Winners And Losers

Thus sayeth The Moderate Voice

Iraq Bloodbath: ‘Imminent US Defeat,’ Says A Serving Army Officer

And below sayeth a blogger in Iraq

Just as we began to see signs of progress in my country the Democrats come and say ‘well, it’s not worth it, so it’s time to leave’. Evidently to them my life and the lives of twenty five million Iraqis are not worth trying for and they shouldn’t expect us to be grateful for this.

I'n not ignorant of the tragic errors and even more tragic circumstances in Iraq. But I am also mindful that, given any particular challenge, you will find both losers and winners aligned on opposite sides with more than enough rhetoric to justify their view.

One thing of which you can be certain is that when listening to a loser, the rhetoric you are exposed to is designed to lose. And a loser always will ultimately ... lose. It's what they do.

Comments

[Cindi]

Well dems, liberals, what do you have to say to this? Can you honestly justify leaving the people of Iraq? Have any of you thought for a second how blessed you are to live in America, or what you would do, should you find yourself facing life and death as the people in Iraq do.

You are what the outside world hates. Spineless bastards who only give a shit about what matters to you. Heh, what more could one expect from a bunch of self serving assholes that believe killing their own is a right.

Don't know how any of you can sleep at night. Tell me, what do you stand for, if not for life?

[Buzzy]

"The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.

The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.

The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties.

Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harm's way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion.

We must be prepared for these realities. At the same time, Saddam should have absolutely no doubt if he lashes out at his neighbors, we will respond forcefully.

Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.

And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them."
William Jefferson Clinton 1998
Read the whole transcript here http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

Sadly Slick Willie has forgotten that he once was a good (but not quite great) President who once took action against Saddam and put men in harms way to try to prevent Saddam from developing WMDs or using the WMDs that he already had.

I think that if a Democrat had done EXACTLY what Bush did in invading Iraq then Harry Reid wouldn't be calling the war lost, Nancy Pelosi wouldn't be laughing and joking with the King of a State Sponsor of terrorism and decent innocent people in Iraq wouldn't be facing the chaos that will come with our troops withdrawal.

I watched the US abandon Saigon on April 29th, 1975 and I saw the terror in the faces of the South Vietnamese peoples faces as they became aware of what they would confront as the NVA entered the city. Years later I had the opportunity to visit one of the killing fields in Cambodia where some of about 2 million people met their death at the hands of the Khmer Rouge. I've seen the mass graves of Iraqi Kurds bombed and gassed by Saddam after Gulf War I.

So what I want to know is, was Clinton lying when he made that speech in 1998 or is he lying now? We invaded Iraq based on exactly the same intelligence (from the same CIA director) as Clinton had when he started the bombing of Iraq in 1998 and sent in SF teams to fight and die in that country. If Bush was lying then Clinton surely was also! If Clinton was telling the truth then Bush was too!

No, I'm not a George W Bush fan. I voted for him only because Gore was a POS and Kerry was an even bigger POS. Hell, I was a registered Democrat till Gore got nominated for the 2000 election. Now in 2007 I find that I'd vote for an artichoke rather than ANY of the Democrats running (and I might add a couple of the Republicans running too).

But I digress. The fact is that trashing the War in Iraq goes deeper than hating George Bush, it means that millions of people who have just tasted democratic freedom for the first time in their lives will lose not only that freedom but very possibly their lives. What happened to the Cambodians must not be allowed to happen again, what happened to the Hmong and Montiyards must not be allowed to happen again. What happened to the Kurds and all the innocent Sunni and Shi'a must NOT be allowed to happen again. It is a matter of life and death.

[BobInStamford]

Congratulations, cons. After only 4 short years of battling the goatherders there are SIGNS of PROGRESS. This is thrilling news. At this pace, the goatherders will be fully pacified in another 12 years or so. Be proud, patriots! The SURGE is WORKING.

[Fred Beloit]

Say, BoobinBridgeport, which Dem candidate do you like for President? Do you want Lost Files Lady, Bridal Cake Boy with big house and floy floy, One Man One Vote Kucinich, Wishing for More Hope Guy, Hair Peg Head (just say yes man), your fellow-Connecticut- resident pork-chop-eaten Fat Boy Dodd, Coolio Gore or who?

[Zifnab]

"Congratulations, cons. After only 4 short years of battling the goatherders there are SIGNS of PROGRESS."

Yes, signs of progress indeed. Like there were signs of progress when we tore down Saddam's statue and signs of progress when the purple finger brigade marched through Bagdad streets and signs of progress when Bush began pulling troops out of Iraq in early '05. And signs of progress when we killed each and every Al-Qaida in Iraq operative we could get in a crosshair.

Now, with the highest daily troop casaulty count since we invaded and some of the worst violence the country has every seen spreeding from Najaf in the South to little Kurdistan in the north (a recent bombing that killed 12 was the first civil violence the province has seen since the invasion) we're poised to see "signs of progress" again.

I just hope Dan's new quote in support of the Iraq war doesn't vaporize like his old Drudge quote. As interesting as a man cutting off his own genitals in a pizza party was, I don't see what it has to do with the WoT.
http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2007/04/marine_in_iraq_.html
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash1.htm

[Phoenix]

We need a presence in the Middle East. Come hell or high water, we will have it.

It is so strange that liberals think in the moment. I find that amazing, myself, but I am naive when it comes to figuring out people who are unable to think beyond the confines of severe limitation and narrow talking points from some politician who is trying to score points at the expense of our future. Blows my mind...over and over again.

[Robert Bell]

"One thing of which you can be certain is that when listening to a loser, the rhetoric you are exposed to is designed to lose. And a loser always will ultimately ... lose. It's what they do."

Actually the reality is more frustrating. Generally speaking, pessimists have an *accurate* self-image, optimists are woefully optimistic - across a range of measures. For example if you look at forecast corporate earnings, the bottom 1/5 of projections tend to be spot on, the top 1/5th way *over*-optimistic.

Entrepreneurs are never pessimists - but 9 of 10 new businesses fail.

So the choice is be optimistic and fail 90 percent of the time, or be pessimistic and generally correct, but never succeed.

[Fred Beloit]

Personally, I'm for Alec Baldwin for Pres and Xifnab for VP. Alec could make all the Amtrac trains run on time, using his infamous phone ranting techniques. Ziffy would have no authority whatever, as is true of all VPs. Yet we could criticize him/her mercilessly, the way they do the current VP. The casualty count of our voluntary military, while it is too high and is regrettable, is less than 5% of Viet Nam's and this war hasn't gone on as long (h/t Prof Hansen). The Boob calls the enemy goatherders. This is an obvious falsehood, but it serves his propagandistic purposes. The Boob could be Alec's Press Secretary. Of course the President's priorities would become Boob's priorities. So his pithy comments would be largely directed at rail traffic. That would more suit his talents and our patience.

[Fred Beloit]

Hmmm. Food for thought, food for thought, a word to the wise. "...optimists are woefully optimistic." "...pessimists have an *accurate* self-image..." Hmmm. But do we have apples and apples or apples and pineapples, Mr Bell? Optimists are optimistic in truth? Pessimists are accurate in "self-image"? I fail to grasp the logic, though your woeful conclusion is woefully full of woe and makes scant room for winners.

[Buzzy]

'Tis better to have tried in vain,
Sincerely striving for a goal,
Than to have lived upon the plain
An idle and a timid soul.

'Tis better to have fought and spent
Your courage missing all applause,
Than to have lived in smug content
And never ventured for a cause.

For he who tries and fails may be
The founder of a better day;
Though never his the victory,
From him shall others learn the way.

I have no clue who said it but it's true. Winners never quit and quitters never win (don't know who penned that one first either).

[Phoenix]

Mr. Ding Dong,

The world is not made up of optimists and pessimists. Those are states of mind, and as we know, states of mind vary from moment to moment given whatever reality they're faced with or whatever logic demands their attention.

That is - for the thinking mind. If you're talking automatons, you're still wrong. What a pessimist you are.