Category Archives: 2008 Election

The Left’s Reaction To Reid’s “We’ve Lost” Statement

For reason’s I don’t quite know how to interpret, the KOS seems to be looking for excuses for  Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-NV) “the war is lost” statement instead of toasting with French champagne and blunts.

Some have questioned his rhetoric and his choice of words, calling it a gaffe. But what if Reid had carefully chosen his words? What if his intention was to spur debate, or even further, to forward the debate beyond the question of this supplemental funding bill and the squabbling over it?

If it was his intention to ‘spur debate’ then it is safe to say that the senator is a blooming idiot.  What else can you say about someone who would cause a negative effect on troop morale and help the enemy, all for the purpose of spurring debate? 

From what Reid said, it seems the rabid left is getting ‘what they paid for,’ to use their words after the 2006 election.  Is it an indication that even they are beginning to see that, as more and more people hear what they are really about, they are turning people off with their message and tactics?

Dems Out Front With Defeat

Watch how senate majority leader Harry Reid supports the troops.  Trouble is, it’s not our troops he is supporting by comments like this one,  “this war is lost.”  Can you think of a better al Qaeda recruiting tool than the current bunch of democrat leaders?

Signs that the ‘surge’ is working has caused Reid to get out in front of defeat.  They own defeat.  In their own perverted and political way, they see defeat in Iraq as a victory.  Under no circumstances now can they allow or facilitate a victory in Iraq.

Outside of the blogosphere, have you seen this monumental statement adequately covered in the ‘news?’  Of course not.

related: Thomas Sowell, Dangerous Demagoguery

Dems New Tone: Us First, Then The Troops

Remembering we are war, not the one between the Democrats and Bush but the one between us and the terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan,  the Democrat majority leaders insist on playing the role of Commander-In-Chief and have drafted a war appropriations bill to prove it.  The bill will end the war, not win it.  And this delay in funding the troops is already having its effects on the troops, the same troops that you will hear them say they support, and its not good.  Meanwhile, according to al Qaeda, Iraq is a great place to learn how to be a terrorist.  It has become their university of terrorism.

Seems like the Democrat leaders of today are the only ones who don’t see a terrorist problem in Iraq.  Either that or they just want to lay down the welcome mat for the terrorists upon our premature exit.  Don’t know about you, but the notion of a Democrat Commander-In-Chief makes me feel less safe.  Much less safe.   Its no wonder they also liked the ‘pretend’ Secretary of State Nancy Pelosi’s recent visit to the Middle East.

Why Victory In Iraq?

What winning in Iraq will mean, and what will it look like?  This answers some questions posed by Rick at RicksBlog concerning the war in Iraq.   The war in Iraq is what I call the Iraqi front in the global war on terror.   What follows is the answer to those questions.  

Israel has been fighting Arabs for over half a century and still doesn’t have peace. We are entering our fifth year in Iraq. How can we expect peace in another year or two?

To the impatient and the microwave/video-game-war generation I say, if what it takes to make future generations safe from radical Islam is one or two, or five more years, then you’ll know what it costs to defend us and what it costs to defend freedom in our time.   It’s such a cliche but in this case, is also true, freedom is not free.

Time is on the side of the insurgents – or what Bush calls “terrorists” or what some might label “freedom fighters”. We can’t kill them all.

Some of the enemy looks like this.This picture gives a whole new meaning to the term ‘freedom fighters.’ The “some who might label” terrorists as “freedom fighters” are part of the problem, if not the terrorists themselves.  They don’t want freedom.  They say as much all the time.  The only freedom I’ve heard them advocate is the freedom to kill Americans. 

Here’s the administrations view of the three stages of victory in Iraq, from the blog.

Short term, Iraq is making steady progress in fighting terrorists, meeting political milestones, building democratic institutions, and standing up security forces.

Medium term, Iraq is in the lead defeating terrorists and providing its own security, with a fully constitutional government in place, and on its way to achieving its economic potential.

Longer term, Iraq is peaceful, united, stable, and secure, well integrated into the international community, and a full partner in the global war on terrorism.

As far as what victory in Iraq would look like? First of all, don’t expect it to be over in a year or two. The GWOT will last decades. We waited almost a decade before responding effectively, which didn’t help us.

Then, don’t expect that WE are going to kill all the terrorists because WE won’t. It’s the governments of the countries the terrorists operate in and train in that will do the killing every time they raise their ugly head. It’s a different war than any other we’ve been in for sure.

As far as similarity to Vietnam goes, it is similar in that the anti-war groups of the 60’s are now in positions of power and attempting to relive the glory days by micro-managing the war until it cannot be won, like what happened in Vietnam. To this bunch, a loss will be perceived as a victory, just like Vietnam.

And another thing, :) , in Vietnam, the commies did not have as their goal the desire to kill all ‘infidels’ (Americans) and everyone else that didn’t have the same view of ‘Islam’ as they. They’ve already demonstrated how viscous they can be.

IMHO, the only question is not what victory in Iraq is, but how many dead Americans are acceptable before you decide to deal with the problem?

This war won’t be won by playing defense. It’s going to take nations around the world to be on offense.

Dems Run From Debate Again

Sen. Obama pulls out of the CBC/FOX debates, which gives Mrs. Bill Clinton cover to do likewise.  Not much of a debate if those two and Edwards are refusing to participate?  No point in repeating myself, same rules apply as in the Edwards post of a few days ago.  The wacko left is calling the shots in the democratic party.

The left blackballs the Black Caucus from Opinion Journal:

The CBC deserves credit for not capitulating to ideological intimidation–and for refusing to take orders from affluent and angry liberals who’ve never run for office. Too bad the candidates have weaker knees.

The Campaigns For Victory, And Defeat

On CBS’s Face the Nation this morning, host Bob Schieffer was asking a guest about Sen. John McCain’s campaign and how he ‘has tied his campaign to victory in Iraq.’  Then asks if that will hurt him in his bid to become president?  That question is so telling of the views of the left and its media.   I don’t think it’ll hurt him as much as the democratic candidates that have tied their campaign to defeat in Iraq will hurt them.

A Suicide In The Making

Has ‘Let’s Roll’ morphed into Let’s Roll Over?  That’s what it seems like when you examine the democrats’ view of foreign policy, especially as it pertains to the Iraqi front in the war on terror.  For more on this apparent suicide in the making, visit Michelle Malkin’s post. Although Michelle’s post is regarding the 15 British troops who were taken hostage, the same can be said of some in the democrat party today.  Let’s Roll Over and Cut & Run, there’s not a hair’s difference between them.

Edwards Campaign Caves To Activists

As further proof as to how powerful  and entrenched in democratic politics the far left wackos have become, the Edwards campaign has pulled out of a democratic primary debate hosted by the Congressional Black Caucus and FOX, but will participate in one hosted by the CBC and CNN.  Why? 

Online activists and bloggers have assailed Democratic leaders who have tried to work with Fox News, saying the cable news network is biased.

Because of the new dirty word in politics, FOX.  It also shows a lack of spine when it comes to a willingness to address people he ostensibly wants to lead as President.  Apparently Sen. John Edwards only wants to represent and be president of about half of the country.

Related: 4/3/07– Congressional Black Caucus says YES to FOX, 03/30/07– Cable News Rankings 3/15/07– Here comes the race card

Will The Pelosi Doctrine Work?

A comprehensive article by Amir Taheri in today’s New York Post explains how our Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi during her unauthorized trip to the Middle Eastenemies are attracted to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s recent and unauthorized shuttle diplomacy in the Middle East, in much the same way as the enemy of my enemy is my friend.   But Amir further explains the contrast and consequence of what he calls The Pelosi Doctrine, as opposed to The Bush Doctrine, in a way that will have major consequence to this country come the 2008 election, and likewise, on you.