Sep 21 2007

Dems Losing As Badly As al-Qaeda

Published by at 8:59 am under 2008 Elections,All General Discussions,Iraq

What destroyed al-Qaeda in Iraq was their blind ruthlessness and willingness to do anything for power. In al-Qaeda case that is a very brutal and bloody distance they are willing to go. But in the end it did not matter how far they were willing to go (the passion of a martyr knows few bounds, moral or otherwise) the point was they went way too far. I have a favorite saying: “just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should”. I like to use the following example: you can pick your nose in the middle of a busy highway or intersection, by why would you?”

Crude, in a humorous sort of way. But it has serious implications, as we see with al-Qaeda’s demise in Iraq. They went too far because they were willing to do anything to anyone to win. And that ended up creating a massive backlash by the Iraqis Sunnis. al-Qaeda’s will to commit heinous atrocities is creating a backlash across Islam because of their brutal tactics. It was not wise for them to be willing to go to any lengths to win dominance, it is how they lost any hope of dominance in Islam.

In a much milder example we have the Democrats and their willingness to do whatever it took to gain power and inflict their liberal agenda on a resistant America. No one ran on the slogan “we will surrender Iraq at any cost” in 2006. They said they would end the war. Bush and the Dems both want to end the war in Iraq. Bush demands we win and the dems could care less how badly we lose. All of America wants to end this war. Most want a win, and they are concerned about how badly we could lose and how it will destroy the Middle East and empower a crippled al-Qaeda and Bloody Bin Laden (I am sure that is how Muslims now see the new butcher of Baghdad).

But the Dems went too far. They have pegged their entire existence on the assumptions, no the unavoidable fact, al-Qaeda would win in Iraq and America would be seen as the Butchers of Baghdad. They really did not need to get out on this limb if they had any real leaders amongst them. But they have spent yours stoking the leftward fever swamps with mind-washing propaganda (some lefties are as brain washed about America as Sunnis were under Saddam) and they lost control of the monster they created. They are now so focused on creating a defeat they don’t even know when to stop digging the hole their in.

The Dems tried – again – to cut the support out from under our brave troops as the face of Iraq is changing drammatically due to al-Qaeda’s brutality and our Surge in forces that allowed Iraqis sufficient backing to stand up and throw off Bloody Bin Laden’s thugs. In a month were their deep pocketed puppet masters smeared an honorable and good man, General Petraeus, the real betrayers tried again to stop the effort in Iraq before success can be established without any doubts. They tried and failed miserably:

A Democratic antiwar proposal that would have cut off funding for combat in Iraq by next June was blocked 70-28 in the Senate on Thursday.

Twenty Democratic senators and Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, an independent Democrat, joined 49 Republicans in voting against shutting off debate on the proposal, effectively killing it. Even though the 20 Democrats favor ending U.S. involvement in the war, many have said they feared that shutting off money could harm the troops.

The anti-war folks are losing ground rapidly, they lost 21 normally Dem votes in the Senate They are nowhere near a majority, let alone a filibuster or veto proof standing. Right now it is “we don’t want to harm the troops” (about the same number said we shouldn’t slander them either). But right around the corner these betrayers of MoveOn will be saying “we cannot allow al-Qaeda to regain a hold in Iraq” or “we cannot risk all our progress”. Their tune is changing, but it is not done changing. Neither is Iraq.

I noted in an earlier post the trend lines in Iraq, if we use Anbar as the general model, show a possible acceleration of stability that would result in stunning changes. Just like in Anbar the tipping point leads to a rapid change in fortunes once momentum builds up.

As al-Qaeda loses support in Iraq, Dems will lose support here at home on matters of national defense. Americans will call on them to stop meddling in the defense of this nation (that means NSA-FISA, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc). They will have a chance to show something on domestic issues where the GOP has totally botched it. Or maybe not? If the Dems spend a year voting to lose as we see increased successes, they may terminally damage their reputations beyond repair. Just like al-Qaeda did in Iraq.

7 responses so far

7 Responses to “Dems Losing As Badly As al-Qaeda”

  1. Boghie says:

    Rather bored last night, so I watched CSPAN – the House hearings on the NSA surveillance program…

    For anybody who actually thinks the Democrats are serious about the topic please take a moment to watch John Tierney of Massachusetts prove his ignorance.

    Others (Democrats all) were bad, but he is a moron.

    How many times can someone be informed that electronic surveillance will pick up references to individuals not implicated with the target investigation?

    How many times does someone have to be told that it is impossible to determine if someone referenced as Sam is an American or not?

    How many times does a moron have to be told that investigators – or analysts – cannot predetermine who contacts the target of surveillance or who the target contacts?

    And, to put it all in perspective:

    Is Massachusetts spelled Massachusetts or Massachusettes? I mean, John Tierney’s site spells it Massachusetts, but word and google don’t like it. Is this idiot so dumb he cannot spell his own state on his official website?

  2. Soothsayer says:

    Re: Losing.

    If you wish to see the biggest loser of all, please reference makeover George and take the trouble to read what our neighbors to the north have to say about the worsening disaster in Iraq.

    Speaking of idiots:

    Is Massachusetts spelled Massachusetts or Massachusettes? I mean, John Tierney’s site spells it Massachusetts, but word and google don’t like it. Is this idiot so dumb he cannot spell his own state on his official website?

    Uh, Boghie – Massachusetts is the correct spelling, so I guess that makes Tierney’s site correct, and makes you the “idiot so dumb”. You can look it up in a book – they call it the dictionary.

  3. They say that you can tell an Idiot by the websites that they hang out at, and when Bootlicker has to reference “Maclean’s” to get his latest dose of Anti-American/Pro-Jihadi Leftist Nutbag Screed, that pretty much says it all, as to who the REAL “idiot” is; doesn’t it Traitor?

    Yep, I thought so…

  4. Soothsayer says:

    Bush, like Petraeus, swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution . . . so if imbeciles like you, Dale, want to talk about \”traitors\” yoiu\’d better included George Walker Bush, who has done more damage to the US than Iraq, Iran and Osama bin Laden\’s al-Qaeda combined.

    \”I think I got a B in Econ 101. I got an A however in keeping taxes low, and being fiscally responsible with the people\’s money.\”

    Uh, actually George, you got a C- in Econ 101, and an F in being \”fiscally responsibe\” e.g., $8,000,000,000,000.00 deficit.


  5. The Macker says:

    FYI: Bush’s tax cuts brought us out of the Clinton recession. The deficit must be considered in light of the GWOT.

    Bush is first president with an MBA, and hopefully not the last.

    Your anti-Bush rhetoric is unseemly and self revelatory.

  6. MerlinOS2 says:

    Right now the dems are down 0-3 on amendments attempting to hog tie the troops or defund the war.

    Some by major loss margins and others by even lesser margins than the last time they tried the same trick

  7. ” yoiu\’d better included George Walker Bush, who has done more damage to the US than Iraq, Iran and Osama bin Laden\’s al-Qaeda combined.

    I rest my case: Traitor is as Traitor does!