Cut and Run and the Terrorists will be Par-taying like it's 1999

And you may ask yourself how did I get here? Damned if I know but last night's Shakespearean "theatuh" was my idea of quality reality TV (someone write Political Teen and tell him to run the entire session)

The Republicans waited too long to fight back. Dangerous strategy. Best analogy I can think of - 9/11.

The Republicans are fully aware of the pure viciousness of the Democrats. And the Dhimmicrats are feeling empowered. Empowered by a November election they interpret as positive proof that their relentless campaign of "NO" and disinformation is finally working.  Took 5 years.

Warning to the Republicans: ten hut. These pit bulls will not let go. Last night will not put an end to anything, it's irrelevant to the dhimmicrats. Scream a meme long enough and it will becomes quotable as fact, notice that?

btw Last night's cut and run  vote* 403 - 3

my .02 cents

*H RES 571 - RECORDED VOTE - 18-Nov-2005 - 11:33 PM
QUESTION:  On Agreeing to the Resolution
BILL TITLE: Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that
the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated
immediately hat tip x___dhimmi, lib hawk

speaking of Iraq, read this letter from a soldier (hat tip lone pony)

UPDATE: I don't know if seen this at Powerline. What better way to put an end to the politicizing of the Iraqi War than a grassroots Talkradio/Blogosphere led effort to gather signatures and call on Congress to STOP THE MADNESS? Here's the petition (sign at the bottom). Hat tip: Pat, Occasionally Lucid Thoughts

UPDATE: November November 20th:

More media bias from the alphabets note headline 'mean jean'

'Mean Jean' Goes to Washington, and Invites a Firestorm

Comments

[msdl5]

It surely appears to me that even though Murtha believed this and was passionate, he was used the same way the shameless left props up Max Cleland. These guys speak and no one can respond regardless of the fact that the people elect the Commander in Chief.
Their words are not to be challenged. Sorry Kerry, that dog won't hunt your planted duck.

They preach to the money in the fever swamp every day but this time they were put on the spot. They left the troops hanging and the Arab news netorks singing praise just so they could keep the fever swamp on fire and get in front of the cameras.

This action and vote cut off the scripts and appearances that the Dems had worked out with the Sunday editorial pages and talk shows. Murtha was the setup for the recess hell raising they had planned. They'll regroup and try again. The Senate needs to get INTO THE FIGHT NOW or Frist and McConnell need to stand aside.

Forget the recess folks, this is a war.

The next time, the Dems may be smart enough to not give out phrases (like "immediate") that end up as headlines in the Middle East and get torn apart on the MilBlogs.

[Kevin Mark Smith]

If the Dems are so opposed to the war in Iraq, then why only three votes in opposition? The answer is simple. They aren't opposed. It's all about politics with these boobs. They think they can talk cowardice and win support, while they act just like republicans when forced to be brave in their opposition. They are cowards in the worst way. You've got to admire Bush for standing firm regardless of which way the winds of public opinion blow.

[wrapper]

I reckon the dems are following the public rather than taking them somewhere they don't wanna go.

What confuses me is the public support going south only one yr after the election and the situation has only gotten marginally worse.

[Conservatus M]

After the election, the MSM decided 1) it doesn't matter whether the anti-Bush stories are true -- print them anyways; 2) ignore any positive developments from Iraq, and if forced to cover them, do so for about a day; 3) prevent the President or the Republicans' message from getting through at all; and, most importantly, 4) once that magic number of 51% saying they are against the war is reached, remind people about a thousand times a day that the war is "increasingly unpopular."

This is a script. And what our pals in the Democrat party are doing for their friends in Iraq is simply wonderful. As soon as the Dhimmis started this latest anti-war attack, as if on cue, what's left of the "insurgency" strapped on every suicide vest and hopped into every explosive-laden cement truck it could find and headed for Baghdad or the nearest Shiite mosque.

I'll bet Iraq's better informed Shiites, who can put two and two together and know what's caused this latest wave of "made for tv" (more like "purposely performed in front of TV cameras") bombings, have some big wet kisses for Ted Kennedy and his pals. I'll bet if you made a chart, there'd be a direct correlation between upsurges of violence in Iraq, and the Democrats' periodic offensives on behalf of the "insurgents."

They don't need Goebbles, they've got all the useful idiots they need right here in America.

[TrekMedic251]

ALL of this bulls**t, on BOTH sides, is just pre-2006 posturing.

The Dems, supported by the MSM of course, are just saying it a little louder.

[wrapper]

The public has been turned because of the press? The press got together after the election and made a group decision to undermine the war?

You should hang on to that. It ain't much, but it's all you got.

[Conservatus M]

Hey Wrapper:

There was a demonstration AGAINST al Qaeda and Islamic terrorism in Amman yesterday where 200,000 people showed up. The MSM has given it little coverage. I'll bet you didn't know about it. I have a hunch that the MSM would have been on it like maggots had those Jordanians come out to protest BUSH. Whenever more than two people show up to do THAT, the MSM calls it a "protest" and gives it front page treatment.

And if you don't think the Dhimmis in the White House Press Corps huddle together and decide what the line is going to be, then you're smoking something. The incestuous qualities of that little clique were well documented by Woodward and Bernstein in All the President's Men. It's a colony of perhaps 50 people who are together more or less all the time. They know they have power, and they often use it in a concerted fashion.

If you don't think the press has an effect on what people believe, then your INJECTING something. And if you don't think the press is in general anti-war, you're simply beyond hope.

The fact is, we're at a tipping point where this thing is about to break. Many, many, many Shiite and Sunni Muslims in the middle east, from Darfur to Baghdad to Amman to Beirut to Damascas to Tehran and elsewhere, have HAD IT with fundamentalism, pan-Islamism, terrorism, tribalism, Baathism, dictators, thugs, gangsters and kindappers, and, in general, men running around with guns and bombs killing each other and innocent civilians.

The buttons and signs people carried in Beirut last summer said it all. They carried one word, which translated into English, means "ENOUGH." Enough is right.

I support the President and this war because I believe that the people of the middle east are tired of killing, and are at least curious about what Bush is promising them democracy can bring: peace, stability, fairness, prosperity, safety and public order.

And right at the point where it looks like that's gaining momentum -- the f*cking Democrats say it's time to pull out.

[starboardside]

I have only two words to describe two faced back stabbing cowards---BILGE RATS!

[wrapper]

I think you're confusing the lack of coverage on the cables with a lack of reporting in general. I've been hearing about those demonstrations for a couple of days on the radio and reading about them in newspapers.

The cables go with the profits, domestic scandal and abductions, don't confuse them with journalism.

[wrapper]

This blog seems to be more neo-con than Randian.

[Crazy Politico]

Thanks for the link to "the letter" on my site, But for the record, it came from Sgt. Hook, who has much better contacts than I do in the sand box.

[thomas Blumer]

It took a 90-pound freshman Congresswoman with the least seniority of everyone there to inject some spine into the GOP and charge up the country. Oh, she's my district's congresswoman, and I haven't EVER been prouder of ANY of my representatiives:

“Jean Schmidt Making the Right People Angry”
http://www.bizzyblog.com/?p=873

Guest Cartoon: Help for RINOs
http://www.bizzyblog.com/?p=875

Pamelan, you're right, the Dems won't stop, but they have definitely been outmaneuvered. From now on, each rep, depending on his/her degree of moonbattiness, will either have to say "I really didn't mean it" (there's a word for people who don't vote their convictions...) or they're going to have to just shut up and let our guys and gals do their job.

[Conservatus M]

Wrapper:

Sure, networks do go by the maxim, "what bleeds, leads." Still, there's been very little coverage of what's going on in Jordan.

People all over the middle east have simply had it with living in fear all the time for whatever reason. This is the real "root" cause of the economic malaise and poverty that pervades the middle east; not anything we're doing. We're SUPPORTING their economies through oil purchases and outright gifts of billions of dollars. But it's hard to engage in commerce where there's nothing but lawlessness, corruption and warfare.

But let's forget about the press. Even if we just look at politicians, hard core Democrats have been shameless about the way they've used this war for political gain. Look at the Republicans in 1968 and in 1944 if you want to see how politics ends at the water's edge.

The way Democrats treat Bush is no different than the treatment Lincoln got during our own civil war. He was accused of being an idiot by the British (who portrayed him as a baboon in political cartoons), an anti-democratic tyrant by the French (who were also doing a brisk trade with the confederacy), and -- wait for it -- of war profiteering (along with some of G.W.'s ancestors) by all of the above, who were then parroted by the Copperhead Democrats.

We know now, or at least would like to believe, that Lincoln's goals had nothing to do with profits; but rather first with preserving the Union (because he knew slavery was a dying institution anyways); and later with making slavery the primary focus of the war (which it probably was, as far as most of the men fighting it were concerned).

I think these are Bush's true goals as well. It's obvious that's not what our press thinks.

[Papa Ray]

Two or three things.

First everybody I have talked to today, crats and repubs and those that don't know what they are, have all said that little trick last night was uncalled for, stupid and childish.

Next about "the public opinion."
As you all know if you tell someone something long enough, and enough people say it, they will start to beleive it. True or not.
Do you not believe that some if not all of the polls were "designed and handled" in such a way as to come up with a desired result.

Sure they were. Look who ran them or paid for them.

I have a wide circle of friends and business (including rich folk) associates. I have given an informal poll and my findings are that 74 percent are behind the war and our present administration.

So, what does that tell you.

Nothing really, but there it is.

Papa Ray
West Texas
USA

[salt1907]

The meme that is quickly taking shape in the MSM/DNC was voiced two days ago by Congressman Murtha when he said that terrorism started with the American invasion of Iraq, thus flushing 9/11 down the memory hole. The dhimmi meme campaign depends upon America forgetting or marginalizing 9/11.

[E2M]

So who are the 3? I have no idea, but I'd bet that one of them is "Baghdad" Jim McDermott.

[Conservatus M]

Another meme (one I believe to be false) is that things are going badly because more people are being killed now, or there are more terrorist incidents now, than before the Iraq war started.

News flash: in warfare, the number of deaths on both sides typically goes up, not down, towards the bitter end.

We are winning.

[MCPO Airdale]

Don't get too exicted about the polls. First, the questions are posed in such a way as to elicit negative responses from both the far left and the far right. Expl: I agree with the way the President is conducting the war in Iraq."
Second, unless you subscribe to the polling service ($90 -$300per annum), you are not privy to the frame polled. Expl: Registered voters; Party affilliation; geographic location.
Finally, no standard deviation from the mean is provided for each question.

This is how you can publish polls that are; a) not reflective of the views of the voting public at large. b) advance any agenda you might have, and c)induce kertosis into any normal distribution of results.

[Craig]

Wrapstar,
For the record, neo means new. Long time conservatives aren't neo-cons.

And if you think the press isn't liberal and working their agenda, you're either naive or stupid or both.

Thomas,
You should be proud, Schmidt rocks.

Papa,
If everyone you talked to said "that little trick last night was uncalled for, stupid and childish", I suggest you move to a better neighborhood.

The dems need to STFU once and for all, and last night was UBER payback.

Salt,
Appreciate the comment...keep pressing your foot on their necks.

[monkyboy]

If our troops really think we are "doing the right thing" in Iraq, make service there voluntary.

If the Iraqis really want us to stay there, put a referendum on next month's ballot that let's the people of Iraq decide if we stay or not.

Democracy...that's how it works.

[wrapper]

I know what neo means, Craig. Long time conservatives, sometimes known as realists, understood that this war a utopian exercise and counselled against it. Again, this blog seems more neo-con than Randian.

I understand your need to place blame somewhere about the public's waining support of an adventure they were told would be a flower strewn walk. All I can say is, there, there li'l feller.

[LC Scotty]

Given that retention and re-enlistment among units currently serving in Iraq (both regulars and those "stretched too thin" reservists) is at 98%, I'd say that a lot of the troops in Iraq really do think we're doing the right thing, Monkeyboy.

[Conservatus M]

LC Scotty:

It's not "truth" in the world of liberalism, where lies are the truth, and the truth becomes a lie.

As for Wrapper:

Can we learn to spell "waning" and "counseling" before using them in a sentence? In any event, please don't insult our intelligence or our recall; none of the neocons EVER, EVER said this would be a flower strewn walk. They said just the opposite: that it could go on for thirty years; but it's better than having guys flying jetliners into buildings unchecked because liberals haven't the conviction to deem war necessary to take out terrorists or their sponsors.

Sponsors like North Korea, the Taleban, Saddam, Gadaffi, the Saudis, the Iranian mullahs, or Boy Assad are what make terrorism possible.

I notice, with respect to each of the names on the above list -- those who haven't either been deposed or given up -- that we just happen to have troops right on their borders at the moment.

What a moron that Bush is, huh?

[wrapper]

Sure they did. Cheney said open arms. Wolfowitz adn Perle tried to hold down the troops going in, and sum guy whose name I can't recall said the whole thing would onlee cost a couple of billion doll airs. The W said invazion would spark democracee awl acrost the Middel East.

BTW Do you want the Saud family deposed?

[Conservatus M]

Well, Wrapper, you're just full of it, because nobody ever said anything like that. You guys make me ill. You insult people by telling them not to believe what was said.

And I do understand being treated like a hick, assfuck. Another liberal "debate" technique. When you have nothing to say, insult your opponent's intelligence. Fuck you.

[Conservatus M]

P.S.

Do I want the Saud family deposed? Another liberal debate technique: include the lie in the question. Let me ask you a question, when did you stop screwing corpses? Sort of the same thing, huh?

[wrapper]

Gosh Cm, I didn't mean to hurt your feelings after you criticized my spelling. And then mispelling those other words on purpose was not meant as comment on your affections for farm animals....and while I am attracted to your child bearing hips, I'm afraid there will be no sex between us.

At any rate, Cheney never said open arms? Wolfowitz didn't claim that Shinseki's troop recommendations were wildly inflated? Perle didn't agree? The W never said anything about sparking democracy across the ME? Wow! You're really under informed.

[Conservatus M]

Cheney said many of the Iraqi people would welcome us with open arms, which was true. Wolfowitz said we could defeat Saddam's army and handle the aftermath with what we had, which was just about right.

And W DID say he wanted to spread democracy. Which appears to be exactly what's happening, except for jerks who really want us to lose this war so badly that they are in denial over what's happened in the last few years.

If you don't think our presence in Iraq is responsible for Kaddafi dismantling his WMD program, for Lebanon getting rid of its Syrian parasite hosts, a freer Iraq, a better Afghanistan, and other positive change in the middle east, then you're simply ignoring the facts.

Liberals know if Bush is successful in Iraq, they're going to be in the doghouse politically for the next ten years. Hence this latest bid to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

We are winning. We will not let you let us lose.

[monkyboy]

If Iraq is "winning" I'd hate to see what losing looks like, CM.

I know the fringe right doesn't care how many Iraqis civilians and U.S. soldiers die, but the rest of the U.S. does.

In reality, we won't know if we've "won" until our troops pull out. Odds our, all we've done is turn Iraq into a province of Shiite-run Iran.

[Conservatus M]

Sure. Well, people see what they want to see Monkyboy. At two points in World War II -- both in Leningrad and in Stalingrad a year later -- the Russians' entire war effort depended on holding an area less than ten city blocks. At Leningrad, there was the grain elevator held by some 75 men. At Stalingrad, there was just a single crossing left at the Volga, and it was under machine gun fire from BOTH flanks. The Nazis got within sight of the Kremlin; but never made it inside Moscow. I guess the Russians should have just surrendered to the fascists and become their slaves?

The fact is, today's left wouldn't go to war to defend anything, anywhere, for any reason.

Certainly, the loss of life in this war has not been a good thing; but does the word of Iraqi politicians telling American Democrats and European liberals to shut up mean nothing? Good is being done there, and there are many, many Iraqis who are optimistic about their future.

Neither of us knows whether Iraq will be a success or a failure, but when they hear US calling it a failure for purely political reasons, what are they supposed to think? Men and women there RISKED THEIR LIVES, TWICE, to go out and vote. Who are we, relaxing in our easy chairs, to judge?

And please, stop acting as if YOU care about people American soldiers being killed. I have been told by more than one guy who's served over in Iraq, "if a liberal starts talking about how many men we've lost, tell them 'not in my name.'" Neither of us should bring that into the conversation. It's a given that war costs human lives. It's in the job description. Unfortunately, your idea of "peace" cost lots of lives also, not just in Iraq; but Iran and Kuwait.

[monkyboy]

Would that be the same Iraqi politician who signed a peace treaty with Iran and has agreed to build 3 crude oil pipelines to Iran?

Iran's number one customer for oil? China

If you're such a fan of foreign politicians telling Americans what to do, maybe you guys should have listened to Kofi Annan before we went into Iraq.

[wrapper]

The Germans penetrated little or none into Leningrad, and any talk suggesting a country that was invaded by it's roughly military equal and hanging by a thread, as comparable with a present day superpower's inability to pacify a third world nation, is kinda insulting to the superpower

The job could be accomplished with enough steel at the top, but the C in C only wanted to go half way and is paralyzed with indecision now that it is obvious he committed too few troops. Won't press on, won't back up. The problem is at the top, not the boots.

[Conservatus M]

Wrapper:

The Germans penetrated "little" into Leningrad? Sure. So all the books I've read are just wrong. I think you're thinking of Moscow; but why argue with a liberal? The only point was that the Russians didn't give up. What you and your type want is for the Russians to reach the Reichstag in Berlin, and then give up.

The "too few troops" canard is yet another lefty apocryphal story. We didn't have too few troops -- the war was over in two weeks. How could you or anyone else adequately estimate the number of troops needed? All there was were educated guesses. Of course, your entire strategy with Bush has been nothing more than to contradict EVERYTHING he says, and to turn policy disputes over unknowable facts into "lies" as opposed to "the truth."

And no amount of troops can stop ieds, suicide vests or car bombs. The only way to stop that would be to build a wall around every city in the entire country. So stop with that B.S. Nobody -- other than our own MSM -- could anticipate that the "insurgents" would think they were "winning" by attacking ordinary Iraqis. Hindsight is always 20/20 with lefties -- if you sat on a pin you'd go blind.

And please, Bush may be many things; but "paralyzed with indecision" he's not. This Michael Moore Farenheit meme is getting tired. Paralyzed and indecisive more best describe Jimma Carter's limp-d**ked response to the Iranian hostage crisis. Talk about paralyzed?

Face it, Wrapper: you on the left have thrown in your political lot with the "insurgents." If the "insurgents" lose, and despite the lies and hiding the ball from our press it looks more and more like they're going to lose, then the Democratic party goes down in '06. So they've bared their teeth and gotten down to the real viciousness now.

We are winning, and will not let you let us lose. No more Saigon '75. We're not going to lose another war because leftie nabobs refuse to let us win.

[Conservatus M]

Hey Monkyboy:

If Iraq's new leader had signed a big oil deal with the U.S., you'd be pissing and moaning about that, too, calling him a puppet. Like I said, the only strategy liberals have is to decry everything Bush does and shit all over our efforts in Iraq. That's the entire plan -- just shit on everything, do your best to cause it to fail, and then blame it on Bush if it doesn't work out.

Still waiting for you to unveil that liberal plan to combat Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. Your great at sniping; but haven't formulated a cogent thought yet as far as I can see.

[nikko]

These guys' plan (or lack thereof) to take the fight to the islamofascists is identical to the frenchies--apease, ignore, apease, surrender.

[wrapper]

Cm

Leningrad was under siege for a couple of yrs. Around a million Ruskies starved to death. You're mixing your 'grads.

As far as the mostly universal belief that too few troops were committed to the occupation, we are unable to secure the airport road. "nuff said.

[Conservatus M]

Wrapper:

I'm not going to argue about World War II history. By September 8, 1941, the Germans were inside Leningrad and were only pushed out by a furious counter attack. The seige lasted nearly 900 days, during which, the Russians had only the one passage across lake Ladoga available to them across which they built an ice railroad. My point was, they didn't give up. You were right about one thing, the grain elevator was also in Stalingrad.

I don't really care if you think it's an "almost universal belief" that too few troops were committed in Iraq. When I need cardiac advice, I don't call a plumber. Therefore, when I need to know whether too few or many troops were committed, I don't ask Paul Krugman.

Also, as Ayn Rand used to say, yours is a typical phony liberal argument, because the truth is you guys wouldn't have committed ANY troops to Iraq or anywhere else. The only time you want the troops sent in is if someone's caught with a crucifix in public school.

[wrapper]

What's phony about correctly and accurately pointing out that we are unable to secure the airport road?

If lack of troops is not the reason, maybe you have an idea what is?

[Conservatus M]

It's B.S. that we haven't secured the airport road. We have adjusted our tactics, and assigned a group to do nothing but keep the road open. Even the WAPO admits this, though grudgingly claiming the "insurgents" have gone elsewhere.

Short of turning the entire country into a police state, you can't stop suicide vests, car bombs and ieds. Israel had to wall in its entire country to stop it. Even virtual police states, like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, have been unable to prevent this kind of stuff from going on. That doesn't mean we're "losing" anything.

Also, we distinctly wanted to avoid having a heavy and visible troop presence in Iraq. Rumsfeld said that repeatedly during his many press conferences; but it was ignored.

This was yet another issue of policy, strategy, or intelligence, that has been turned into an issue of being "wrong," or "lying," or "misleading."

Neither Roosevelt nor Lincoln, the only other two American Presidents ever to serve during desparate wars, could stand the press. I'm sure George Bush knows why.

[wrapper]

quote

"Also, we distinctly wanted to avoid having a heavy and visible troop presence in Iraq. Rumsfeld said that repeatedly during his many press conferences; but it was ignored."

I doubt that Rummie said that since it's completely crazy.

[Conservatus M]

OK, well, you're smoking something. I'll say it again. We wanted to avoid having a heavy and visible troop presence. That would have sent the message to the Iraqis that we really were "occupiers" interested in taking their land and oil.

Another phony argument. Had we increased the troop presence there, and in the process caused resentment and a REAL (as opposed to contrived) insurgency, you and your friends on the left would be chiding the administration for having done that.

You're the same as Monkyboy: never any ideas, just the reflex gainsaying of anything Bush has said or done.

[wrapper]

Gee, Cm. Just because you say something twice don't make it true. You were allegedly quoting Rummie, right?

There's some phony arguements around here alright, you're just confused about who is making them.

[Conservatus M]

Wrapper:

Just because you say something's false don't make it so, either. Rumsfeld said this over and over in press conferences; if you didn't hear it, it's either because of your own selective memory; or, more likely, because you never actually watched any of these daytime press conferences (as I did) to begin with. You don't want to understand the strategy in Iraq because you WANT us to lose.

Tell me, just what was it that happened in Iraq the last month or two that suddenly made this two year war such a disaster that we needed to "bring the troops home" right now? The mere passage of time? A U.S. election, maybe? The "grim milestone" of two thousand troops killed (roughly the number we lost the morning of June 6, 1944)? Cindy Sheehan, who abandoned her son Casey when he was eight, and returned just in time to crap all over his memory by using it as a pretext for her own, self-aggrandizing anti-war/fund-raising/book tour?

Or was it the occurence of the second national referendum in Iraq, where the constitution was approved, and nearly 70% of voters turned out, for and against? Maybe it was all of those terrible events elsewhere in the middle east and Muslim world -- Kaddafi's turn-around, moves toward home rule in Lebanon, Boy Assad in trouble in Syria, huge demonstrations against Islamic terrorism in Jordan, the Kuwaiti extension of the right to vote to women (at least in local elections), improving relations between Pakistan and India, the rejection of fundamentalist parties by voters in Indonesia?

I don't hear you citing any facts at all, just gainsaying whatever anybody else says and giving your OPINION. It's useless to debate with a lefty, because facts and reality don't matter to you people.

You got any evidence that Rumsfeld DIDN'T express the opinion that too large a presence in Iraq could backfire by creating resentments in the locals?

[wrapper]

Do I have evidence that something didn't happen? Just listen to yourself. You've gone so far around the bend you're coming up behind yourself.

[Conservatus M]

Right, Wrapper. The only one with his head further around the bend and up the behind is you.

By the way. If Zarqawi's dead, I'm guessing it will take about two days for the left to formulate some anti-war meme to turn THAT into bad news. Just like the "vacuum" that Arafat's death left. He sure did suck, though.

[wrapper]

You need to work on your message discipline, Cm. You're all over the map.