Did Democrats ever want to win?
Eric Simonson, writing at Hegemonic Discourse, answers this question quite well.
Did Democrats ever want to win?
"Democrats do not care about winning in Iraq. They care about winning political points. Again and again instead of thinking and talking about winning in Iraq Democrats and the left continue to say instead that the war was a mistake, we've already lost, and we must bring the troops home now in defeat......At every turn Democrats and the left have pulled no punches in denigrating, insulting, and talking down not only the war, but our troops and the war."
posted by VPCheney @ 12:03 PM
4 comments
4 Comments:
Just as Kerry and Kennedy are stuck in the past, so is the Democratic party. Kerry's treason in going to Hanoi DURING the Vietnam war, and Kennedy's treason in VOLUNTEERING to work with the Soviets to undermine Reagan only goes to prove these people do not have the interests of the citizens of the US at heart. They only have their own interests at heart, or so it seems.
Treason is treason. I don't buy the "patriotism" that some of these guys claim to have.
Obama? or Osama?
CNN gets them mixed up, too.
To answer your questions:
Osama is probably in Pakistan. He is being searched for. This is the US gov't we're talking about. They can't find Jimmy Hoffa either. We did find Saddam, by the way. You might have heard: the Iraqi government executed him.
Saddam's WMDs were moved to Syria. His generals have said so. Some of them were discovered and this was made public.
We don't have secure borders. Democrats don't want them because they're pandering to the latino vote. Conservative republicans DO want them, but unfortunately, they are not in the majority at this time. Less conservative republicans are following the democrat example and are attempting to "compromise," which is flat out wrong.
I do not send a volunteer military to fight in foreign lands to secure our nation from terrorist attacks, our president does (THANK GOD.) It is regrettable that it came down to this, but it IS a necessity. We are in a time similar to Europe in the mid 1930's. Trouble is brewing, an enemy is out there, and we must confront that enemy before it expands, acquires nuclear weapons, and harms us and our allies like it has sworn to do for decades.
I would beg you to show me proof that the RECORD REVENUES received into our treasury as a result of the Bush tax cuts are starving any support services. Cuts in services as well as the bringing in of the extra revenue as mentioned above are necessary to help balance the budget.
I do believe this is the war on terror. Democrats, on the other hand, are engaged in a "War on Bush," and will do whatever it takes to undermind him or the military he commands.
The border does need to be secured. I don't care how, but we need to stop the flow of illegals into this country. The hispanics simply looking for a better life are of concern (mostly economic) but are not nearly as much of a concern as the Syrians, Pakistanis, and other Arabs that are routinely caught.
I would hope that the Democrats want a secure Iraq that does not invite Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups to set up shop there as they have done in Syria and Iran. Making sure we do the job right and finish it (I still say we should have had a lot more troops there a long time ago) would be the best course. VPs post merely points out those Democrats who do not seem to "want the US to win."
By the way, I'm WAY over 40, and I am definitely not a "neo" anything. Your MoveOn.org newspeak doesn't mean anything to me.
Mr. Jackson:
My statements made previous illustrate the following points:
In general, the US government UNDER ANY ADMINISTRATION has too much redtape and protocols to follow which, in many instances, hampers an investigation. Add to that the geographic location of the Afghan mountains and it's border with Pakistan, the fragile "alliance" that the US has with Pakistan, and a very determined islamo-fascist group, and you end up with a difficult job for anyone. Bush is the only US president to go after Bin Laden, a man known to be behind many terror attacks against the US and other targets for the past 10-15 years.
As far as Syria is concerned: I really don't understand your question, "Do you seriously think Syria today is any safer than Iraq in 2003?" Safer from whose perspective?
To answer your question from Saddam's standpoint in 2003, yes, Syria was and is much safer than Iraq was in 2003 for the purpose of hiding weapons of mass destruction. There were no UN sanctions against Syria. There were no wars involving Syria. Syria was not a target of the UN. Saddam knew that some contingent of the UN would eventually come and try to enforce the UN resolutions, so he moved the weapons to Syria, his ally, when it appeared as if the UN coalition was preparing to act. If Saddam had somehow survived, and escaped to Syria, he could then use these weapons against UN coalition troops. Fortunately for the Iraqis (and the Syrians) he didn't survive. What Syria (or Saddam loyalists in Syria) did with these weapons is unknown. Saddam's generals had no knowledge of what happened to the weapons after they were hidden in Syria.
As far as tax cuts and tax revenue are concerned, read the following articles:
New York Times Feb 2006
New York Times July 2006
Wikipedia - See Tax Cuts In The United States (comments mostly on the Reagan tax cuts and their effects.)
National Review
I really don't have the time to find ALL of the references listed from my google search. Suffice it to say that even though tax rates for all Americans (who pay taxes) went down, tax revenue reaped from a booming economy helped reduce some of the government's deficit spending. With all the pork Congress (mostly republicans and also a lot of democrats) voted for in the past year, that deficit spending reduction wasn't as good as it could have been.
As far as the neo-con label...I don't use liberal newspeak, nor do I agree with their definitions. I am a conservative. I always have been. I've voted for democrats (a long time ago when democrats actually had a conservative platform) and I have voted for republicans (some of which I've been disappointed in because of their departure from the conservative values they seemed to possess while campaigning but lost in the years after they were elected.)
Oh, and yes, most republicans want the US to win in Afghanistan, too. All fronts of the war on terror are fronts that most republicans want the US to win at. We want a world where islamo-fascists realize they can't use terrorism, propaganda, the US "main stream media," and extreme left-wing America-is-bad defeatists to push the United States of America (and the rest of the free world) around. We will not roll over and let them blow up any more buildings in our country, if we can help it. We will not allow them to build up their strength in the nations where they exist. We will use every means necessary to minimize the risk posed by these animals. We will not roll over like Chamberlain did for Hitler when he thought that his appeasement would keep Europe from going to war. The situation is much different now because of islamo-fascism being a religious entity instead of a political/national one, so the struggle therefore is more difficult to deal with. I hope America still has the determination to win this war, no matter what it takes. If I were younger and healthier, I WOULD JOIN THE MILITARY! I WOULD ENCOURAGE OTHER CONSERVATIVES WHO WERE ABLE TO DO THE SAME! I would be like the 18 year olds in the early 1940s who stood in line to sign up! I don't want America to lose. Could we do it better, correct mistakes, choose a different path to win this war? SURE! Let's do it! My point, and the author of VPs article, points out that some democrats seem to be only interested in republicans and Bush losing. In a time of war, that sort of attitude is wrong.
Well said, MCR. Solid Logic, indeed.
Post a Comment
<< Home