Jan 10 2007
“Spineless” Defined – Part Duex
The Dems are heading for a PR disaster because their liberal media supporters are going to roast them. I posted this morning on how the Democrats where redefining the term ‘spineless’. And I noted that the Democrat calls to not support any efforts to win Iraq would be their political undoing for years to come – as it is Bush still holds all the cards (along with one Joe Lieberman). So what have the Dems decided to do? Play useless, pretend theatre:
Democratic leaders said Tuesday that they intended to hold symbolic votes in the House and Senate on President Bush’s plan to send more troops to Baghdad, forcing Republicans to take a stand on the proposal and seeking to isolate the president politically over his handling of the war.
Yeah, it’s symbolic all right. Symbolic of the spineless democrats who cannot even stand up and speak their minds out of fear. No wonder they cave so quickly to Al Qaeda. Forcing Republicans to do what now? Support the troops and the concept of attempting to finish the job in Iraq! The Dems are still trying to make the Reps look bad, as if they hadn’t won the majority. As I said before, the Dems were abysmal in the majority and the minority. They got here because the Reps screwed up. And both sides are still trying to see who can screw up more.
Dems – don’t even waste the country’s time with a symbolic vote. We know what happened. Lieberman put his foot down and neutered the leadership. But if you must ‘pretend’ to be Senators with ‘pretend’ votes so you can ‘pretend’ to be national leaders then go ahead and do it now. Let’s get all this pretending out of the way.
One other important number. Among independents:
Among those not affiliated with either major party, 41% offer a favorable assessment [of Pelosi].
Among those who are unaffiliated with the two major parties, 38% approve of the President’s performance.
So they have similar numbers in the “unaffiliated” voters too.
I love guys like jerry, the bitch about the costs of the military and the lack of body armor all at the same time, without even seeing the irony.
What if we had not gone to war in Iraq? What would have happened. Well Saddam would have gone on doing what he had done before. The sanctions and the no fly zones were not something that could be maintained like the DMZ in Korea. Saddam would be a free man, killing his own people, building his weapons, threatening his neighbors, laughing at the UN and playing with the world supply of oil.
And that would have gone on until there was a war or a coup in which case we would be right about where we are.
Gosh Jerry, would you repeat some of those truly enlightened things you said. They’re real fresh ideas that we’ve only heard reapeated a thousand times by those mindless people that can’t come up with something original. Puts you in a class with thousands that don’t have a damn thing to say. So why not repeat them a couple more times so we all marvel at your brilliance. Chip.
Well, let’s see what the Pres has to say – I’m sure it will be their typically dishonest/empty PR.
Pretty much the whole world was asking for more time for inspections rather than Ws and Dick’s macho rush into war, and the original plan was to leave Iraq to the Iraqis soon after invading, but al Qaeda followed us into Iraq (just as the French, among others, were saying, though I hate to admit it) and we came to face a war very much like in Vietnam, w/out a jungle, where the North infiltrated into the South and the enemy looks just like the civilians.
There was a very interesting article in the WSJ today, by Luttwak, saying we may have made the Middle East safer by dividing the Sunnis and Shia – but we did it accidentally. I hope this is right, even that we might have done did it deliberately (magical thinking there).
I don’t think numerous nuked cities is a realistic alternative to our having gone into Iraq, for one thing we would be free to concentrate on Afghanistan, and I’m not sure the coutry really is safer – we’d have avoided an overextended military, thousands of dead Americans, horrendous spending, and our present struggle with finding a way out.
And wasn’t the South Vietnamese government somewhat arranged by the US, by assassinating the previous President? And the people weren’t entirely behind the SV government or the US either, there was support for the commies in the countryside and that added to the difficulty in removing the guerrillas. Iran is supporting the insurgency much like the North in Vietnam. All this is very similar to Vietnam, though the US lives lost are much lower. I heard a few weeks ago that most of the people being killed in Iraq are Iraqis, not foreign fighters, if that’s true al Qaeda isn’t in Iraq – again.
jerry,
“it will be their typically dishonest/empty PR.” – Talk about “empty” rhetoric.
“Pretty much the whole world was asking for more time for inspections” – Pretty much every country benefiting from the “Oil for Food” scandal or a supplier of Saddam’s dictatorship.
Al Qaeda, already a partner of Saddam’s, did follow us in. Better there, than here.
And Afghanistan was not the only terrorist stronghold. But it is now liberated.
” and I’m not sure the country really is safer” – It is, as measured by interrupted and prevented acts of terror.
Intellectual honesty ought to bring you to acknowledge your debt of gratitude to President Bush.
JERRY,
Al Qaeda is in Iraq.
True, Viet Nam President Diem was assasinated in a coup, approved by JFK. He was friendly to the US. Another disgraceful action by the Dems.
Gosh Jerry, you must be truly enlightened and psychic, you say the most brilliant things, it is truly dazzling all of us here.
I think this statement was truly inspired: Did you come up with it all by yourself? I’m sure you did, I don’t know of any other Dems that are as dazzling as you are.
“So if something good happens in Iraq, it’s just dumb luck?”
and this: Gosh, you must be a graduate History major.
“That was your beloved dems that did the assassinating in S. Vietnam”
Truly inspiring, It is really a breath of fresh air for you to come on here and enlighten all us dumbass Repubs and conservatives.
We don’t get to hear such brilliance until the libs show up, then they are truly blinding us with the dazzling bulls**t.
Hurry back Chip (off the old block)
Gee, Macker, I can tell you are as inspired by Jerry as I am. Isn’t he amazing? All that knowledge and he’s generously imparting it to us here on Strata. So many things he is filling us in on that we just didn’t understand at all. So nice of him? eh. hehehehe
Macker, we’re not exactly disagreeing. And there are things where I am grateful to W – I think the actual war on terrorists has been very successful and I’d be happy to say good things about that. I’m not convinced that all this spying on people in the US a good thing, however – and I won’t thank W for this fraud war… which reminds me to restate that Saddam wasn’t a nuclear threat to the US (thus nuked cities aren’t a realistic alternative to the Iraq war IMO).
Alll riiiighhht. there he is again folks, Jerry’s amazing proclamations.
he said this:
“where I am grateful to W – I think the actual war on terrorists has been very successful and I’d be happy to say good things about that.”
Isn’t that amazing? W did something right, okayyyyyyy
but then he’s not happy about the little Iraq war (which just happens to be the very centerpiece of the war on terrorists) But heck a guy as sharp as Jerry will pick up on that real soon. Won’t you Jerr?
Hurry back now Jerry, we are all holding our breath waiting for you to come on back and enlighten us. You are truly a chip off the old block.
Jerry
And wasn’t the South Vietnamese government somewhat arranged by the US, by assassinating the previous President? And the people weren’t entirely behind the SV government or the US either, there was support for the commies in the countryside and that added to the difficulty in removing the guerrillas. Iran is supporting the insurgency much like the North in Vietnam. All this is very similar to Vietnam, though the US lives lost are much lower. I heard a few weeks ago that most of the people being killed in Iraq are Iraqis, not foreign fighters, if that’s true al Qaeda isn’t in Iraq – again.
You have been reading Wikapedia again. Reading this dictionary is not the equivalent of a college education.
Barbara, that was off the top of my pointy head. There was always that question of whether the assassination of the SV President lead to Kennedy’s assassination (spy fiction but at least a bit of historical fact). And knowing that Vietnam was a terrible guerrila war doesn’t tax my intelligence too much – though you might well assume differently.
Lefty, it’s only amazing to you to think that I might support the President. the Iraq war is neither “little” nor central to the war on terror. Unlike you this is pretty clear to me, thus I can compliment W on the terror war and call the Iraq war a pile o’ BS.
I’d love to see W talk from the heart, instead of from those teleprompters, but the rational for the Iraq war is so elusive (among the lies) that a fixed text is essential – the speech reminded me of a lawyerly statement in court I guess.
Ahh, thank you, more of Jerry’s brilliance.
Yes, it is truly remarkable that Pres Bush invented using teleprompters, Bubba never did that, did he? Only a Republican could be so phony as to use them, right, Jerr? We’re so glad you pointed that out for us Jerr?
You’re still skirting the issue of what military service you were in in the Gulf war, but I’m sure we’re all gonna be real proud of you when you share that with us.
Oh no, we’re all proud of you for supporting the Pres. it’s so unusual for a Dem to do, that we’re all proud you’re standing with him.
What the hell, we’re with you on that spying business also, it’s really not our business if some Americans want to talk to the terrorists overseas. Heck, let them plan their little terrorists attacks without our interference. Maybe if you’re lucky you’ll get your own little terrorist attack there in your neighborhood. Sure wouldn’t want any advance notice would we. After all it’s a lot more important for an American to plot with a terrorist than to have his constitutional rights hindered.
Come back when you can dazzle us some more with your brilliance. Hell I had to put my sun shades on to read your last post. Go get Chip.
Well Lefty, you can group me among those proud and patriotic non-military Americans like Deadeye (I’m proud, though maybe not you).
What’s this Chip stuff you mention anyway?
Regarding spying, I’m not alone in thinking that Constitutional protections of our civil liberties are being seriously threatened the Bush Administration (read that as “eliminated”) for the first time, maybe ever – I’m no lawyer. I might support some ofthis stuff if everyone involved wasn’t sworn to secrecy, that makes me wary – because this Administration seems to routinely mis-use government secrecy laws for political purposes.
I’m just talking, you can be dazzled in any way that you prefer.
“Fraud”, “lies”, “mislead” , … it get’s so tiresome hearing the delusional libs & dems. They’ve said it so often that they take it as fact (as do many in the drive-by media). But, tell me one lie? When did Bush ever lie about the Iraq War?
Of course, mistakes were made and more will be made, but Bush never lied and this war is not a fraud in the least. If you want to put your head in the sand, then you’ll wake up to another 9-11, or several.
Let’s see, I’m sitting here thinking of all those WMDs in Iraq, all those mushroom clouds… hmm, no WMDs, no nukes… what about al Qaeda, Saddam… no they weren’t part of it either, why did we go over there again?… terrorist training planes!… no, those were anti-terror training planes… “wanted to kill my Dad,” well that is true… hmm, did Anyone say this was all a mistake before we drove off into the BS CYA swamp for SOBs?… the French (I hate them), the IAEA (commie subversives). the CIA (ditto), the State Dept (ditto ditto, Rush, are you with me bro’?), our own weapons inspectors (you know, the “kiddie porn” dude), the Germans (wadda ya’ mean our favorite source is a lying cretin?), our other Ministerial source in Iraq (sorry dude, we’ve got priorities, the truth don’t matter no more, no more), the Aussies too (probably most everyone if it weren’t all so dern secret)… WHY DIDN’T WE LISTEN?!… well, junior, it’s like this, the truth don’t matter in this big ol’ world, just knowin’ the right guys at the golf club… we want your house, we take it – we want your country, we take it.. it ain’t honest but it’s how our Party does business… take it to the bank, before the next election.
There were/are WMDs in Iraq. We found some, but the MSM dismisses it because they were “old”. Most was buried, dumped in rivers, or moved into Syria and elsewhere. And you might remember he did use them. Are you that naive or just plain ignorant? Every country with an intelligence service in the UN agreed he had weapons, because he did. The only fraud was the UN “inspections” (Iraqis were always tipped before hand) and the sanctions, which was co-opted into an unprecedented world-wide scam of billions of $ propping up Saddam.
Bush/Cheney never once said or implied Iraq was part of the 9-11 operation. You like to believe that because that’s the tripe that gets spoon-fed to those too lazy or simply anti-Bush, anti-Rep to seek the truth. But, even as the 9-11 commission acknowledged, there were meetings of Al Qaeda and Iraq in years preceding 9-11. There simply was no hard evidence found, to date, that shows Iraq involvement in the 9-11 operation. But to pretend they never met or conspired, or could have, is foolhardy.
Yes, there were terrorist training camps in Iraq. They had a well-earned reputation for chemical weapons experts.
This war is a just one. The only fraud is the revisionist history you want to believe. Before the ramp up to the war, the inspections had stopped, the oil-food scam was poring $ into Saddam’s coffers, the French & Russians were looking for big paydays ahead with large oil contracts & other work as the sanctions were waning, Saddam had weapons programs that could be started up immediately, his nuke program was ready to resume, etc., etc. He was a grave threat, with weapons, and getting stronger with terrorist ties. He had never acquisesced to the cease-fire agreements he signed from the first Gulf War in order so that he could stay in power (hence the 18 UN resolutions). To ignore this threat, in the wake of 9-11, was something Bush was not willing to do, and the vast majority of us agreed.
So again, what lies?
It may be true that he didn’t have as much as we thought (“stockpiles”), but this anaylsis rests with the intel community (mostly CIA & Tenet). Numerous reviews, commissions, etc have debunked the sham that analysts were coerced. This was started by libs and high-level CIA bureaucrats trying to shift blame after the fact, trying to rewite history, again.
Chip?
Who is Deadeye?
Regarding spying, I’m not alone in thinking that Constitutional protections ……. Not alone in thinking…….not alone in thinking?
You must be very young and naive if you think the Federal government hasn’t always kept in touch with whats going on in the world. eliminated? first time? maybe ever? You think General Washington didn’t use spies? And who were they spying on?
You really think Pres Bush invented all this intelligence stuff. Ever heard of the OSS, CIA? Pres Bush didn’t invent either and they were keeping up on American spies.
Would you be critical of Pres Bush if you heard that it was known that this terrorist was in the US plotting an act, the message was intercepted while he was talking to bin laden and they blew up your house and Pres Bush said: Well, we had intercepted that message and knew about it, but taking any action to prevent it would violate that terrorists right to do his own thing. You okay with that?
Don’t put lipstick on it.