Democrats Will Fight ... For Surrender

A slight majority of Congressional Democrats have shown that they do have some fight in them, unfortunately only when it comes to seeing how quickly they can pull off a behind the lines surrender while our troops continue to fight our enemies in Iraq. They have sealed their fate and any notion that they support our troops must come off the table now.

Fresh from meetings with the terror supporting Muslim Brotherhood, Democrat Majority Leader Steny "I'm No Stonewall" Hoyer said, "Our troops are mired in a civil war with no clear enemy and no clear strategy for success". But critical observers realize there is indeed an enemy in Iraq in the form of al-Qaeda and other insurgent groups opposed to anything resembling a free state within the Middle East.

Petraeus told reporters sectarian killings in Baghdad were only a third of what they were in January, before Bush began sending in additional U.S. forces. He added that progress in the troubled western Anbar province was "breathtaking," and that he thought Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was "doing his best" at leading the country.

But "the ability of al-Qaida to conduct horrific, sensational attacks obviously has represented a setback and is an area in which we're focusing considerable attention," Petraeus said.

Petraeus said he would not touch on the "minefield of discussions about various legislative proposals," but he noted that the new strategy in Iraq was just beginning. He said he planned to provide more details in early September.

Despite briefings, Hoyer also said Petraeus convinced him the issue in Iraq was political, not militaristic, which may be true when you are open to having tea with terrorists. Perhaps he'll invite them to the US, he can take them on a tour of the World Trade Towers ... ooo, never mind. But then why should Hoyer care about that? he's not from New York and pushed a bill laced with treason in exchange for pork.

Today an American Army takes the field of battle while bleeding from a knife wound, having been stabbed deeply in the back by a Democrat Party that warms to terrorists in Syria and the broader Middle East.

The question now is not are they patriotic ... it is, whose side are they actually on? Clearly it isn't the side of our loyal forces waging war in Iraq. The bodies of Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy are likely rolling in their graves: Kennedy as in JFK, of course - Teddy is most likely drunk and off somewhere rolling in the hay, assuming the most Scotch-besotten member of today's Democrat Party can still get it up.

Clearly what none of the Democrats are up for is a fight with America's enemies. The Democrat Party is no longer worthy of American votes. McGovern's folly taught them nothing, their on going legacy is worthy of nothing but America's pity. Today the once proud Democrat Party has once again emerged as America's greatest shame.

Today, tyrannical, terrorist supporting governments will be celebrating, our soldiers will be fighting and possibly dying for a necessary cause ... and the cowards who comprise the leadership of the Democrat Party will be sleeping in, preparing for another round of the worst in pandering politics and placing blame for a war they voted for and almost immediately began to not support.

Traitors they are all.

Others blogging via Memeorandum

Comments

[Fred Beloit]

Great, noyyyinger. Now I wonder if you could point us to any enemy victories occasioned by the decisions and activities you so voluminously described, or copied from some Lefty's post? Any at all. But please spare us the absurd notion that no victories mean victory.

[nowinger]

When you are in charge of a project that fails, you are replaced. You don't get an infinite number of chances to fix things. You are judged by your management and your results. When your homework is full of mistakes you get a failing grade. If you continue to turn in homework full of mistakes you will fail the class as well.

[ec1009]

Fred says;
1. Failure to seize all arms in Iraq at whatever the cost in casualties.

Fred, Fred, Fred, don't you know that if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. What about the law abiding Iraqi's right to protect his family against criminals and terrorists. Gun ownership reduces crime. If we arm all law abiding Iraqis, they will be able to kill the terrorists before they kill innocents, thus saving countless lives.

[ec1009]

see Fred Beloit at 11:58

[nowinger]

I see, so if the insurgency continues to successfully kill people that isn't a victory. No wonder you freaks think we're 'winning' in Iraq. You redefine the meaning of any term to make it fit your storyline. Torture becomes interrogation and victory becomes failure of the insurgents to, what, take over the whole country? Defeat all 150,000 US troops?

[Fred Beloit]

Sorry, ec1009, or whoever you really usually comment under, but Iraq is a war zone. Of course I recognize your dig, congratulations. BTW, the rule against firearms at VT worked out very well didn't it?

[Kelvin]

America needs more guns and Iraq needs a DMV. Fred is a genius.

[Fred Beloit]

Are you saying that whenever we kill a terrorist in Iraq it is a victory, noyyyinger? You really don't know anything about warfare do you? And the term is terrorist, not insurgent, if they are not attempting to take over the country.

[Fred Beloit]

zerodegreeskelvin, your friends are ganging up on me. You are their leader and spokesperson. Can't you help me?

[Kelvin]

You're a dope. People like to make fun of dopes. Good luck with getting the Baghdad DMV opened.

[nowinger]

What possible differences does the nomenclature make? Do you think calling them terrorists instead of insurgents will weaken their will? Make them stop killing? Make them reconsider their suicidal missions?

I believe its the wingers who need a refresher course in a-symetrical warfare. You might also refer to the many statements from our military that say the solution in Iraq is political not military.

You guys are like compulsive gamblers on a losing streak, you lose all your money, but don't quit until you've lost the deed to the car and house and everything else of value in your life.

[seekeronos]

It all depends upon how much you want to win, really.

Theirs is a clannish culture mired in centuries of bondage to a satanic religion of murder and oppression; they know only one thing, that the strongest man rules.

Our bigger mistake is not realizing that we are locked in a war against Islam - a crusade, if you will - and we have been spending too much time whacking the tail and not going after the heart of the problem.

That problem is Islam itself.

In the end, nothing short of the total eradication and outlawing of Islam from that region will bring peace... just as we destroyed the heart of Japanese State Shinto during the SCAP occupation, so also must we destroy and reduce to dust the cities Meccah, Medina, the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, and Qom and in no less severe terms dictate to those people how things shall be, even unto the re-writing of their "holy koran" to make it more West-friendly.

[Fred Beloit]

Boobinkelvin, you aren't going to help me? Where is that famous Liberal compassion? You know folks, Boob/kelvin used to read a lot before he became a Liberal and realized he had all the answers in shorthand at the tip of his tongue. Here are some of the books he used to read: GEOGRAPHY REDOUX, HOW STAMFORD, CT, BECAME THE CENTER OF LEARNING IN AMERICA by Sanford Bradford and Bradford Sanford (First to Get Here Press, 1798), DEVIL WORSHIP FOR DUMMIES by Jose Wegan (Hot Books, LTD, 1982), WHY WE NEED EARRINGS by Justin Slumberlake (Slip Out Publishing, 2005), REPACK YOUR PARADIGMS by N. Pilesof (Frisco Books 1952), WHY ANYONE WHO PRAYS IS A HERETIC by Father P.J. O'Moiran, SJ (Atheist Publishing, Inc 1978), PLYING THE ROUGH TRADE by Bruce Nivlek PhD Agricola University Indiana (Agricola Press, 1998).

[Kelvin]

Help you? What fun would that be? I think that concepts such as emissions testing in Iraq and the execution of improperly-attired mailmen gives more than enough room for a good laugh.

Please, continue.

[Phoenix]

Dang.... I had to not read a bunch of posts to get here, Fred, but yes.... MUKTRAL was 'attempting'.... Too bad it sucked so bad. ha ha...

[Fred Beloit]

nodegrees kelvin, one is forced to wonder whether you have too much metal in your head, a result of desecrating your flesh for religious reasons? You have yet to advance anything on this blog that would pass as an idea. You do seem to have fun though, witness the list I commented on here recently of the games you used to play. I guess having fun is sufficient reason for staying alive.

[Fred Beloit]

noyyyinger writes that it doesn't matter whether we call the Iraq murderers terrorists or insurgents, yet she is always careful to call them insurgents. She dislikes the military, yet if one of them says something she likes, as in the comment above, she will attribute the quote to the many and use it as an argument for leaving the military unfunded. There is no such thing as a non-political war or a purely military war. All wars are a mixture. Big surprize? No, not really.

[Fred Beloit]

noyyyinger writes that it doesn't matter whether we call the Iraq murderers terrorists or insurgents, yet she is always careful to call them insurgents. She dislikes the military, yet if one of them says something she likes, as in the comment above, she will attribute the quote to the many and use it as an argument for leaving the military unfunded. There is no such thing as a non-political war or a purely military war. All wars are a mixture. Big surprise? No, not really.

[Fred Beloit]

zerodegreesBoobkelvin did make a funny comment above. Have to give him that. But it is just a distortion, though a funny one, of an idea.

[Raging_Dave]

By the way, little nowinger, I'm still waiting for that plan of yours. Other than what you've been pushing, which is abject surrender. I don't know about you, but I don't want to be responsible for the slaughter of millions of Iraqis when the US leaves. I know that the Left, having done this type of thing before in Viet Nam, really doesn't care who gets killed as long as they can score political points, but for once would one of you braindead moonbats come up with something more than wetting your pants and running away? Because THAT is a plan that just doesn't work.

[Hard Right]

Exactly RD. When you ask them a plan they either avoid answering or they say (using way more words than needed) that they would surrender. Yet, they think they should be in charge.

[Charles Warren]

There was so much pure error in Buzzy's post it will be hard to respond in just one post. And I am only responding to his post because it was the only halfway intelligent posting from a war supporter.

We had no treaty obligation to go to war in Vietnam. Eisenhower and Dulles specifically wrote the SEATO treaty so that it would NOT commit the US to a ground war in Asia (Mamma Eisenhower didn't raise no stupid children). It pledges 'consultation', nothing more. Certainly not half a million American troops.

You make the same blunder here as in Vietnam. A starry-eyed wishful thinking about your 'democratic' allies. So-called South Vietnam an artificial structure of northern Catholic exiles ruling a sullen Buddhist population. Just as Iraqi 'democracy' is Shiites displacing the formerly ruling Sunnis. Just as the only reliable units in the South Vietnamese army were the predominantly Catholic ones (Rangers, Marines, 1st Division) so the only reliable units the Maliki regime has are al-Sadr's Shiite militias. So can the shining pretense of anyone fighting for 'democracy'. Iraq and Vietnam were sectarian civil wars in which one side was little better than the other.

It's not our fault that Buddhist South Vietnamese were unenthusiastic about fighting for their Catholic ruling class. It was the responsibility of the South Vietnamese leadership to create a sense of national unity and common purpose and they didn't do it. So we ended up carrying them until the American people sensibly got fed up and demanded that they do for themselves. Once we did the entire rotten structure collapsed like a house of cards.

The most recent poll shows that 55% of the American people agree with Reid about this war. They aren't interested in coming up with any 'plan' to do what we can't do, i.e., make the Iraqis a different kind of people. After four years the bots are bragging about success in securing the capital city ? How the hell long are we supposed to be there ? For generations ? And if Iraqis are unwilling to die for 'democracy' what duty is it of ours to die for them ? To fight for people who can't fight for themselves is to be a hero. To fight for people who won't fight for themselves is to be played for a chump.

The Iraqis are going to have to face their own future. If it means a sectarian bloodbath the American people will simply shrug, "Glad we're out of it". It is not our problem to protect people from themselves and we owe the Iraqi Sunnis nothing.

[Raging_Dave]

So, we finally have someone flat out admitting that Iraqis getting slaughtered wouldn't bother him one bit.

Bravo.

[Charles Warren]

"So, we finally have someone flat out admitting that Iraqis getting slaughtered wouldn't bother him one bit.

Bravo."

If the Iraqis want a civil war it is none of our concern to stop them. Or do you think we should be 'nation building' and 'peacekeeping' all over the world ? And if not cut the BS posturing.