Welcome Guest
( Log In | Register )
The time is now 9:06 am
You last visited January 18, 2017, 9:04 am
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

"Democrats Unveil Their Iraq Plan


Effeminate congress .... cut and run ...  Failure is their benchmark.


"Senator Barack Obama gave a speech yesterday calling for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq.  He used the Democratic code phrase for surrender: "phased redeployment."  Sounds like the insurgency in Iraq has a new best friend.  But really, it's the same story over and over again.  The tune from the Democrats on Iraq hasn't changed one bit since the 2004 election.  They simply want us to cut and run in Iraq. In some corners that might be known as surrender.

Other than criticizing the administration and saying President Bush wasn't prosecuting the war in Iraq right, not a single Democrat has stepped forward with a solution to Iraq.  Obama is no different.  Do they really think total surrender is a policy?  Is the United States going to somehow be better off with Al-Qaeda running the show in Baghdad?

And sadly, the media will never call them on it.  They're being given a pass on Iraq.  Democrats are allowed to criticize the war without offering an alternate plan.  It's the worst possible criticism:  telling somebody what they're doing is wrong without offering any possible way to make it better.  But that's been the media double-standard on Iraq since the fall of Baghdad.

So it doesn't matter if the Democrats pick their best orator to deliver the same tired policy.  It's still a bad idea.  But if they've got any ideas on Iraq...we're listening.  They just haven't had any yet.

In the meantime ... the Islamic fascists are smiling.  The great Satan is turning yellow.  "


Entry #679


JAP69Comment by JAP69 - November 21, 2006, 4:50 pm
What plan?
Failure in Iraq is going to be blamed on Bush and the Iraqis themselves for not pulling together their defense for freedom.
Comment by jim695 - November 21, 2006, 8:01 pm
While I will admit that Mr. O'Bama's star is rising rapidly, he simply doesn't have the requisite experience to postulate on such matters as though he knows what he's talking about. He's still a freshman, and his views should be tempered by that fact alone. Even so, O'Bama has emerged as the E.F. Hutton of the 21st century, because when he speaks, people in politics listen; I have no idea why, but I believe he'll be a major player in another few years. Anyway, I agree with JAP69 - surrender doesn't actually qualify as a "plan."

The simple fact of the matter is that we CAN'T win in Iraq, unless and until we're willing to meet them on level ground. As long as the terrorists and insurgents are willing to cross the lines we refuse to cross, they will ALWAYS have the upper hand. The greater percentage of insurgents are NON-Iraqis - mostly from Syria, Jordan, Iran and Afghanistan, so we haven't even properly identified our enemies yet. We are NOT fighting the Iraqis, we're fighting loosely united, yet independent, insurgent cells made up of several nationalities from the surrounding nations.

I'm going to again address the idea of using pigs' blood to remove the incentive they use to recruit suicide bombers. Issue vials of pigs' blood (mixed with a little isopropyl alcohol so it won't coagulate) to ALL of our troops. When an insurgent is found dead or dying, we'd sprinkle his remains with the blood, or pour it down his throat. Now, he has no chance of getting into heaven; his 70 virgins will be full-blown nympho-maniacs with plenty of experience, and he'll discover that his golden palace is actually made of mud that some U. S. Marines have just peed on to make it glint in the sun.

Should we stoop to their level? Doesn't that mean that we're no better than they are? Yes, it means exactly that - we're no better, and certainly no worse, than they are. The bullet that kills a Marine, a Sailor or a Soldier can just as easily kill an insurgent. We're all made of the same biological material; the rest is just politics. We can't use pigs' blood because doing so would offend their religious beliefs, according to Mr. Rumsfeld. Who cares??? If someone had a gun to your head and your only hope of survival was to call them a name or to say something about their mother, would you utter the offending comment, or would you elect to take the bullet so that everyone you knew during your lifetime would say, "Yeah, it's too bad he's gone, but at least he refused to offend anyone - right up to the time they killed him!"

Let's say you're an expert in the game of gin rummy, but you've never played poker in your life. One day, you're walking through a casino and you see seven people playing cards at a poker table. The pots are huge, so you think to yourself, "How hard can it be?" and you take the last open seat.

Given your expertise in gin rummy, how much money do you expect to win at that poker game?

We can't win unless both sides play by the same rules, and we're in no position to dictate those rules to our foes. They've made the rules; it's their game. We're either going to have to swallow our pride and our smug "civility" and get with the program, or we'll have to admit defeat.

This isn't rocket surgery; if the politicians would only be happy being politicians, and if they'd let the generals be generals, this thing would be over in a heartbeat, with a clear-cut victory for the West. The insurgents would no longer be so eager to give their lives for fanaticism; word of the pigs' blood would spread rapidly throughout the insurgent community, and they would no longer see any benefit to martyrdom.
konaneComment by konane - November 21, 2006, 8:35 pm
In my book, Jim695, you've always had a winning idea. I'd go for the bullet tip being dipped in lard but pigs blood is better.

Terms of combat are being dictated by 5th century savages in a very tedious protracted war. Saw it stated it will probably last for 30 years which is likely correct by the time victory is realized. Effective change has to come from within which is going to take time and expend many lives of those challenging their status quo. In the meanwhile we need to forego PC and get down to business with insurgents who express glee and praise when they saw off someone's head.

Only problem is the useful idiots in both EU and here continue to believe they can turn them around with tender understanding. Yeah, right.

Victory over the great satan is only going to embolden them to fight harder longer.... because they are patient.

Obama is being groomed to be Hillary's <spit> running mate in '08.
konaneComment by konane - November 21, 2006, 8:42 pm
JAP .... yes agree what's been carefully orchestrated by the left is going to lay blame at the feet of the ones trying to do what's correct in a very difficult situation.

Hey there were only 12 years of UN resolutions Saddam saluted with his middle finger before we went back in to take him out. Guess we should have given him another 12 so he could go nuclear!!
Rick GComment by Rick G - November 22, 2006, 6:14 pm
Boy I hated it when the current Democratic president convinced the current 109th Democratic Congress and the world to invade a country under false pretenses in 2003.

Now it's time to change the diapers. "Mommy can you do this? It's not my fault junior crapped in his pants...I only gave him a little Ex-lax".

You must be a Lottery Post member to post comments to a Blog.

Register for a FREE membership, or if you're already a member please Log In.