Gunboards Forums banner

1 - 20 of 103 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,812 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Democrats claim Gen. David Petraeus' report to Congress on the surge was a put-up job with a pre-ordained conclusion. As if their response wasn't.

Democrats yearn for America to be defeated on the battlefield and oppose any use of the military -- except when they can find individual malcontents in the military willing to denounce the war and call for a humiliating retreat.

It's been the same naysaying from these people since before we even invaded Iraq -- despite the fact that their representatives in Congress voted in favor of that war.

Mark Bowden, author of "Black Hawk Down," warned Americans in the Aug. 30, 2002, Los Angeles Times of 60,000 to 100,000 dead American troops if we invaded Iraq -- comparing an Iraq war to Vietnam and a Russian battle in Chechnya. He said Iraqis would fight the Americans "tenaciously" and raised the prospect of Saddam using weapons of mass destruction against our troops, an attack on Israel "and possibly in the United States."

On Sept. 14, 2002, The New York Times' Frank Rich warned of another al-Qaida attack in the U.S. if we invaded Iraq, noting that since "major al-Qaida attacks are planned well in advance and have historically been separated by intervals of 12 to 24 months, we will find out how much we've been distracted soon enough."

This week makes it six years since a major al-Qaida attack. I guess we weren't distracted. But it looks like al-Qaida has been.

Weeks before the invasion, in March 2003, the Times' Nicholas Kristof warned in a couple of columns that if we invaded Iraq, "the Turks, Kurds, Iraqis and Americans will all end up fighting over the oil fields of Kirkuk or Mosul." He said: "The world has turned its back on the Kurds more times than I can count, and there are signs that we're planning to betray them again." He announced that "the United States is perceived as the world's newest Libya."

The day after we invaded, Kristof cited a Muslim scholar for the proposition that if Iraqis felt defeated, they would embrace Islamic fundamentalism.

We took Baghdad in about 17 days flat with amazingly few casualties. There were no al-Qaida attacks in America, no attacks on Israel, no invasion by Turkey, no attacks on our troops with chemical weapons, no ayatollahs running Iraq. We didn't turn our back on the Kurds. There were certainly not 100,000 dead American troops.

But liberals soon began raising yet more pointless quibbles. For most of 2003, they said the war was a failure because we hadn't captured Saddam Hussein. Then we captured Saddam, and Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean complained that "the capture of Saddam has not made America safer." (On the other hand, Howard Dean's failure to be elected president definitely made America safer.)

Next, liberals said the war was a failure because we hadn't captured Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Then we killed al-Zarqawi and a half-dozen of his aides in an air raid. Then they said the war was a failure because ... you get the picture.

The Democrats' current talking point is that "there can be no military solution in Iraq without a political solution." But back when we were imposing a political solution, Democrats' talking point was that there could be no political solution without a military solution.

They said the first Iraqi election, scheduled for January 2005, wouldn't happen because there was no "security."

Noted Middle East peace and security expert Jimmy Carter told NBC's "Today" show in September 2004 that he was confident the elections would not take place. "I personally do not believe they're going to be ready for the election in January ... because there's no security there," he said.

At the first presidential debate in September 2004, Sen. John Kerry used his closing statement to criticize the scheduled Iraqi elections saying: "They can't have an election right now. The president's not getting the job done."

About the same time, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan said he doubted there would be elections in January, saying, "You cannot have credible elections if the security conditions continue as they are now" -- although he may have been referring here to a possible vote of the U.N. Security Council.

In October 2004, Nicholas Lemann wrote in The New Yorker that "it may not be safe enough there for the scheduled elections to be held in January."

Days before the first election in Iraq in January 2005, The New York Times began an article on the election this way:

"Hejaz Hazim, a computer engineer who could not find a job in computers and now cleans clothes, slammed his iron into a dress shirt the other day and let off a burst of steam about the coming election.

"'This election is bogus,' Mr. Hazim said. 'There is no drinking water in this city. There is no security. Why should I vote?'"

If there's a more artful articulation of the time-honored linkage between drinking water and voting, I have yet to hear it.

And then, as scheduled, in January 2005, millions of citizens in a country that has never had a free election risked their lives to cast ballots in a free democratic election. They've voted twice more since then.

Now our forces are killing lots of al-Qaida jihadists, preventing another terrorist attack on U.S. soil, and giving democracy in Iraq a chance -- and Democrats say we are "losing" this war. I think that's a direct quote from their leader in the Senate, Harry Reid, but it may have been the Osama bin Laden tape released this week. I always get those two confused.

OK, they knew what Petraeus was going to say. But we knew what the Democrats were going to say. If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid.


Ann Coulter.
 

·
Diamond with Oak Clusters Bullet Member
Joined
·
64,622 Posts
I'll be generous and say they are stupid.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,080 Posts
They are not stupid at all.

In fact, all other political parties could learn a thing or two from the LEFTIST Dems in regards to PR, political opportunities, self-promotion, and public speaking.

In all other areas the LEFTIST Dems fall short because they are absolutely and completely SELF SERVING.

Any completely self serving politician is a traitor to anything and anyone but the self.

Look at all of the wonderful things that have happened in the house and senate since the last election.

One DOA anti war bill after another and almost nothing for the constituents that they are supposed to represent, except the promise to raise taxes and minimum wage.

If they don't wise up and start doing something worth while soon we can look forward to no balance at all in the house or senate in the not so distant future.

They started on a "Hate Bush at all cost" campaign since the beginning.

This morphed into a "Loose the war and create Vietnam II at all costs" campaign.

They have stuck by it because in some ways it is effective, and it is all they have to work with.

They are willing to do it to the people they are supposed to represent for the sake of furthering their own political agenda.

Everything they have got depends on failure.

Take notice and you will see many changing their game plan over the next year as they realize that the people who vote for them are not happy with the work they have done and will not be voting for them again unless there is a dramatic change in their own self defeating policies.

Some day they may even wise up and realize they are not running against President Bush in the next election.
 

·
Silver Bullet member
Joined
·
36,341 Posts
The Democrats: Politics first, last and always. Patriotism? What's that?

As for the detractors of General Petraeus:

"It appears we have appointed our worst generals to command forces, and our most gifted and brilliant to edit newspapers. In fact, I discovered by reading newspapers that these editor/geniuses plainly saw all my strategic defects from the start, yet failed to inform me until it was too late. Accordingly, I am readily willing to yield my command to these obviously superior intellects, and I will, in turn, do my best for the cause by writing editorials — after the fact."

General Robert E. Lee - 1863, from "Personal Reminiscences, Anecdotes, and Letters to Gen. Robert E. Lee," as presented by B.H. Hill.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,938 Posts
More Stupid In Some States

At the federal level, they pretty well have to pander to the East Coast and West Coast states that have a high number of electoral votes, with neither of those areas being well known for their common sense politicians.

In the midwest, democrats here tend to be of the type we saw when Truman was President, with our Democrat governor here being a member of both the NRA and Oklahoma Rifle Association, and our state getting a D- (YES!) from the Brady Bunch.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,503 Posts
This country is $9,000,000,000,000 in debt. The cost of the Iraq war is almost $1 Trillion. We can't afford it anymore, not in human lives or borrowed dollars from China.

Its easy for the turkeyhawks to claim that we should stay when its not them that are fighting.

We have painted the biggest recruiting poster in the world for AQ, by invading Iraq, with the blood of our soldiers.

We had no justification in going in. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, as George Bush himself has said. This pre-emptive invasion goes against conservative philosophy in every way shape and form.

Remember Bosnia folks? 80% of the Republicans in Congress were against our intervention their.


“You can support the troops but not the president.”–Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

“Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?”–Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99

“[The] President . . . is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation’s armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy.”–Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)”

American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy.”–Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

“If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy.”
–Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W Bush

“I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning . . I didn’t think we had done enough in the diplomatic area.”–Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

“I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our over-extended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today”–Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

“Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is.”– Governor George W. Bush (R)-TX
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,812 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
In order to win they must mobilize their left-wing Daily Kos kook base to get out and vote inspite of their wishy-washy anti-war record(s). And they absolutly must steal away enough wobbly republican voters by posing as "conservatives". Witness their half-hearted attempt to woo evangelicals by posing as "christians". For the Democrats it's an uphill battle, even with the MSM securely in their camp and pimping for them constantly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,060 Posts
in response to EricOKC

^Yup. You gotta love a state where Democrats are actually Pro-RKBA. My feelings concerning Gov. Henry notwithstanding, it's not actually that bad. My beef is with the radical Liberals out there that want to "change" things. It's not the laws that need changing, people, it's the folks UNDER that law that need to change.

I learned early in gradeschool that if you punish EVERYONE unilaterally regardless of guilt for the stupid acts of a minority group, you will NOT curb the fools' activities and you WILL curb the freedoms of those not causing trouble. However, I guess that means that 4th-graders are actually smarter than the average Liberal politician.

My vote goes to stupid traitors. ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,080 Posts
At the federal level, they pretty well have to pander to the East Coast and West Coast states that have a high number of electoral votes, with neither of those areas being well known for their common sense politicians.

In the midwest, democrats here tend to be of the type we saw when Truman was President, with our Democrat governor here being a member of both the NRA and Oklahoma Rifle Association, and our state getting a D- (YES!) from the Brady Bunch.
This is a fine demonstration of the difference between a REAL DEMOCRAT and the majority of LEFTISTS.

A real democrat will support the state first and politics second.

A leftist is all politics and self indulgence all of the time.
 

·
Gold Bullet Member and Noted Curmudgeon
Joined
·
95,483 Posts
Some are stupid. Some are traitorous. Some are merely misguided and credulous. And some (a few, I can name some of them) are actually bright and principled and good folks.

But most are either dumb as a stump or traitorous.
 

·
Silver Bullet member
Joined
·
12,929 Posts
i agree with clyde, BOTH, but i think mostly stupid.... like the hollywoods, they do a lot of talking but they ain't leaving. what gets me, with bin laden calling for hordes of muslims to martye, thinking the only way is the muslam way..... kill or convert..... what does it take to wake some of the U.S. citizens up. talking about stupid.
 

·
Silver Bullet member
Joined
·
1,054 Posts
In or Out It's not that simple

I am writing with Glenn Beck on TV to my right. Now we are suppose to have armed police in each and every school so as to prevent a terror attack on our children.

Dem's say we need to get out of Iraq so this will stop, and Al Qu. will go away.

Rep's say that we need to stay destroy all the terrorist keeping the fight over there away from the USA (not all Republicans say this look at my Sen from Maine Snow and Collins they are Dems in all but name)

If only it were that simple. Ask why do the people of the world "hate" us so much? Well we don't keep our promises, we have way too much (in thier opinion), we use way too much (ibid), and basicly many are just plain Jealous of what we hard working people anywhere in the world have worked for. It's not just a problem for the USA. Just look at France and England and the problems of the last year or so

Years ago I was taught why a poor peasant who lived in a poor country would choose Communism over Democracy. Having nothing to show for day after day of hard work, it looks great if everyone has equal parts! But here is the catch, they were not told of those who are not happy unless they have more than they do. You have to be blind not to see this attitude in Iraq.

When the US entered Iraq, we told the people there that we would kick out the evil rotten garbage and sit them up with jobs, food, a government and everything else that would be needed for a happy and safe life. But what do they hear from our politicians now, "we need to leave", NOW. Well I guess we haven't been paid yet so why not quite, just like Vietnam, Samolia, and a cast of other places.

Well let us look at things like a Pro Economist might and ask one simple question about the future.....What happens when we leave without finishing the job we started?

1) Oil surges to more than over 125.00 a barrel (that is if we can
get it out of the Persian Gulf

2) Iran takes over the richest part of the world

3) More "illegal immigration" - not farm workers but rather terrorist
as if they are not already "leaking" in

3) 9/11 after 9/11 attacks occur over and over again across our nation
and other locations across the world

4) And never will anyone in the world belief us again in other words it
would be like saying "the checks in the mail"

These are just a few of my rants after little sleep for a few days

thanks
rick
 

·
Silver Bullet member
Joined
·
12,929 Posts
greyhound, you are correct, we don't keep our promises..... starting with the treaties in the 1800's. most of our enemies, sadam, osama, and scores of others, were our allies at one time, then we decide to hunt them down, it's not really them changing, it's what we want them to do that changes. my motto is..... " we cannot be world police". we have enough problems here at home to work on. also, let's stop helping every country/nation/ poduck gov't for ten years, finacially and militarily, then when we do, it just MAY be appreciated. let 'em starve, die of disease or kill themselves if need be.... not really.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,080 Posts
Apparently everyone skipped over my post...
Your cut and paste post wasn't worth reading in it's entirety and judging by the length and amount of serious errors in it; you are not worth educating and have nothing to offer to the conversation.

You would be much happier re-posting your cut and paste material where people are happy to read the same old dis-proven crap over and over again

JMHO.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,080 Posts
I am writing with Glenn Beck on TV to my right. Now we are suppose to have armed police in each and every school so as to prevent a terror attack on our children.

Dem's say we need to get out of Iraq so this will stop, and Al Qu. will go away.

Rep's say that we need to stay destroy all the terrorist keeping the fight over there away from the USA (not all Republicans say this look at my Sen from Maine Snow and Collins they are Dems in all but name)

If only it were that simple. Ask why do the people of the world "hate" us so much? Well we don't keep our promises, we have way too much (in thier opinion), we use way too much (ibid), and basicly many are just plain Jealous of what we hard working people anywhere in the world have worked for. It's not just a problem for the USA. Just look at France and England and the problems of the last year or so

Years ago I was taught why a poor peasant who lived in a poor country would choose Communism over Democracy. Having nothing to show for day after day of hard work, it looks great if everyone has equal parts! But here is the catch, they were not told of those who are not happy unless they have more than they do. You have to be blind not to see this attitude in Iraq.

When the US entered Iraq, we told the people there that we would kick out the evil rotten garbage and sit them up with jobs, food, a government and everything else that would be needed for a happy and safe life. But what do they hear from our politicians now, "we need to leave", NOW. Well I guess we haven't been paid yet so why not quite, just like Vietnam, Samolia, and a cast of other places.

Well let us look at things like a Pro Economist might and ask one simple question about the future.....What happens when we leave without finishing the job we started?

1) Oil surges to more than over 125.00 a barrel (that is if we can
get it out of the Persian Gulf

2) Iran takes over the richest part of the world

3) More "illegal immigration" - not farm workers but rather terrorist
as if they are not already "leaking" in

3) 9/11 after 9/11 attacks occur over and over again across our nation
and other locations across the world

4) And never will anyone in the world belief us again in other words it
would be like saying "the checks in the mail"

These are just a few of my rants after little sleep for a few days

thanks
rick

Rick,

I appreciate the way that you wrote your own thoughts and feeling on the subject.
I may not agree with everything you wrote, but you did write it well.

I think that having an armed officer in every school (of sufficient size or need) is a good idea. Not so much because of a possible terrorist attack, but because of the other crazy people who are attracted to schools these days.

There was a good article in this past months American Legion magazine on the state of public school education and the teachers that teach it.

You should look it up and read that article.

As far as communism goes... the peasants never had a choice in the matter.

An angry minority infiltrates the military and government and gathers numbers while trying to further propagate hate and discontent.

That minority finds useful idiots to fight the visible battles (Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, Jane Fonda, et. all) all the while working to undermine the political system and process.

In the Russian experience, they used the famine and terrible conditions that followed WWI and offered a change.

Many useful idiots died in post revolution coups leaving the core of the group with all of the power.

In communism and Socialism (the eventual result of Communism) everyone who is not "someone" is poor and lives in a substandard condition where enterprise and property ownership is strongly discouraged.
If you save your money and buy a vehicle or a piece of farm equipment you could loose that piece of equipment at the whim of any local level politician.
You learn to be hungry and you learn to follow the mob without sticking out and being noticed.
We would all be killed and our families too if any of us spoke out about the government, as we often do here.

The power of fear kept Russia together from the revolution through the cold war.


I agree with you 100% in regards to the lack of stability in U.S. international relationships.

I believe this instability exists and has existed because too many of the U.S. decisions are based on the ever changing needs of U.S. Businesses.

(This fact is a big part of Marine Corps history.)

Our country lost it's way during the American Civil War (or war for Southern Independence if you prefer.)

That was the beginning of the end of the Jeffersonian ideal that much of this country was based on.

Powers and Industry won control of our government and future.

Since the post civil war era we have been at war with small countries all over the globe to control trade issues and piracy.

Some of our biggest issues have always been self created.

This remains true today.

Although our government isn't nearly as good or effective as it could be or would have been, it is far better than any other government that I have ever witnessed or experienced.

I believe the reason why is that we have insisted on keeping our original blueprint and set of rules and regulations.

The United States Constitution.

This is the same document that the leftists have been trying to destroy or otherwise make meaningless since the post civil war period.

Legislation and creative use of the Justice System are the favored tools of the leftist.

These tools have not been successful enough or fast enough so now they have assumed dominating control of the public schools.

If they can deliver a one sided education to America's youth and those young people swallow it, they may win in time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,938 Posts
All,
While I'm registered Republican, and vote that way at the Presidential level (well, except for Ross Perot that one time) a few of the Democratic senators here in Oklahoma received equal to or higher than ratings from the NRA than their Republican counterparts.
None of them received bad ratings.
I voted for them so we'd have more pro Bill of Rights congressmen in DC.

I vote both ways for the governor of this state, as sometimes we get some real goomba Republican candidates whose claim to fame is the fact they played quarterback for the University of Oklahoma.

But, we can get away with that in the midwest.
 
1 - 20 of 103 Posts
Top