« The High Cost of Easily Accessible Beans | Main | Washington State Defends Freedom of Speech From Campaign Finance Moonbattery »

The headline on tomorrow's newspapers ought to say in really big type like they used to announce V-E Day or DEWY WINS..........

SURRENDER!

How very apalling and humiliating. How can these fools even face themselves?

Hagel is an embarassment to the Republican party. I'd say that I can't believe that he hopped the aisle to side with the Losercrats, but I'd be fibbing.

It would be interesting if Bush sat on this bill and didn't veto until the tenth day. Dems would shout he is "playing games" and Bush could spin it back on them about playing games.

My mother told me that she heard the Dems will not present the bill for "signing" until next week, on the anniversary of Bush's "Mission Accomplished" photo op on the aircraft carrier.

Who's playing games?

Where Reid and Shumer formerly had souls lies only an abyss, on the bottom of which slithers raw political ambition and little else.

I believe van Helsing has been following the Richard Gere kissing deal. Apparently, a judge decided Gere can be arrested if he ever returns to India. http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=entertainmentNews&storyid=2007-04-26T110735Z_01_DEL83208_RTRUKOC_0_US-INDIA-GERE.xml&src=rss&rpc=22

At least Gere didn't try to share his gerbil with her.

It should be pointed out that a significant MAJORITY of Americans agree with the recent withdraw proposal of the Democrats. This can be seen in recent poll results as well as the results of recent elections. Upwards of 66 percent of the nation believes that the current approach of the admin is the WRONG approach, and nearly 60 percent of Americans believe that we should begin withdrawing troops from Iraq NOW.

It is YOU who are the whacked out fringe extremists at this point, completely out of touch and in contradiction to the majority of the country. You can not surrender in a war where victory has never been defined! Although it seems the US has claimed victory a number of times already. So, if we listen to the admin that we have already "won", how could we be surrending?

I suggest the posters and regular readers of this blog search for a new country to live in. A place where you can preach your religions of Hate and violence and see just how far that gets you as a new and up and coming country. Leave America to the REAL Americans: Those not indoctrinated to fundamentalist Christian or blindly patriotic idealogies.

Polls can get any result they want depending on how the questions are phrased. I'd be interested to see how the following questions would poll, but of course, the left-wing media will never ask them:

Do you support surrendering to Al Qaeda in Iraq?

Do you think a US defeat in Iraq will embolden and empower Iran, al Qaeda, and other terrorist groups?

Do you think a US defeat in Iraq will lead other countries in the reason to conclude that the US is an unreliable ally?

Do you think US defeat in Iraq will lead to a terrorist-friendly government taking power there?

It's better to do what's right than what appears to be popular. Most of us had parents that taught us that.

And since when do "real Americans" cheer for America to lose a war?

Since when do Americans "cheer" for war at all? War is not a sporting event! You don't "cheer" or "root" to see who kills the best and the most. That is just sick!

there is no "cheering" for losing a war going on. There is sadness and admission that the war was poorly planned, executed and defined. There is admission and recognition that the war is based on a series of lies and misinformation, and that you can't "win" a war when you can't define what victory is.

RUN!!!! GAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!

wester - You win a war by killing the enemy, which is darn near impossible to do when you have a bunch of sick-in-the head liberals screaming WAR CRIMES!!! everytime a freaking child-murdering terrorist get killed or interogated.

Oh the democrats have surrendered all right - lock, stock and country.

Of course they have surrendered. They do not believe in their own country, in the Western tradition that formed and (to a continually lessening degree) guides it, and seek only to end it.

Causing the US to lose another way - and again therefore kill millions of those in the war's country that believed in us and our offer of freedom - is just a tool in the Democratic Party's ongoing work to undermine and destroy the US and what it has traditionally and historically stood for.

In their view, the traditional US stands for evil (and thus should be destroyed), while real Americans view the traditional US as exemplifying honor, freedom, and nobility.

There were a lot of much more likely reasons for the democrat win, not least of which was a perception that the republicans weren't doing their job. Lets not forget that a significant number of democrat entries to the house were, at first appearance, significantly more conservative than the republican incumbents they replaced. Only an idiot would assume that all the voters voted for the democrats because they were against the war.

An intellectual exercise defeats this proposition quite handily. If the republicans had remained in the majority would you argue that the majority of america was for the war?

In fact you'd probably argue that the silent majority was against it but felt threatened or disenfranchised or something.

Who is the enemy? what is victory? I bet you can only give me broad, ambiguious answers to these questions because you have no idea. No Iraqi prior to this war EVER threatned America! I was told by the president that we had achieved victory nearly four years ago. If he dosen't know when we've won, how do you claim to know? An unjust war can never be won. I guess you think we won in Vietnam?

who gets to cry war crimes when it's our government killing the innocent children? It sure as hell ain't gonna be you! You can't argue that you care about the sancity of human life while killing innocent people can you? The idea that the right cares about any Iraqi's life is a joke. We want to stop the child murdering terrorist, by killing children? This is a retards logic...

Harry Reid is certainly cheering. The Democrats at last night's debate were practically clubbing each other over who could surrender the fastest. Meanwhile, Air Pelosi finds the time to fly to Syria, put on her silly babushka, and kiss the bloody hands of the terrorists who are murdering our soldiers, but back in the US, she can't find time on her schedule to meet with the general who's leading the troops.

The left has been rooting for America to lose for a long time, and Harry Reid is bragging about how many senate seats he'll pick up when we lose the war.

Don't tell me they're not cheering on defeat.

Westerberg proves he's an idiot. We're not over there to kill Iraqis. We're there to support the legitimate, elected government of Iraq against terrorists sponsored by Iran, Al Qaeda, and other Islamo-Fascists groups. If we lose, they win.

Which is exactly what he and his disgusting traitorous ilk want. If they really wanted to win, they'd be pushing out plans for victory, not plans for surrender.

We want to stop the child murdering terrorist, by killing children?

How many children are we killing, westy? That's a pretty bold (stupid) statement.

There's some retarded logic here, alright - in fact it is so retarded, it ISN'T logic at all.

Archonix,

But the Republicans did NOT win the election, and it will be a long time before they win another. The country has finally wised up (except you, of course).

And, yes, the handling of the Iraq war is a large part of the reason the Dems won. It is not a perception that the republicans are incompetent. It is demonstrated fact!

Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels! Blind patriotism is UN-American! read your history books!

Interesting that westerberg just assumes blind patriotism, instead of considering the fact that most of us have analyzed the war thoughtfully and decided although continuing the fight is a nasty option, and even though the shape of victory is uncertain and less than ideal, the defeatists alternative is much worse for us. We're just thinking a few steps ahead. "If we leave, then what happens?" It's a question few of the cheerleaders of defeat seem to be considering.

There is nothing blind about it. We simply think for ourselves and arrive at our own conclusions. We don't just spew simplistic talking points from DailyKos as a substitute for real thought.

Also, the terrorist-loving Democrats are not set to expand the civil rights of terrorists detained by the U.S..

Yes, the same terrorists that have been murdering our troops.

So, tell me again how Democrats are not on the side of the enemy?

Hey Westerberg, Here's one Iraqi that threatened America: Saddam Hussein. If you want more then look at Saddam's regime. Westerberg needs a Replacement.

"Westerberg needs a Replacement."

Where's J.D. Dean when you really need him?

Ah, Westerberg, I appreciate your enlightening us about the lack of threat from Iraqis. Maybe you could enlighted the NY Times and Washington Post (Headlines from each)?

* US Government - Bin Laden and Iraq Agreed to Cooperate on Weapons Development - New York Times (November 1998)
* Iraq Has Network of Outside Help on Arms, Experts Say - New York Times (November 1998)
* U.S. Says Iraq Aided Production of Chemical Weapons in Sudan - New York Times (August 1998)
* Iraq Suspected of Secret Germ War Effort - New York Times (February 2000)
* Signs of Iraqi Arms Buildup Bedevil U.S. Administration - New York Times (February 2000)
* Flight Tests Show Iraq Has Resumed a Missile Program - New York Times (July 2000)
* Iraqi Work Toward A-Bomb Reported - Washington Post (September 1998)

Perhaps the most misleading term that can be used is that of "war." We are no longer technically at "war," but are in a rebuilding phase. We are simply trying to secure the country so that, eventually, the Iraqi police and military can fend off terrorist attacks on their own. So yes, the mission was accomplished, especially when you consider that two very important elections have taken place in Iraq since.

We are on a new mission, and one that will take longer than those Americans with the attention span of a gnat can seem to handle. Pulling out now would leave a power vacuum, one that al-Qaeda and Iran would be only too happy to fill. Think there's a lot of killing now? Wait to see the bloodbath if we take a powder. As V the K says, the defeatist alternative is worse than sticking it out and finishing the job.

Terry- Good work!!

Pam: Remember the Left contorting themselves in the '70s to try and affix the blame on the U.S. (among other things, calling it "Nixon's War") for the Communists' butchery of nearly 3 million Southeast Asians, which resulted from the American cut-and-run which THEY engineered? I see a familiar pattern developing here...

>>>No Iraqi prior to this war EVER threatned America!

Then just WHO was fireing on the UN mandated nutality patrolsover Iraq on Saddam's orders?

>>>But the Republicans did NOT win the election, and it will be a long time before they win another.

Then why are there Republicans in Congress? Didn't THEY win the election?
Once again, I want to point out that I am a SOUTHERN Democrat, which is NOTHING like the neo-communists who have taken over my party. Those idiots have turned their backs on America in the seventies and eighties and will NOT get any more support from the South. In fact, there is talk down here of starting a NEW party, I think we shoulf call it "the Patriot party".

Bad news for westerturd. His poll numbers are BS. Courtesy of NRO's the Corner, here is how surrendering to Al Qaeda in Iraq actually polls:

* According to a USA Today/Gallup poll, 61% of Americans oppose “denying the funding needed to send any additional U.S. troops to Iraq,” and opposition is up from 58% in February. (3/23-25, 2007).

* A Bloomberg poll reveals 61% of Americans believe withholding funding for the war is a bad idea, while only 28% believe it is a good idea (3/3-11, 2007).

* A recent Public Opinion Strategies (POS) poll found that 56% of registered voters favor fully funding the war in Iraq, with more voters strongly favoring funding (40%) than totally opposing it (38%); (3/25-27, 2007).

* POS found also that a majority of voters (54%) oppose the Democrats imposing a reduction in troops below the level military commanders requested (3/25-27, 2007).

* A separate POS poll finds 57% of voters support staying in Iraq until the job is finished and “the Iraqi government can maintain control and provide security for its people.” And 59% of voters say pulling out of Iraq immediately would do more to harm America’s reputation in the world than staying until order is restored (35%); (2/5-7, 2007).

* An LA Times/Bloomberg polls reveals that 50% of Americans say setting a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq “hurts” the troops, while only 27% believe it “helps” the troops (4/5-9, 2007).

People like westerberg approach the war as if they were on a corporate board where decisions on a problem can include considering the element of cutting your FINANCIAL losses and moving on. Simply leaving Iraq isn't going to cut any losses if we try to move on, it will grow them. Even if you are drunk on hate for Bush and want to get out, you have to understand that it’s not going to end there. Inevitably, Al Qaeda will run Iraq so anybody with half a brain would know that you have to try to figure out a better way to get out rather than just leaving. You think it sucks now? Wait until the REAL CHILD KILLERS arrive, sewing your liberal lips to their asses won't save you then.

westerberg - archonix is a brit - what's your point? nevermind - it's probably NOTHING a pointy white cap wouldn't cover.

Thans nanc, I was going to point that out but my net was down.

Westerberg, I am a patriot. And here's why:

"A man's country is not a certain area of land, of mountains, rivers, and woods, but it is a principle and patriotism is loyalty to that principle." - George William Curtis

Patriotism is not an us vs them thing. It's a belief in ideals. Samuel johnson said patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel, but he also said that patriotism is the first call of the honourable man. THios is not contradictory; it merely points out that a truely honourable man will seek the patriotic spirit first and foremost, for the love of an ideal, whereas the scoundrel will call on patriotism when their attack on the ideals of patriotism are revealed for what they are.

Your democrat leaders like to say they're doing hat they do for theirtr country, after having spent the last decade trying to dismantle the place. They say they're patriots, when they want to dsiassemble every ideal that your country was founded on.

Sound like scoundrels to me...

Westerberg, read this:

http://www.samueljohnson.com/thepatriot.html

And think about the man you quoted in vain.