| Times Online | 0 | |
| Fox Boston | 0 | |
| Merc. News | 0 | |
| Big Govt | Obama’s Shock Troops: SEIU and Political Intimidation in St. Louis |
0 |
| NYT | 0 |
Audacity of Truth
Whiner-in-Chief:
"[W]hether the grumbling is about Republicans on Fox or bloggers in pajamas, there's a word for what the president and his aides are doing. That word is "whining." And nothing [...] does more damage to Obama's credibility or authority than the sense that a popular president is becoming the whiner-in-chief."
- John Nichols, Nation Magazine - 10/12/09
Defeatist Dem rhetoric on Iraq, part 2
Earlier this week, we read about a revealing quote from House Majority Whip James Clyburn in which he stated that a good report from General Petraeus in September on how the surge was going in Iraq would present “problems” for him and other anti-war Congressional Democrats who think we should cut and run.
Don Surber has the details on another such revealing quote, this time from Senator Carl Levin, as well as poll numbers that reflect worse on Congress than they do the President on the issue of Iraq.
The anti-war Democrats have for years strongly rejected the accusation that they are defeatist, and don’t care about winning in Iraq, thinking that their actions would be ignored and that they’d be able to fool everyone based on their words. But, like a snake shedding its skin, the masks they donned in order to win the 2006 elections are starting to chip away, day by day. And if polls are any indication, the American people are not liking what they are seeing.
Cal Thomas on the Democrats and their negative attitudes towards Iraq:
Most Democrats seem so invested in defeat in Iraq that they apparently have no “Plan B,” which would be success.
Like the character Billy Bigelow in the musical “Carousel,” who is dumbstruck when he realizes he has not thought about the possibility that his pregnant wife might actually deliver a girl, instead of the son he wants, Democrats appear unable to conceive of victory, or at least stability in Iraq.
So cynical have our politics become that a spokesman for Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Democratic leaders are “not willing to concede there are positive things to point to” in Iraq. And House Majority Whip James E. Clyburn said that a favorable report from Gen. Petraeus could lead 47 moderate to conservative “Blue Dog” Democrats to oppose a withdrawal timetable, making it virtually impossible for the liberal leadership to pass withdrawal legislation. “(It would be) a real problem for us,” said Clyburn.
Is that what the Iraq war has become? Instead of viewing it as a generational war that will determine the future of civilization (because, if we lose, Iraq will become a launching pad for terrorist acts around the world and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis would surely die), is it now just another tool in the Democrat’s quest for the White House? Where are the statesmen who put their country and its interests before personal and political interests? Was Harry Truman right when he observed, “A statesman is a politician who has been dead for 10 or 15 years”? Aren’t we Americans before we are Republicans or Democrats? And don’t we all lose if one political “side” wins and it costs others their freedom and puts America in greater peril?
Asked and answered already, I’m afraid.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Trackbacks
19 Responses to “Defeatist Dem rhetoric on Iraq, part 2”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
Corrected the spelling of Toldjah already. Sheesh, I canot spel wortth ship.
Cal, that only holds true for the majority of Republicans. As to many of the Dems, especially their leadership, it is Party before all else. – Lorica
What’s even better is that the liberal, rabid, “peace loving” haters are starting to turn on their heroes.
Brit Hume Report
Gotta love the reactions of these blogs:
That’s right guy, because we all know how conservatively slanted our media is. That last guy has alot of anger. May I suggest meditation?
Good Lord what is wrong with these people.
Amen to that. This is nuts. Just when I thought the Democrats couldn’t get any worse…
It’s just like Jimmy Carter, always villainizing America, then going off and apologizing to COMMUNIST countries for how “unjust” we have been… What’s worst of all is how the Democrats cite statistics showing supposedly, “undoubtedly,” how Iraqi’s people want us out. What they fail to point out though is that those who are not involved in the “scientific” polls is how a large majority of the population is in hiding, fearing for their lives. If they were to ever speak out in favor of the U.S, they’d be the next target for Al-Qaeda…
Did anyone OTHER than me see how ecstatic the people were when Saddam’s statue was toppled? Doesn’t anyone find it odd that none of those that had partied near the razing site were later found by reporters wanting their comments on the events? Coincidence? Doubt it…
In the waning days of WWII, President Franklin Roosevelt was running for an unprecedented 4th term, and Thomas Dewey was his opponent. He had knowledge of the “Magic” program that we had been using since 1939 to read Japanese diplomatic and military codes, and could have blamed the President for not preventing the 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor, which would have been a political victory, but would have compromised the safety of our troops in the Pacific. He put Country before politics, but I wonder how many people running for election would do that today?
If Americans wanted us out of the war in as large of numbers as they say, you would see several hundred thousand peace protesters marching in DC. The last peace protest I remember was March 2004, and it was pretty disappointing. I think what Americans really wanted was some progress in Iraq. The upswing in the polls when there is finally some good news being reported pretty much bears that out. Not the leftwing extremists tho. There can be no good news in Iraq unless it is to raise Saddamn from the dead, and place him back as dictator. – Lorica
What’s amazing to me is that following a simple Op-Ed in the NYT about some short term success in Iraq has gotten the amount of print and TV coverage it has. Does antbody here actually believe that the Al-Maliki government will be a focal point that the people of Iraq will rally around? That the sadistic religious courts of Moqtada al Sadr will disappear?These are the obvious problems well except of course if the 43 Admin had spent the on actually securing our border with Mexico would have been far less expensive fiscally and wouldn’t have inflamed the Islamic region.Well besides that……… Iraq has a ton a problems bottom line that at the end of our military presence there they will have to resolve.Not our Armed forces. I personally just can’t believe that this nation wound up in this situation in the first place.
Yeah, it’s all Bush’s fault, right tommy?
Tommy wrote, “What’s amazing to me is that following a simple Op-Ed in the NYT about some short term success in Iraq has gotten the amount of print and TV coverage it has.”
Just as amazing as all the coverage Hagel and Lugar get about their views on Iraq? Aren’t there other Senators who are in favor of “winning”?
Why is this a question tommy asks, “Does antbody here actually believe that the Al-Maliki government will be a focal point that the people of Iraq will rally around?”
Tommy wrote without knowing that the amount of money spent on securing our border has gone up each year, “These are the obvious problems well except of course if the 43 Admin had spent the on actually securing our border with Mexico would have been far less expensive fiscally and wouldn’t have inflamed the Islamic region.”
I’m not saying the border is as secure as I’d like it. I’m saying that every sentence that tommy writes is either factually false or irrelevant.
What’s amazing to me is how quickly the left, that would be you included tommy, is to dismiss this Op-Ed piece because it doesn’t fit into their narrow view of the way things are. Whenever the times reports anything else, you guys sure do go for it hook, line, and sinker, as long as it bashes the Bush administration in some way.
I have no idea what this sentence is supposed to mean.
Wow, thanks for the update.
Yeah, as opposed to ignoring threats, crossing our fingers and keeping our heads buried in the sand. THAT’S the way to conduct foreign policy. At least it was for the Clinton Administration.
Actually NC, that’s the way it was for the past 2 Democrat administrations.
Note how tommy used the border to justify his anti American feelings and attitudes. I think the hardliners just gave the left something else to use by calling George Bush, Jorge.
But you know what tommy? Considering what a sadistic dictator and serial offender Saddam was I really can not imagine what you care about the people of Iraq. That man could have wiped out half his population and oppressed the other half without so much as a kiss my behind from most of the anti war movement.
And if you want to know how we ended up in this situation, it might be worthwhile to learn a little recent history.
Such as….. Saddam lying to weapons inspectors, shooting at our planes in violation of the cease fire agreement, trying to kill a president, killing his own sons in law for turning on him, refusing to comply with several mandatory force resolutions from the UN, turning the Food for oil Program into the largest scam history, the Iraqi Liberation Act, the bombing of Iraq in 1998 after the weapons inspectors were kicked out, the refusal of Saddam to comply and respond once again in 1999 when the UN stated he was hiding weapons and weapons programs, the refusal of Saddam to feed his people and provide medical care to his population and his support for terrorists both in Iraq and abroad and the constant drain of flying the no fly zones for several years while maintaining a base in Saudi Arabia for that purpose, etc.
Sometimes I wonder if there are people out there who spent the 90s and early years of this new century in a cave. They are so ignorant of the facts it is appalling.
Ah, Tommy…the gift that keeps on giving!! Welcome back!!
Now…was there anything remotely resembling a coherent point to any of that rambling you posted back there?
oooooOOOOOOPPPppp……….dude
like uh, Iraq has a ton of problems…..oooooOOOOOPPPppp……
…channeling stoned fool mode/off.
BDS is a check that the leftards can’t cash and America can ill afford.
But it’s okay to cherry pick the DBM/MSM for ANYTHING that fits the hate everything about America paradigm, for reasons of power and control – neither of which are strong suits for the dhimmicRats.
Like I’ve said before, where are the Statesmen? Enough prattle and clamoring from the soiled pants insipid tykes already!
Can we question their patriotism?
Tommy dear, re: “That the sadistic religious courts of Moqtada al Sadr will disappear?”
Uh… if Mookie keeps on running to Iran every time the going gets hot in Iraq… yes. By all means. The Iraqi Shi’ites ARE getting tired of him and the way he disappears every time things get hot. The US-friendly (or, at least, US-not-unfriendly!) Al Sistani is starting to win back the Shi’ites behind Al Sadr.
You see, there’s a HUGE problem with Al Sadr’s acceptance of help from Iran: The Iraqi Shi’ites hate “Persians” MORE than they hate Sunnis. This is and always was an “enemy of my enemy is my friend” situation.
Yes, there’s a 1400-year feud between Sunnis and Shi’ites. But there’s a much older feud between Babylon and Persia that has precedence. In fact, it’s probably the oldest feud in the world. Saddam’s attempts to invade Iran were a modern manifestation of this feud. It’s still going strong.
No Iraqi, Shi’ite or otherwise, would stand for Iranians coming in and trying to take over, but they’ve been accepting weapons and help from Iran… to fight off the Sunnis who have turned out to be mostly Al Qaeda operatives. The fact that Al Qaeda has had its hand in “Sunni” insurgence is extremely important, making it plain that the Iraqi Sunnis were never their enemies. So, since the Al Sadr insurgents were fighting to protect themselves from “Sunni” insurgents, there may be no reason for them to fight at all. And this may well be Al Sadr’s downfall. If he keeps tucking his tail and running to hide in Teheran, his remaining followers are going to abandon him with his one “cause” falling apart around his ears.
Mark my words on that!