Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt
at
10:03 AM
Historian Arthur Herman on the momentum in the war against the jihadists, and not just in Iraq:
The US public and policymakers need to recognize how this happened - and draw lessons from this success.
1) We need to acknowledge that the Iraq war wasn't a
"distraction" from the War on Terror, as critics still complain, but
its centerpiece. It's not mere coincidence that our success against al Qaeda
globally comes along with success in Iraq. For all its setbacks and
frustrations, the Iraq war drew jihadists into a battle they thought
they could win, because it would be fought on their home turf - but
which they're now losing disastrously. 2) The US decision to "stay the course" in the Iraq war, which
was also widely mocked and criticized, served to thoroughly demoralize
the jihadist movement. From its start in spring 2003, the Iraqi insurgency has been
entirely built on the premise that it could use suicide and roadside
bombings, sectarian slaughter and the torture and murder of hostages to
force America out of the Middle East. If Democrats had won the White House in 2004, the jihadists might have succeeded.
Instead, America doggedly refused to give in to terror, despite
4,000 combat deaths and massive antiwar sentiment, and unwaveringly
supported an Iraqi government that was at times feeble and confused -
and proceeded to break the jihadist movement's back.
Obama's greatest defect is his refusal to understand the war and
our accelerating successes across its many fronts. Obama's
election would signal the jihadists that they had hope of an American
retreat. McCain's victory will signal that the defeats they had
suffered over the past two years would continue.
The stakes could not be higher. Senator McCain will be
pushed by MSM to talk about everything except the war, and while he
will indeed have to do so again and again (he's giving a speech today
on the economy), he must refocus the debate over and over again on the
war and the "tipping point" we are approaching.
Scott Johnson relays that Obama will raise $100 million in June
--an amount that reflects the anti-war movement's deep commitment to
retreat, the left's hatred of Bush, the energy of the African-American
community and youth vote and the war-weariness of the
public. Obama will outraise and outspend McCain, but McCain's
central message will be two questions that the vast majority
of Americans will answer correctly: Do you want to win the
war or lose it? Shall the enormous sacrifices made by America's
military and their families be for the high purpose of extending
freedom to others while protecting our country, or will they
be gambled away on wishes and rhetoric?
UPDATE: See also Kimberly Kagan's and Frederick Kagan's "How Prime Minister Maliki Pacified Iraq" in today's WSJ.com
|
|
"If you don't win, you're going to be fired. If you do win, you've only put off the day you're going to be fired."
Leo Durocher
|
|
Who are we fighting?
I
said we were fighting against insurgents funded by Iran. I said al
Qaeda was virtually destroyed in Iraq. That's the good news.
How long will it take?
I said it would take about six more years.
How many casualties will we suffer.
I said we would lose about 2000 more soldiers.
How much will it cost?
I said another $700 billion.
He said it wasn't worth it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
OF NOTE:
Nowhere is there any implication or accusation as to "BUSH LIED".
Nowhere is there a HINT that Bush lied.
Hmmmmmm.......another
infamous charge by Liberals, Leftists, Progressives, Victicrats,
Marxists, Socialists within the DEMORAT PARTY:
Rockefeller Report OutTakes:
On
Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were
generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates."
On
biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile
laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by
intelligence information."
On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information."
On
weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the
intelligence committee report)? "Generally substantiated by
intelligence information." Delivery vehicles such as ballistic
missiles? "Generally substantiated by available intelligence." Unmanned
aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? "Generally
substantiated by intelligence information."
The Left Lies, and Liberal's cries...
|
|
DON'T give us the truth dang it! LOL
Gezzz lib's/Dem's what can I say. How in the heck we won WWII is beyond me. |
|
|
...to
tell us how right the jihadists are...and how wrong America and
conservatives are. Sing your new anthem from your new fuehrer/messiah,
"God Dam* America", you neo leftists! |
|
The
GOP has the wrong candidate! You guys should have nominated a
Republican!!! It isn't the radical left that is sending Obama money,
it's a wide swath of America. His average contribution is about $93.
Now you can expect to the corporate money that Hillary was getting.
Meanwhile, that whizbang McCain fund raising machine has folded up shop
and turned to RNC for the indirect big donor money. There is a God when
an enemy of the first amendment gets hoisted on his own petard.
On
issues, the war in Iraq is winding down and will be a very small issue
by November other than its cost. The economy, however, will be front
and center and McCain is about as bad a candidate as there is to argue
about economic policy. Why didn't he go on record last week to vote
against the McCain-Lieberman-Warner Cap and Trade Bill? Why is he not
speaking out against the "windfall profits tax bill" being discussed
today in Congress? McCain is a big-guv Dem sailing under false colors
and will crash and burn in November. |
|
Still
holding my nose for him, but don't hold out much hope. He needs a new
charge everyday for Obama to have to answer, not just speeches the
media won't cover.
|
|
If
we just stay six more months, right? And if that doesn't work, we'll
stay six more. And if that doesn't work, we'll stay six more? And six
more after that?
Repeat until we really are there 100 years from now? |
|
Dread writes: Tuesday, June, 10, 2008 11:34 AM
Just six more months, right?
If
we just stay six more months, right? And if that doesn't work, we'll
stay six more. And if that doesn't work, we'll stay six more? And six
more after that?
Repeat until we really are there 100 years from now?
Thank
God we both will be dead by then so you can stop writing you lefty cr*p
and I won't be able to read it. Oh I for got you messiah Obama can
raise you from the dead so you spew more nonsense for future
generations. I feel their pain. |
|
We
have achieved success in Iraq because President Bush has consistently
resisted public pressure to pursue the responsible course of action.
Leadership is not a popularity contest. And the President's approval
rating has taken a big hit for it.
Obama is not a leader, pure
and simple. He hasn't brought one substantive idea to the Senate in the
three plus years he has been there. His vision of America is more of
the same income redistribution on a massive scale. He is risk-averse or
he might have stood up to his mentor, the Reverend Wright, and
denounced those racist sermons. He is merely a follower, watching polls
and being politically expedient and calculating. He is not fit to be
the leader of the Free World. Instead, he needs to put his thin resume
back in its file and hang his empty suit in his closet. |
|
[Thank God we both will be dead by then so you can stop writing you lefty cr*p and I won't be able to read it. ]
You
don't have to read it now. Though, I find it sad that the
'conservative' position is to blindly keep letting the government
policies run their course without question or comment.
Hugh
and co. have been repeatedly touting that the 'war isn't that bad' or
'things are going much better than expected' for the last three years.
I
fully expect that in another six months we will get yet another report
telling us how swimmingly things are going and if we even think of
using that to justify pulling out one troop, we are clearly terrorist
loving lunatics. |
|
|
Hmmm thanks to you lib/dem's. Were still in Germany, Japan. Shall I go on? |
|
[Were still in Germany, Japan]
Which we shouldn't be.
[Shall I go on?]
By all means.
Perhaps
if you listed the several dozen nations we currently have troops or
personnel stationed in, folks might start questioning whether or not we
really need them there 60+ years after WWII and nearly 20 years after
the Cold War. |
|
HH: Another winning post and right on topic, hitting at the VLWC and its minions!
Too
darned bad that you and Duane insist on posting those "Pastor Pages"
from Rev. Jeremiah Wrong's newsletter. That racist is one and he's
another associate along with Aryes and Father P. too, typical friends
of BHO. But, those posts are not productive nor useful.
So, I'm
going to look for another conservative blog and wish the HH Townhall
blog the best but doubt your readership will continue to hold up.
Ciao! |
|
"We
have achieved success in Iraq because President Bush has consistently
resisted public pressure to pursue the responsible course of action."
I
guess the far right considers defense cooperation with Iran "success."
And I suppose the "tipping point" is that the Bush administration is
now conceding that they may not get that "security agreement" for which
they were planning. In winger world, down is up, and up is down.
Sentient Americans have been listening to your disingenuous crap for
too long. Get real, the public isn't falling for your shtick any
longer. The wheels are flying of the GOP bus, and the majority of the
radical right is still living in la la land. |
|
Yet, I've never seen the dem's/libs take action to remove them.
But Iraq.... NO!!!
Your point is No point |
|
can't think their way through a complete sentence, much less a complicated thing like winning against al Qaeda.
After all, most Americans believe what the alphabet networks tell them on TV.
I
am convinced that Obama is as dumb as a box of hammers; but he will
likely win because Americans are just too dumb to come in for supper on
their own...
We're going to get the government we deserve.
May God forgive us for what we've done with the blessings we have received.
May God have mercy on us, even though we obviously don't deserve it.
May
it please God we have another opportunity to learn our lesson without
destroying our country, let us repent from our sins, and help us to
start sharing our blessings with the people who need them. |
|
|
Whether
or not the political powers that be have the will to question whether
or not the United States really needs to have troops stationed in 100+
countries, doesn't invalidate the question or my objection to the
policy. |
|
|
to
give up and give the muslim jihadists what they want, for they want to
live in a world without the permissive culture fostered by white
liberals, they want to exterminate you, you think you can talk your way
out it, you cannot and the ONLY thing that stands between these
butchers having their way with you are those of us who see the true
nature of these nuts and KNOW that the only alternative is to fight
them because that is the only thing that they respect; buggsy, you
idiot, those who are willing to fight for your right to be a white
liberal moron should just let them have their way with you, and at the
same time rid the world of the most corrosive ideology it has ever
known, thats exactly what we should do and it wouldn't take them long
as you white liberals could not defend yourselves. |
|
[So i guess we just have to give up and give the muslim jihadists what they want]
That would be an either/or fallacy.
We have more than the two options of: stay in Iraq forever or stop fighting against terrorists altogether.
To
assume that because one objects to the preventative Iraq War, one
therefore must want the United States government to do nothing at all
against Al Qaeda is not a valid conclusion.
|
|
Believe
it or not, The King of Bad Analogies is not a Dem/lib. I'm not sure
what his theory of defense is but it involves not doing anything, ever,
if it costs more than a hundred dollars.
It took the colonists
here at least 13 years to get going on Democracy even though we had
thousands of years of history of it behind us. But, Dread and his ilk
expect the Persians to get it down pat after 5 years or so.
They
also think the Iraquis and Afghanis should have jumped up and did it
all by themselves, you know like us Americans did. Oh, that's right,
the French had a small part. Anyway, like the Jews in the camps, and
the American slaves, the Iraquis should have just thrown off their
oppressors and the terrorists via their own means.
Dread knows
that it is important to save a buck on small things like the future so
we can spend it on important things like Planned Parenthood and Public
Education since those programs work way better than national defense
strategy. |
|
"So i guess we just have to give up and give the muslim jihadists what they want..."
Cottoneyed,
don't you think that after 9/11, we should have taken the fight against
muslin jihadists to Afghanistan, where the enemy is sprouting up and
flourishing as quickly as opium poppies? Just asking. |
|
|
You advocate a dangerous path. What do you think would happen if we unilaterally withdrew all our international bases? |
|
"What do you think would happen if we unilaterally withdrew all our international bases?"
Slippery slope. |
|
|
Wolfy, don't be so coy, please expound. Give some examples of what that means. |
|
"Are you going to close down the Mosques?"
If necessary to preserve the Republic.
"Arrest every imam who wants to destroy Israel and outlaw Christianity?"
If necessary to preserve the Republic.
"You talk about winning the war without discussing the utter durability of the ideological wellspring you have chosen to fight."
They can bleed, they can die, they are neither immortal nor unconquerable.
"How long before you face the fact that "winning" as you call it requires genocide."
Again, whatever is necessary to preserve the Republic, meaning our freedoms and liberty.
"What are you prepared to do, Mister Ness?"
Whatever it takes.
|
|
[I'm not sure what his theory of defense is but it involves not doing anything, ever, if it costs more than a hundred dollars.]
Which again, is a false conclusion.
I
just don't agree with your assessment that invading another country and
engaging in expensive, poorly planned nation building exercises with
minimal oversight of contractors is great for national security.
Nor
do I think it is necessary to have troops stationed in Germany, Japan,
etc. They are our allies, they are capable of fielding their own armed
forces and they are unlikely to revert to Imperialist governments. They
can maintain stability within their own spheres of influence quite well
on their own and foot the bill for doing so.
[Planned Parenthood and Public Education since those programs work way better than national defense strategy.]
I don't want a dime going to Planned Parenthood ever. And in a perfect world, I'd like to see Public Education abolished. |
|
Fortunately,
Obama understands perfectly the effects of Bush's war and the detriment
it has caused this country in a thousand ways. Lying our way into
occupation by force is the ultimate crime. Torturing prisoners while
claiming not to is a crime on many fronts. This administration has been
a failure on too many fronts to name readily, and yet the RW continue
to suggest that what has been done in our name these past 8 years have
been "good". Good for whom? Halliburton, the oil giants, KBR? Yep. The
war profiteers have made out like bandits scoring a huge heist, and you
have helped their cause.
What a group. |
|
Your
comment wasn't quite the slippery slope argument. You can read more
about logical fallacies here:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/index.html#index
But I
don't think anyone is arguing that we should withdraw "ALL our
international bases." But nearly everyone agrees that Iraq was, and
continues to be, a disastrous geopolitical error on the part of the
Bush administration. Why on earth would people vote for a candidate
(McSame) that will continue nearly every aspect of the Bush doctrine?
McCain voted with Bush something like 97% of the time. |
|
We
want our troops near by if need be. It doesn't make sense to have them
docked at Annapolis or stationed at Ft. Riley if we need them "over
there" quickly. That's why we keep them there. Plus, I'm assuming that
it is part of an agreement/treaty as well.
What SHOULD we spend the money on instead? |
|
|
Haven't we been there for years already? |
|
1)
Dread was advocating not having international bases, see his response
above. He thinks other countries should be left to their own devices.
Dangerous and irresponsible to our international interests in my mind.
Some appeal on the fiscal front.
2) Yes, you probably did jump the gun. Thanks for bringing up something completely irrelevant to my question.
3)
I didn't say anything about Iraq, why are you bringing it up? I asked a
specific question which you seemingly wanted to answer, but still
haven't answered.
4) You managed to seque into a second
completely irrelevant point that had nothing to do with my question.
Thanks for the bumpersticker sloganeering. |
|
What
a mindless myrmidon. You keep slamming into the same facts with the
same blathering, brain-dead arguments and are surprised every time by
the fact you ran into them again.
We did not lie our way into
occupation - we moved on the best available information, and after
9/11, we weren't going to wait around to be hit this time.
No prisoners were tortured, at least not by us, at least not by any reasonable standard.
Idiot. |
|
they may be.
Muslim
Jihadist did not existed merely in Afghanistan, the Taliban, part of Al
Qaeda was florishing/trained in Afghanistan and was dealt with. Next
step, fight and destory wherever the terrorists may be; will be the
right place and the right country, before they end up in your country.
Especially
countries that train terrorists groups and supply arms that kill our
soldiers. These countries should be blown to dust. (At least one, to
set an example!)
America's security should trump politics.
We
need to return to the D-Day Resolve, as terrorism and jihadism ideology
is the enemy of mankind, return to the same faith, honor and resolove
of the "Greatest Generation",
to stand up to the evil of hate, and destrtucion ideology, before it is too late.
|
|
Only
evil or stupid (or both) people believe it was a disastrous
geopolitical error. Truth is, we didn't go far enough - we should have
taken out Syria at the same time. I'd much rather be feared than
admired.
If McCain will continue the Bush Doctrine, I will vote for him. Anything less is a betrayal of our country. |
|
[We want our troops near by if need be.]
Why?
We are not Globocop industries requiring a precinct in every corner of
the globe in order to keep the peace. Other nations or alliance, like
the EU, can handle European defense and local conflict resolution. It
is not our job to police the world.
Aside from which, carrier groups are mobile.
[What SHOULD we spend the money on instead?]
I don’t know. 9 trillion in debt or 38 trillion in unfunded liabilities, maybe? Take your pick.
[1)
Dread was advocating not having international bases, see his response
above. He thinks other countries should be left to their own devices.
Dangerous and irresponsible to our international interests in my mind.
Some appeal on the fiscal front.]
Yes, I am. But as I said
above, I am willing to settle for a sufficient debate on the question
of whether or not we need all those bases.
And I don’t
necessarily see the danger to our interests. Trade would continue, our
troops would be closer to home to provide for national defense, and we
would still have the world’s most advanced army.
|
|
|
Bush's
primary error with Iraq was not implementing the surge strategery from
day one as the current situation evidences. He was lowballing the
response based on (bad) advice from Rumsfeld, which was seen as
weakness so AQI (Petraus' term) took advantage. American withdrawl from
the region as the left desires (snce America = imperialism) would
descend the region back into chaos and murder as the pre-surge
condition evidences. How long will it take to create stability? Ask the
enemy. They won't tell you (nor Obama at one of his proposed Oval
Office afternoon teas) the truth. The truth is "probably forever" to
maintain vigilance against the horrific evil we've seen from the
Islamofascists the past few years. I would rather see our troops in the
mideast, just like in Europe, Japan, and elsewhere for the long run
than see another Eric Berg having his head sawed off amid a gurgling
scream that eventually stopped on internet video. That's the kind of
people the Left advocates we leave the mideast in the hands of. How
that's a compassionate policy escapes me. Perhaps you can explain it. |
|
|
guarantees
that when the world is at war, this country will have oil to fight it
and cannot be held hostage because of it, Bush/Cheney saw a opportunity
to achieve this security and they took it and when that war starts they
will be look on as visionaries, hardly a "geopolitical error". |
|
|
You
know the money will never be used appropriately. I'd rather set up a
friendly democracy in the ME. It will be nice to have another vacation
spot. |
|
[You
know the money will never be used appropriately. I'd rather set up a
friendly democracy in the ME. It will be nice to have another vacation
spot.]
Hope you still feel that way when the dollars in your wallet are worth less than the dinars over there.
[Our
presence in Iraq, guarantees that when the world is at war, this
country will have oil to fight it and cannot be held hostage because of
it, Bush/Cheney saw a opportunity to achieve this security and they
took it and when that war starts they will be look on as visionaries,
hardly a "geopolitical error".]
One, if this was the motivation, they should have said so.
Two,
we could probably have converted the entire nation to nuclear, funded
solar research, and subsidized hybrid cars for the amount of money this
adventure will cost in the long run. |
|
The
argument for me comes down to prevention vs. cure. Having forces in a
particular region can prevent the outbreak of hostilities. Regional
stability is the basis of trade, economic development and general
prosperity, which is what we want. So to Scarlet's point, it is in our
interest to keep bases where we have economic concerns and/or may need
to deploy quickly (think Korea, Taiwan and Middle East).
On the
other hand, if we only react to conflict, we are subject to the whims
of others (think Kuwait, Korea and Yugoslavia). Also, deployment
requires treaty agreements, which we may or may not have at that
particular moment with the country in question (think Guantanamo/Cuba,
Panama and the ever present UN).
We would have to completely
restructure our military to be home based and on carrier groups. That
would probably require additional carrier groups/transports to be
effective. The financial cost for that may or may not be offset by home
basing. I'm not versed enough on military matters to know the efficacy
of this course, but I can see its appeal.
|
|
[On
the other hand, if we only react to conflict, we are subject to the
whims of others (think Kuwait, Korea and Yugoslavia). Also, deployment
requires treaty agreements, which we may or may not have at that
particular moment with the country in question (think Guantanamo/Cuba,
Panama and the ever present UN).]
Which again, is a plus in my
book, as it's one more layer of hassle we have to go through before we
commit troops to a foreign conflict.
[That would probably require additional carrier groups/transports to be effective.]
I
don't think we will need anymore necessarily. We went from peacetime to
full mobilization of our nation and fought two wars simultaneously back
in the day and won. |
|
"Bush's primary error with Iraq was not implementing the surge strategery from day one as the current situation evidences."
You
all will never git it will you? Bush's primary error was leading this
country to war under false pretense. Bush's primary error was massaging
the intelligence to fit his jingoistic agenda. Bush's other primary
error was thinking that when America finally caught on his sham, they
would be all forgiving for the over 4,000 dead, disgraceful medical
care for thousands of injured soldiers a la Walter Reed Army Medical
Center, and a big rubber stamp veto from him and McCain on a new GI
Bill. And why is the deafening silence with regard to the newfound
Iran/Iraq alliance in defense in recent days??? Well it just doesn't
fit the right wing cheerleading squad meme.
The radical right just keeps their fingers plugged firmly into their ears la, la, la, la, la, la... I can't hear you! |
|
We disagree on your first point, see below why.
"I
don't think we will need anymore necessarily. We went from peacetime to
full mobilization of our nation and fought two wars simultaneously back
in the day and won."
Apples and Oranges. In today's world we are
talking about weeks or even days to mount an adequate response to
regional conflicts. In Korea it would be hours. Force projection is
more than the troops, it is the entire logistics train. This is one of
the big arguments for keeping the bases, as they provide much of the
local infrastructure needed by our modern military that carrier groups
simply cannot provide.
Transort is a huge problem for all branches of our military. I encourage you to read up on this well known issue. |
|
Point that establishing and ferrying supplies is a challenge, but it's not an insurmountable one.
And
again, it is another challenge that would help ensure that we are only
going to butt into regional conflicts that do not involve us when it is
absolutely necessary to do so. |
|
You
seem to be lumping me in with a cheerleading squad for the Bush Admin.
Far from it. I'm glad he finally wised up with the surge, but it came
far too late and was implemented on the verge of utter disaster. BTW,
"The Bush Lied, People Died" refrain is getting a bit old, isn't there
some new soundbite argument available by now?
The Left seems
to keep their fingers in their ears and screams "There's no such thing
as evil." or multiple renditions of "Kumbaya." How many bloody,
headless stumps bleeding out on the floor in front of silver-eyed men
will it take before the Left acknowledges men such as Zarqawi, bin
Laden, et.al need to be dead and buried (or left for the vultures)
versus tried and convicted? The fact that AQI and an AQ in general
defeat is the developing situation is another point where Left fingers
stay firmly implanted in ears. Is it still a dangerous situation?
Absolutely. Could it revert back to chaos, insanity, global terrorism?
Absolutely, the evidence is there, which is why I would vote for a man
who recognizes the same versus a starry-eyed, smooth talking greenhorn
who has no idea what he's saying hence the recent case of althete's
tongue with regard to Jerusalem. The difference between the Left and me
is I'm not willing to accept the possibility of a resurgent
Islamofacsism out of concern for the safety of me and mine - even you
and yours. |
|
I
wonder what conservatives mean when they talk about the "Left?" The
"Left" won World War II; the "Left" got us out of Vietnam, a disastrous
war that cost 50,000 American lives and demonstrated the tragic
consequences of pre-emptive attack. Now the "Left" may rescue us from
the sad, deadly misadventure in Iraq.
Jihad is a religious
term for struggle, to improve muslim society. Terrorist acts have been
part of Jihad's worst manifestation. Those who profess it believe they
are part of a holy war, that God is on their side. But is God part of
the struggle? What if there is no God? |
|
Not that you will get it, but your steam of consciousness exhibits your unconscious incompetence.
|
|
|
Prove
it, dufus. The unconscious ain't about competence, it's about the
little salty "man" who in dreams comes forward and says, Salty, my boy,
I don't care what you want. I hate Alaska. Let's go to Vegas, win big.
Then I'll do EXACTLY what we want. |
|
As
Thomas P.M. ("Perpetual Militarism") Barnett, one of the architects of
the Neocon Wars, has said, "Let me be very clear about this: The boys
are never coming home." How do we "win", when, as Doug Feith admitted
to Hugh in an April 23 intereview: "Yeah, it was something like 75% of
the people who were early on identified as the top leadership of al
Qaeda were then captured or killed. Now of course, in the meantime,
they’re generating more people as you and I have discussed. This is a
dynamic situation." Heh, "dynamic" indeed. And it's not only leadership
that auto-generates as a result of our mindless policies in the Middle
East, but arguably millions of radicalized Muslims have or will become
willing followers. Combine that with the fact the the West, America
included, has lost the will to keep potential jihadists from setting up
outposts in its midst, then the question of what "winning" really means
becomes even more unanswerable.
Morons. Your "solution" is
merely to bomb the Middle East into submission, with, as the League of
the South's Mike Tuggle puts it, "Israel serving as the base camp of
Western domination in that unfortunate, long-suffering region." Then,
when someone comes bearing common sense and realism, you brand him a
"kook" or a "nativist":
http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=9672
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/006854.html
Maybe the so-called "center right" deads to get off dead center and recover its principles.
Not to mention its sanity. |
|
|
|
Over
3,000 Americans were killed back in 2001 before we had troops in Iraq,
killed Zarqawi, chased the Taliban up into the hills, etc, etc.
Remember? Guess not.
Some of them were no doubt decapitated when
the towers came crashing down on their heads. I know that wasn't
video-taped to satisfy the macabre tastes of certain individuals
(you?). Regardless, that was still a cruel death I wouldn't wish upon
certain numbskulls perusing this site who will remain nameless but know
who they are. |
|
working for ya, Laddy Buck?
You
your sorry a** ilk are utterly invested in American Defeat...and, it
ain't coming about. Your scum sucking butchers have died by the
thousands and thousands and thousands and Iraq is becoming a Victory
for Freedom. Dissappointing, I know. But, it just makes my day. |
|
|
was exactly what we saved the Iraqis from, Nitwit. |
|
(Why
is it liberal traitors like Brob feel they have to resort to profanity
to make points? Because they equate emotionalism with reality - "If I
scream loud enough and make enough of a scene, I'll get my way".
Ten-year-old potty-mouthed brats, all of them.)
And I said
traitors intentionally. I know more than one military man and woman
stationed overseas who cannot wait to rotate back once the job over
there is done and complete the work of fighting all enemies foreign AND
domestic, Posse Comitatus be damned, and hunt down the Copperheads in
our midst.
Traitors, be afraid. Be very afraid. |
|
|
Well
stated...........well, except for one thing. Bjob is also a
RACE-BAITER. Has been called on it several times. She has never once
apologized, shown any remorse for acting as such, and, is actually
quite proud od it. |
|
"I know more than one military man and woman stationed overseas who cannot wait to... hunt down the Copperheads in our midst."
Oh,
I see. Profanity is bad. But threats are okay. You guys are hoot and a
holler. All I can say is, "conservatives" have rightly earned every bit
of their minority status to this point. Prepare yourselves for even
greater irrelevance in the months to come. Love and kisses. |
|
dudley writes: Tuesday, June, 10, 2008 5:15 PM
Who wins?
I
wonder what conservatives mean when they talk about the "Left?" The
"Left" won World War II; the "Left" got us out of Vietnam, a disastrous
war that cost 50,000 American lives and demonstrated the tragic
consequences of pre-emptive attack. Now the "Left" may rescue us from
the sad, deadly misadventure in Iraq.
Jihad is a religious term
for struggle, to improve muslim society. Terrorist acts have been part
of Jihad's worst manifestation. Those who profess it believe they are
part of a holy war, that God is on their side. But is God part of the
struggle? What if there is no God?
Arch says"
There you
go again Dudley, exposing your libtard disease for all to read. No
better example of brain malfunction can be attained at this forum. Not
only do you champion leftism and the slavery of God's created people,
but you question your own existence by the simple ignorant question of
" What if there is no God" Then you can surely give us the run down of
how we all got into existence without a Creator, Right? My Lord you are
simple! |
|
These
aren't threats. These are blood-oath promises. If I were a Copperhead
of any prominence (and that included several elected officials), I
would put my affairs in order in a hurry. And I would be in NO hurry to
"bring our troops home."
You don't allow cancer to grow - you
cut it out before it kills you. There is a cancer growing in this
country, and it is called Marxist leftism, which has found a willing
home in the Democratic Party during the 60's and and has been nurtured
there, in the media and in academia ever since. It is reaching its
culmination in the Obama campaign. Pray to God they are defeated by the
ballot, which will make the bullet unnecessary. |
|
Pray to God they are defeated by the ballot, which will make the bullet unnecessary.
Arch says
The
bullet will be necessary for the libtard mentality we experience now.
Should we be chastined with an Obammy presidency with a libtard
congress, the bullets will fly shortly as the survival of the fittest
will prevail. The morons would have us disrobe in front of rapists. |
|
I
am very, very sane. I have never seen things more clearly than I do
right now. The time for compromising with evil is over. It is time to
destroy it, before it destroys me, my family and our liberty. The GOP
is losing because they have compromised their principles, trying to
gain the approval of the left, trying to be DEM-lite. If the GOP had
stuck to conservative principles, best expounded by Ronald Wilson
Reagan, it would have today an insurmountable majority in all
significant circles of power. That is the one thing for which I have
difficulty forgiving either Bush 41 or Bush 43: rather than build on
the Reagan legacy, they squandered it.
There are some things
worth fighting for, dying for and, yes, killing for. It is better for
one man to die than for a whole nation to perish. |
|
Akennas writes: Wednesday, June, 11, 2008 2:17 AM
Oh no, wolfy...
I
am very, very sane. I have never seen things more clearly than I do
right now. The time for compromising with evil is over. It is time to
destroy it, before it destroys me, my family and our liberty. The GOP
is losing because they have compromised their principles, trying to
gain the approval of the left, trying to be DEM-lite. If the GOP had
stuck to conservative principles, best expounded by Ronald Wilson
Reagan, it would have today an insurmountable majority in all
significant circles of power. That is the one thing for which I have
difficulty forgiving either Bush 41 or Bush 43: rather than build on
the Reagan legacy, they squandered it.
There are some things
worth fighting for, dying for and, yes, killing for. It is better for
one man to die than for a whole nation to perish. |
|
What
is wrong with the two of you? Your words are frightening, and seem as
though they would be attributable to a Saddam Hussein, Fidel Castro,
etc. - "either agree with me or we'll kill you".
I will fight to
the death for democracy, conservative principles and the values on
which this great country was founded, but there is a process that this
can, and will, work.
I will never agree with anyone like wolfy on almost anything political, but you guys do look like lunatics. |
|
This
entire GOP campaign has been nutty from the beginning. There was never
an opening for reasonable people to participate in rational discussion
because RINOs were so determined to focus only on "electibility". The
only reason the discussion has gotten even more shrill is because the
two candidates are so alike that the GOP has resorted to insanely
bizarre fear-mongering and subliminal race-baiting. If you really want
to see what it looks like from the outside, read Camille Paglia's most
recent column;
http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2008/06/11/hillary/
Yes,
I understand that she is a lesbian and liberal, but she is a rational
and disciplined thinker. To that tantalizing "Democratic center" that
the McCain camp so covets, the GOP looks no different than the loopy
left. This would change fast if the GOP were to somehow shift gears and
find a way to dump McCain and nominate a Republican. If there are no
more bona fide Republicans left, then nominate a conservative. |
|
|
We will at some point resort to nominating a conservative. |
|
|
Seems several folks here--Left & Right--need to take a cold water swim. Guys, chill. |
|
"You
your sorry a** ilk are utterly invested in American Defeat...and, it
ain't coming about. Your scum sucking butchers have died by the
thousands and thousands and thousands and Iraq is becoming a Victory
for Freedom. Dissappointing, I know. But, it just makes my day."
All he's capable of, apparently.
The quality of discussion here has really gone down the tubes of late. |
|
""You your sorry a** ilk are utterly invested in American Defeat..."
The
clown who wrote the above is a "dittohead". That explains his
incoherence and total inability to use facts, logic and critical
thinking skills.
You mentioned Barnett above. I watched a
recording of a power point presentation he gave a while back before a
group of officers. Barnett admitted due to the trade imbalance and the
federal deficit that the one thing the US would have to provide to
continue the speading spree would be to provide troops for the rest of
the globe. Barnett is a real lunatic. No wonder Hewitt likes him so
much. |
|
"What
is wrong with the two of you? Your words are frightening, and seem as
though they would be attributable to a Saddam Hussein, Fidel Castro,
etc. - 'either agree with me or we'll kill you'."
I never said
anything remotely close to that. What I did say is I and many others
refuse to be the frog in the slowly warming pot. I refuse to further
compromise with evil. And Marxist radicals embrace evil. My words could
have been written by Patrick Henry or Thomas Paine. Are they
frightening to you as well?
"I will fight to the death for
democracy, conservative principles and the values on which this great
country was founded, but there is a process that this can, and will,
work."
I wholeheartedly agree with that statement - up to the
caveat following the comma. What you wrote then could have been spoken
by reasonable people in Russia in 1917, or Germany in 1932. What do you
do when the reins of power are handed to radicals? What CAN you do at
that point? Are you willing then to "fight to the death?" Really? HOW
do you go about doing that when you've already given up power?
"I will never agree with anyone like wolfy on almost anything political, but you guys do look like lunatics."
Nicely
dismissive. One man's lunatic is another man's clear-headed visionary.
Too many people are complacent, lukewarm and ennervated. I myself have
been for way too long. This conservative has decided to make a stand.
Too many conservatives won't. |
|
|
Paulbot
head above ground, Lil' Guy! Counciling your ilk on manners, Pauley
Boy? Seems like old times. Gives me the warm fuzzies. |
|
MaineConservative writes: Wednesday, June, 11, 2008 10:12 AM
arch and Akennas
What
is wrong with the two of you? Your words are frightening, and seem as
though they would be attributable to a Saddam Hussein, Fidel Castro,
etc. - "either agree with me or we'll kill you".
I will fight to
the death for democracy, conservative principles and the values on
which this great country was founded, but there is a process that this
can, and will, work.
I will never agree with anyone like wolfy on almost anything political, but you guys do look like lunatics.
Oh
my God! You have misinterpreted us both MaineConservative. I would
never insinuate the idea you got from my post. I like you would fight
for the freedoms and liberty of this nation to the death in a defensive
way only. Bullets and bombs are for the enemies who would threaten them. |
|
"You
mentioned Barnett above. I watched a recording of a power point
presentation he gave a while back before a group of officers. Barnett
admitted due to the trade imbalance and the federal deficit that the
one thing the US would have to provide to continue the speading spree
would be to provide troops for the rest of the globe. Barnett is a real
lunatic. No wonder Hewitt likes him so much."
Yep, absolutely a
lunatic. I've seen that presentation. And Barnett says essentially the
same thing in the 8-part interview he gave Hewitt back in early 2007.
The transcripts of that interview are still available here. |
|
What
Arthur Herman says about reconciliation of Shia and Sunni is over
optimistic. The Sunnis are hell bent on taking back Iraq from the
Shiites. They do not accept Iraq's right to exist as a Shia controlled
state. The Sunnis joined with al Qaida to defeat the Shia and drive out
the US. When al Qaiad became a greater threat the Sunnis joined with US
forces to defeat them. This has done nothing to soften Sunni animosity
toward the Shia and hatred of the Maliki gov't, whatever its successes
in fighting the Mahdi Army.
The Sunnis are no more reconciled to
Shia rule today than they were in 2005. If the Iraq government were to
meet all of its benchmarks tomorrow, including passage of the Oil Law,
it would mean nothing to the implacable Sunnis. And what goes for
Iraq's Sunni Arabs is equally true of the entire Arab Sunni world.
Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt refuse to open embassies in Iraq because
they want the country to return to the status quo ante of Sunni
rule-and will work for that end against US interests.
Meanwhile,
as we pursue the mirage of nation building in Iraq nuclear Iran is
replacing Saudi Arabia as the regional hegemon while turning Iraq into
an economic client state. We are pursuing an Iraq First policy in an
Iran first region, where Iran is emerging as the dominant regional
power-a policy that is lagging behind reality and is dangerously,
dangerously obsolete.
Until we move to an Iran First policy in
the region understanding that a nuclear armed Iran is more dangerous to
US and regional security than a sectarian war in a broken impotent Iraq
the evil power of Iran will continue to grow drawing the region closer
to the abyss of nuclear war.
OUT OF IRAQ AND INTO IRAN!
There is no better way.
|
|
As
the late Wm. Odom told Hugh, Iran's going to get the bomb, whether or
not we embark on your futile endeavor. We may slow down the
acquisition, but they'll get it regardless. It's only a matter of time.
This fellow agrees: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/mar/19/iranmu sthavethebomb1
The
"better way" is to forsake this politically and economically disastrous
quest to be the world's hegemon before it's too late. Huntington is
right.
|
|
William
Odam was a fool who stupidly believed that terrorist Iran-the killers
who invented suicide martyrdom-is a status quo power that wants the
bomb for deterrence. He was in the same league as Neville Chamberlain
who completely misread Hitler and mistook him for a conventional
statesman. Iran is a jihadist state and a nuclear Iran means nuclear
jihad. Every leader in the Middle East knows this regime, knows what it
seeks and knows the danger that they are in, even if you don't, Cicero.
Read my essay The Rise of Nuclear Iran and educate yourself into the
terrifying reality of this sick, evil, twisted regime.
This
nation will pay for the folly of its nation building project in Iraq, a
completely futile enterprise. The success of the surge is a mirage,
it's the lull before the cosmic storm. If Bush leaves office with the
mullahs still in power it is likely he will end up the sorriest ex
president in history.
|
|
"Ry-Ry01...SO Good To See Your Tiny
Paulbot
head above ground, Lil' Guy! Counciling your ilk on manners, Pauley
Boy? Seems like old times. Gives me the warm fuzzies.
Yep, Scum, you prove my point above with this. You really are retarded.
On
a sidenote there is one thing filled with sweet irony, the idea of a
president whose middle name is Hussein. After all the years of whining
and b*tching about Saddam you possibly get stuck with a president with
Hussein in his name. That's poetic justice delivered to stupid,
arrogant neocons.
Knowing that will have the same effect as someone dragging a piece of chalk across the blackboard with you fools.
|
|
|
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Obama and the Don't Drill Democrats
The Latest on TownHall.com
Standard Blogads Below - Bulwark Insurance Services, Inc.
 For a term life quote call 800-400-9434.
Be sure and tell them that Hugh Hewitt sent you.
|
|
|
|
|