Jan 17 2008

SurrenderManiacs Surrender On Iraq

Published by at 1:29 pm under All General Discussions,Iraq

Since America and Iraq is well on the road to a victory in Iraq and over al-Qaeda it seems the SurrenderManiacs (which includes the SurrenderMedia, Surrendercrats (dems) and Surrendercans (reps) have decided to do what they do best – surrender!

After a series of legislative defeats in 2007 that saw the year end with more U.S. troops in Iraq than when it began, a coalition of anti-war groups is backing away from its multimillion-dollar drive to cut funding for the war and force Congress to pass timelines for bringing U.S. troops home.

In recognition of hard political reality, the groups instead will lower their sights and push for legislation to prevent President Bush from entering into a long-term agreement with the Iraqi government that could keep significant numbers of troops in Iraq for years to come.

ROTFLMAO! The ‘political reality’ is there is no way to surrender to al-Qaeda amidst all the progress and success we have achieved in Iraq. The reality is these losers were dead wrong. And now all they can do is try and is risk the victory by trying to stop efforts to build upon it. If anyone is working harder for Bin Laden than these buffoons it is hard to find them. Bin Laden owes these people a lot, for without them his cause would have been declared dead long ago. al-Qaeda has gone from the future of Arab Muslims in Iraq to their enemies. How can you turn this around? I am sure these fools are staying up late nights trying to find a way. But history has a place for them all set, right next to all the other Neville Chamberlains who have come before them.

9 responses so far

9 Responses to “SurrenderManiacs Surrender On Iraq”

  1. owl says:

    Yes, and it is all that evil, stupid, crony lovin, shamnesty Bush’s fault. That spineless nanny state lovin non conservative that does not look like St Reagan. Of course, he did most of it wrong, wrong, wrong and ignored that monkey on his back, McCain.

    Yes, I think we should all blame Bush. He was a RINO.

    Excuse please, I just made the mistake of catching up the last couple of days on some of my old favorite sites. I feel dirty.

  2. MerlinOS2 says:

    As many blogs are noting today the NYT got the memo and they are suggesting that GWB not sign the upcoming Status of Forces agreement with Iraq , since it ‘would tie the incoming administrations hands’.

  3. kathie says:

    This is the deal. This country has limited funds (tax payers dollars). Where do we spend those dollars. We have a country which has 45 million citizens without health insurance, high gas prices, people loosing their homes, higher education more costly, and jobs going over seas. If you are a democrat you want to fix those problems. The way to do it is to bring our guys home, reduce the size of the military (Clinton balanced the budget on reducing the military). The world won’t be mad at us because we will only drop bombs from on high, no men on the ground. Remember how happy everyone was in the 90’s. The democrats want to go back to those times. Republicans have to make the case that those times are over. That we surrendered the 90’s to the Islamofacists and got 911. If we can not make the case we had better have better intelligence then we have ever had in the history of this country, because there is not a democrat who understands the peril that we are facing. Remember this is Bushes war, he got us into this mess, so the dems don’t have to be responsible to the Iraqi people, or the Afghani’s for that matter.

    Our country is constructed in such a way that there is always tension between the individual and the collective, between inward looking and outward looking, between individual responsibility and collective responsibility. I personally think President Bush has done a good job of balancing the inward looking with the outward looking. He has looked out and said the way to begin to solve the problems is to bring the Freedom Agenda more forcibly to the nondemocratic world. He demonstrated his notion by helping to bring democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan as a model for others to follow. Of course this idea was in our national interest. He helped our citizens by lowering taxes, forcing schools to be accountable, and helping seniors to afford drugs.

    The problem with the dems is that they are only looking inward. What is worse is that they have demonized everything that the President has done to look outward.

    So we the citizens of this great country have a big decision to make. Who best represents the balance, do we want to loose a country for the individual or can we do both. I remember when my children were growing up, I fostered their individuality but there were times when we all needed to pull together for the best interest of the family. Their teenage years were the hardest because there was always a fight, and they were unbelievably self centered. We are in that fight right now. I hope someone will inspire us to pull together and we can get that balance right.

    A little simplistic, I know!

  4. dave m says:

    Limited funds?
    Wait until one nuclear bomb goes of in New York Harbor,
    brought there on a small sailing yacht from Iran with some
    nice European looking sailors above deck.
    Then we will have a real shortage of funds.
    Democrats suggest we turn all our attention inwards and
    as we retreat from the Middle East, the wars and the terrorism
    will just go away. That is an extremely dangerous assumption.
    Within the next President’s term there are two probable routes for
    terrorists to get their dream of a nuclear attack on the USA fulfilled.
    Firstly, Iran finishes it’s secret project and the Revolutionary Guard
    provides them to terrorists, we already know Iran’s target list
    because Iran’s president revealed the list at lectures in Qom.
    Secondly, with no support from the West, the Pakistan government
    may have to do a deal and let their spooks give a few weapons
    to their Taleban / Al-Qaeda.
    Then once again we can have an investigation into why the
    CIA got it so wrong again,
    but I would suggest the more appropriate investigation would be
    why anybody would still listen to them or their rogue “NIE”.
    So if our country votes for “change” – rather than constancy
    while we are winning – then we vote for our own tragedy.
    I think we stand at the most dangerous time in history since the
    early days of the Cold War. (The Russians fortunately did not
    believe in an apocalyptic vision of some imam returning as
    a messiah to save the world after enough killing and destruction
    has occurred.)
    So in conclusion, sure, there’s lots of stuff to do, on energy,
    on medical care, on the economy and social security and
    much more, but there won’t be time to do any of that if we make
    the mistake of abandoning our war (which we didn’t start) now.

  5. VinceP1974 says:

    Dave M: Finally a voice of reason !!

  6. dave m says:

    Thanks Vince, just tell others.
    Our politicians have accepted their own silence
    and that is not a good thing.
    If we accept that our politicians cannot speak, then we must
    do it for them, like the Swift Boat Vets did in 2004. (I am
    not a Swift Boat Vet)
    There is still time to turn this thing around, though not much time.

  7. VinceP1974 says:

    Dave M: I tell as many people as I can as often as I can.

    I am now the official Mr. Doom and Gloom of the office 🙂

    Heres a letter i wrote to my congressman last year , right after the very first defund the war bill passed teh House.


  8. dave m says:

    It’s a good letter, it might have exceeded the attention span
    of your Congressman’s staff, and sometime I think if you
    seem to know too much people label you as a moonbat,
    but any letter, and every letter is needed now.
    Did you get a response?
    Ya know, people just don’t want to face it, but if events
    start to unfold, they will remember what you told them,
    and all but the hard left will say “I wonder…..” .

  9. owl says:

    So if our country votes for “change” – rather than constancy
    while we are winning – then we vote for our own tragedy.
    I think we stand at the most dangerous time in history since the
    early days of the Cold War

    I agreed with that even before 9/11 occurred. There were too many attacks. I kept wondering why we were not being told and how the MSM could ignore it.

    After 9/11, I could see 3 battles that needed fighting. The UN, MSM and the terrrorists. They are all mixed up together. The enablers. Look at the ‘world’s’ reaction and the Surrendercrats when someone finally took those battles on.

    These people are in denial. They have already forgotten 9/11 and they were never curious about the former attacks and the ties that bind. Total denial. I even see it in the Republican Party and it was ‘in your face’ with even the Pug Congress in control. Denial.

    The Party still prefers to play politics. The MSM still sets the agenda. Example? The MSM played ‘bomb, bomb, bomb’ until results could not be ignored. Now they have moved on. I have watched ‘economy, economy, economy’ since 2000. The people have been hearing this on their TVs for 7 years and will remain until the election. It does not matter that the last 7 years were not gloom and doom. Neither was the war a ‘bad Bush war’ but tell that to most Americans. If you think the MSM is not a power to reckon with……..

    The MSM has moved on past the war. They could care less if we win but they do care if they can pull a loss out of it. They will claim that they are so busy covering this exciting election. Nope. This is a 2-fer. They get to ignore the war progress and meddle in the election. Shall we all guess who they want to win? Narrow that down to one candidate please. Hint: O