Jan 09 2007

Democrats Cave To Al Qaeda

Published by at 11:41 pm under All General Discussions,Iraq

Iraqis are being killed by Al Qaeda and Democrat Senators think they need a reminder of how serious their situation is? Only a Democrat would think the US Senate is more serious than death. Democrats are itching to surrender to Al Qaeda. They were not elected to LOSE the war. Anyone can do that. The Iraqi people voted for a chance at Democracy and relied on the commitment of the US to help them get through the tough early going. The Iraqi government has not even been in place one year yet. Not one year, and the Democrats are panicking and running – from the rear no less! Leading the retreat as they do best. I bet you the polls head south and the Dems 2006 experiment is over. No one elected a bunch of losers to force Bush to give Iraq to Bin Laden. That was not ever on any campaign promise I saw. OK Dems. You will always be known as the ones “who caved to Al Qaeda” (good monikers always rhyme). Caved to Al Qaeda. Caved to Al Qaeda.

17 responses so far

17 Responses to “Democrats Cave To Al Qaeda”

  1. Carol J says:

    I hope you’re right AJ. This is WAAAAY beyond scary now…it’s becoming terrifying.


  2. kathie says:

    You know, I don’t know if this thing can be won, but I think that this Country has to try. If we need to let the Iraqi’s fight it out because they are too divided to bring about a unity government, then I hope we have a plan B, like leaving 50,000 troops in the North, Special forces, and planes to keep out the neighbors, and continue to kill Al Quada. I have read that we are helping Lebanon, Saudi Arabia is helping too so that Iran doesn’t take over the whole area. I think that Bush is buying time to get others in line incase the worst happens.

  3. Bill's Bites says:

    Caving to Al Qaeda…

    See previous From CNN: Democrats considering ways to block escalation of war.As President Bush prepares to announce an increase in the number of U.S. troops fighting in Iraq, some Democrats say they would consider blocking funding for the escalation. W…

  4. Terrye says:

    How must this look to the world? The world’s super power loses 3,000 people in almost four years and some old drunk of a Senator starts yamering about Viet nam and promises to retreat, cut the funding before Bush even gives his speech or has a chance to tell them what the new plan is.

    Bush won an election too and that election made him, not Kennedy CinC.

    So much for the Democrats new direction. There is nothing new here, it is the same as it was when they caved and stopped funding the South Vietnamese and Cambodian. The same as it was when they let a bunch of Iranian students take and hold our embassy and its people for over a frigging year, the same as it was when they refused to fund anti communists in Latin America. There is not a problem that these guys can’t fix by running away and blaming Republicans. That is their entire policy.

    That is why I left the party.

  5. lurker9876 says:

    The House Democrats’ passing of the “Anti-Terrorism” bill based on the 9/11 Commission Report (including the inaccurate Part 2) contradicts themselves by opposing the escalation of the troops.

    Hope the American Public outside the nutroot world will see through these House Democrats.

    This bill has to go through the Senate, right?

  6. Jawa Wars VI: Return of the Religion of Peas Roundup…

    News from the Religion of Peas. Captain Jamil Hussein, blogger. It had to happen. African Taliban funded in……wait for it……London. Jihadis of the world, unite and take over. Hand it over, hand it over, hand it over. Ahmadinejad is set……

  7. Carol J says:

    AJ and everybody,

    LOOK at this! I don’t believe it! What the hell are these people doing?

    To think that some republicans signed on to this suicide is bone-chilling!



  8. Retired Spook says:

    These clowns could learn a lesson from the founder of their party.

    Lacking the ability to protect its merchant ships in the Mediterranean, the new America government tried to appease the Muslim slavers by agreeing to pay tribute and ransoms in order to retrieve seized American ships and buy the freedom of enslaved sailors.

    Adams argued in favor of paying tribute as the cheapest way to get American commerce in the Mediterranean moving again. (emphasis – mine. I’m surprised the Dems haven’t suggested this.) Jefferson was opposed. He believed there would be no end to the demands for tribute and wanted matters settled “through the medium of war.” He proposed a league of trading nations to force an end to Muslim piracy.

    For the following 15 years, the American government paid the Muslims millions of dollars for the safe passage of American ships or the return of American hostages. The payments in ransom and tribute amounted to 20 percent of United States government annual revenues in 1800.

    Not long after Jefferson’s inauguration as president in 1801, he dispatched a group of frigates to defend American interests in the Mediterranean, and informed Congress.

    Declaring that America was going to spend “millions for defense but not one cent for tribute,” Jefferson pressed the issue by deploying American Marines and many of America’s best warships to the Muslim Barbary Coast.

    The USS Constitution, USS Constellation, USS Philadelphia, USS Chesapeake, USS Argus, USS Syren and USS Intrepid all saw action.

    In 1805, American Marines marched across the dessert from Egypt into Tripolitania, forcing the surrender of Tripoli and the freeing of all American slaves.

    Read the whole thing. It’s pretty interesting.

  9. ivehadit says:

    Carol, I can’t see that passing the senate. We need to scream bloody murder right now to our senators!

    And Rush needs to pick this up on his show as should Hannity, Laura, etc.

    And of course, the populist Lou Dobbs will certainly bring this up…sarcasm off.

    This is another International Criminal Court debacle….I hope all you conservative independents that did not vote are going to be able to explain what you did to my children and grandchildren…


  10. Dems determined to repeat ‘nam defeat with a defeat in Iraq…

    Gateway Pundit slams home a point I’ve had floating around in my mind the last several weeks (but haven’t articulated) with his post titled “How Democrats Lost Vietnam… And, How They Plan On Losing Iraq“.
    Cox and Forkum sa…

  11. upyernoz says:

    is it just me, or is strata getting less coherent as time goes by?

    i mean, no democrat is advocating that the u.s. “lose” or “surrender iraq to al qaeda.” it’s only through strata’s own summary of the democrats’ position that we get anything even resembling that.

    you can’t make a coherent argument against an opponent unless you’re able to state your opponent’s position coherently.

    honestly, sometimes i feel like i’ve wandered into another world when i drop by here. if you want to address the other side, address what they actually say, not some fantasy of what you think they really mean.

    just a friendly tip

  12. Barbara says:

    is it just me, or is strata getting less coherent as time goes by?

    Yes, it is just you.

    honestly, sometimes i feel like i’ve wandered into another world when i drop by here. if you want to address the other side, address what they actually say, not some fantasy of what you think they really mean.

    Then why come?

  13. upyernoz says:

    because i’m interested in listening to and talking to the other side. the blogosphere is too insalated. lefties talk to lefties and righties talk to righties. it would be better if there were more of a dialogue. rants about what the other side really wants that bears little resemblance to what people on the other side actually say they want doesn’t convince anyone. instead, it just lets the other side dismiss you as misinformed and a bit delusional.

    i’d rather have a discussion, not an exchange of rants. that’s why i come here.

  14. Barbara says:

    No. You come with all your lefty luggage that we have heard and discounted a hundred times. We are tired of listening to the lefty “facts”that don’t hold up to evidence. We are tired of hearing lies that have been disputed still being said as true. We are also tired of hearing the results of lefties’ feeding frenzies. We are just plain tired of lefties period. When you people can listen with an open mind and without the idea you know more than us dumb republicans and conservatives then you might be welcome. But if you come with the idea that any of your rants will change our opinions you will be dissappointed.

  15. upyernoz says:

    No. You come with all your lefty luggage that we have heard and discounted a hundred times

    like what? if i really have been citing all these bad facts, can you name one? give me a specific example and show me where i said that.

    that’s another funny thing that i’ve found at this site. the tendency of commentators to dismiss me in general terms, without actually pointing out where i went wrong in my logic. i do have an open mind, you know. i’ve changed my mind on several occasions due to discussions i’ve had online. it’s just that i have found on this site and a few others, no one is really willing to engage in a debate. they’re more inclined to label me a “liberal” and dismiss me out of hand (just like barbara’s “we’ve heard and discounted a hundred times” without telling me what specifically she is talking about)

    as for this:

    When you people can listen with an open mind and without the idea you know more than us dumb republicans and conservatives then you might be welcome

    where does that come from? i might have said that someone looks stupid, but i don’t generally call anyone dumb in these debate. on the contrary, each thread i’ve participated in here, i inevitably will be dismissed as an “idiot” or something similar. again, without being told how specifically i am mistaken.

    the bottom line is that i know some stuff more than you and you know some stuff more than me. if you’re willing to talk we both can learn from each other. i just don’t think that’s what people are interested in here. if you were, i wouldn’t get dismissive comments like barbara’s. it’s too bad. just because we disagree doesn’t mean we can’t be respectful.

  16. Barbara says:


    We think you are Ken. If you are not, you came to this site at a bad time. We are just now recovering from the aftermath of Ken, a know-it-all lefty of gigantic proportions. You are just one more lefty out of several who suddenly appeared after Ken got the ax.

  17. upyernoz says:

    oh, i’m not ken.

    i understand your confusion though. it’s very easy to change names on the internet. if you google “upyernoz” you can see that i’ve been using this handle for quite some time. i didn’t just make it up after ken “got the ax” here.