let Me get this straight. When people, and its the majority no matter how hard you try to abuse the truth of things, say you’re wrong, then its simply because they’re misguided. Whereas when the enemy makes embarrassing public declarations, openly stating they like your “hate Buah” polotics, then it must be some nefarious scheme, writ large, just to manipulate public opinion against you.

    - Tell you what. If instead of all the polemic yammering, you just came right out and said you’re afraid to fight for your family, country, and beliefs, I think you’d find people would still recognize your obvious cowardness, but at least you’d stop lying to yourself and everyone else, and that, if you had a shred of character as a group, would be important to you. Obviously, a group who runs from personal responsibility like their hair is on fire, every time they hear that word, lack any of said character. The “end justifies the means”, so lying on a regular basis, is a piece of cake.

    - Bang **==

  24. Big Bang Hunter says:

    - Always remember Komrads…We support our troops, and most especially their mission. Unless of course if they actually fight a war against anyone. Thats different.

    (brought to you by Laika, the space doggie, beaming truthiness to moonbat communes since 1957)

    - Bang **==

  25. Big Bang Hunter says:

    - And Angryflower, I don’t think the Numb-brained Left would know irony if it bit them on the butt.

    - Bang **==

  26. trrll says:

    “So then trrll, the sum total of your defense against the statements, in pure fact, of the very words you use in almost every post, comes down to “Oh…. well if the enemy is supporting our counter cultural positions, then you can be sure there’s a conspiracy in there somewhere”

    Is it really such a radical notion to imagine that Al Qaeda is conspiring against us? Or to think that it is foolish to trust your enemy to tell you the truth?

  27. MattM says:

    Damn them Defeat-o-crats! Look at those anti-Americans give comfort to the enemy by not backing the President at today’s Condi Rice hearings:

    “I’ve gone along with the president on this, and I’ve bought into his dream. At this stage of the game, I don’t think it’s going to happen.”

    “If we don’t see more specifics and a time frame” for progress in Iraq, “then Congress is probably going to step into the void and set a time frame.”

    The president has “set in motion” a “very, very dangerous” series of events. “I think this speech given last night by this president represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam.”

    Oh wait…iot was Republicans who said all that.

  28. NC Cop says:

    Those lying, war mongering Republicans:

    Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.

    Oh wait, that was Nancy Pelosi in 1998….

    Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons. There’s no question about that.”

    Oh wait, that was Nancy Pelosi in 2002….

    If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program.

    Oh, wait that was Bill Clinton in 1998….

    People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons.”

    Oh, wait that was Bill Clinton in 2002…

    No one can doubt or should doubt that we are safer — and Iraq is better — because Saddam Hussein is now behind bars.

    Oh, wait that was John Kerry in 2003…

    In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members…

    It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”

    Oh, wait that was Hillary Clinton in 2003….

    Ho, hum………

    Interesting how gung ho all these democrats were when the war was going well and we were rolling through Iraq with little to no resistence and the people were cheering our troops.

    Oh how times change.

  29. Lorica says:

    “WE are going to need 25,000 body bags!!!” I don’t know who said it, but they were so very wrong. :o) – Lorica (just clownin’ around) Pssst I think it was a Rambo movie, or someone quoting a Rambo movie. =))

  30. NC Cop says:

    WE are going to need 25,000 body bags!!!”

    I think it was Ray Nagin from New Orleans…….;)

  31. Great White Rat says:

    WE are going to need 25,000 body bags!!!

    Ho-hum. Standard liberal panic-wongering. They said that before the first Gulf War too, over 15 years ago.

    trrll, speaking from beneath the tin-foil hat, wonders: Is it really such a radical notion to imagine that Al Qaeda is conspiring against us? Or to think that it is foolish to trust your enemy to tell you the truth?

    I’m applying Occam’s Razor here. The Islamofascists have a track record of telling us exactly what they intend to do, and then attempting to carry it out.
    Therefore, when they broadcast what amount to Democrat campaign ads, I do think that’s their goal, and not some elaborate reverse-psychology scheme you dream up while taking a break from your customary fantasy about Bushitler rounding up all libs and sending them off to concentration camps.

    For some reason, the fact that AQ has been remarkably open about its goals and plans eludes the sparkling intellects on the left, who always assume that AQ says the opposite of what they mean.