Liberal Values
Just under 1 in 5 Democrats favors defeat in Iraq. And if that isn't bad enough, another 20-percent of Democrats "don't know" if the world would be better off with a defeat.
I never thought I'd see the day that 39-percent of Democrats were either in favor of, or "don't know" if the world would be better off if we lost a war that would essentially destroy a fledgling democracy. They call themselves "Democrats," but they seem to think we'd be better off with one less democracy. Perhaps it is time they consider a party name change to something more in line with their beliefs. Whatever these defeatists re-brand themselves, they should keep their mascot. It fits.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:18 PM
Comments
1
So negative CY!
Posted by: john bryan at October 04, 2007 07:32 PM (v9dwy)
2
Most democrats don't want defeat CY, but they do want the war to end and the American people would like to see the real terrorists responsible for 9/11 to be captured or killed.
Over time, it has become more widely accepted that this war was for nothing more than control of the region for energy resources. More and more respected authorities have come out, Alan Greenspan as another late example. It has very little to do with religion and the popluar term "terrorism", though these are some common themes history has used to justify war many times.
Also, It is hard for a logical person to believe this administration is trying to protect us with this war, when we fail to protect our own borders and Bush endorsed the idea of giving our ports to Dubai? How easy it still is for someone to pass thru our borders under the current conditions. God forbid, but it is a miracle nothing has happened in the states since 9/11.
All this said, it is a tough pill to swallow, the Bush notion for the Iraq war. It does not sit well, and you are now in the minority of public opinion.
As I have said a couple times now, politics is politics concerning the tough talk for or against the war. We're not leaving, even if Democrats take the office which seems likely. There is a lot of time between now and November 2008. Democrats will "re-deploy", which does not mean pulling out of Iraq. This definition will gradually change over time. It already has changed.
Energy controls our government, both sides of the fence.
Over time, it has become more widely accepted that this war was for nothing more than control of the region for energy resources. More and more respected authorities have come out, Alan Greenspan as another late example. It has very little to do with religion and the popluar term "terrorism", though these are some common themes history has used to justify war many times.
Also, It is hard for a logical person to believe this administration is trying to protect us with this war, when we fail to protect our own borders and Bush endorsed the idea of giving our ports to Dubai? How easy it still is for someone to pass thru our borders under the current conditions. God forbid, but it is a miracle nothing has happened in the states since 9/11.
All this said, it is a tough pill to swallow, the Bush notion for the Iraq war. It does not sit well, and you are now in the minority of public opinion.
As I have said a couple times now, politics is politics concerning the tough talk for or against the war. We're not leaving, even if Democrats take the office which seems likely. There is a lot of time between now and November 2008. Democrats will "re-deploy", which does not mean pulling out of Iraq. This definition will gradually change over time. It already has changed.
Energy controls our government, both sides of the fence.
Posted by: John Bryan at October 04, 2007 07:58 PM (v9dwy)
3
I have to believe that most of that plurality is simply against any thought that Bush might succeed in Iraq. That they simply wish to see Bush (the "neocons", the Christian Right, Halliburton, whatever) defeated. And that a defeat for those evil groups will be good for the world.
And that on January 2, 2009 with a Clinton presidency that that ~40% would drop to under 10%.
Gosh, I really hope they don't really think a victory for the anti-democratic forces in Iraq would be good for everyone.
Gulp.
SMG
And that on January 2, 2009 with a Clinton presidency that that ~40% would drop to under 10%.
Gosh, I really hope they don't really think a victory for the anti-democratic forces in Iraq would be good for everyone.
Gulp.
SMG
Posted by: SteveMG at October 04, 2007 07:59 PM (W+fzY)
4
John Bryan, one question.
You state:
Democrats will "re-deploy", which does not mean pulling out of Iraq.
Where, specifically, will the Democrats "re-deploy" our troops to?
If in Iraq, then why call it a "re-deployment"?
If out of Iraq, then that is, by definition, pulling out of Iraq.
And where are you going to put them so that they can get back into Iraq in time to head off any trouble? Saudi Arabia? May I remind you that American troops stationed in Saudi Arabia are one of the things that Bin Ladin himself stated was one of the reasons for the 9/11 attack? Syria? Jordan? Lebanon? Iran? Where ya gonna put them?
In short, basing the troops in any Middle Eastern country would create the same issues that we face in Iraq: Foreign terrorists seeking to kill Americans will attack them, the troops will respond, and there we go all over again. Unless the Dems are gonna handcuff the troops with idiotic rules of engagement like they did in Somalia... that turned out good, didn't it?
Basing the troops outside the Middle East will mean they'll be too darned far away to actually do anything, so they might as well be sent home.
To summarize: you're spinning desperately, and I, for one, am not buying it.
You state:
Democrats will "re-deploy", which does not mean pulling out of Iraq.
Where, specifically, will the Democrats "re-deploy" our troops to?
If in Iraq, then why call it a "re-deployment"?
If out of Iraq, then that is, by definition, pulling out of Iraq.
And where are you going to put them so that they can get back into Iraq in time to head off any trouble? Saudi Arabia? May I remind you that American troops stationed in Saudi Arabia are one of the things that Bin Ladin himself stated was one of the reasons for the 9/11 attack? Syria? Jordan? Lebanon? Iran? Where ya gonna put them?
In short, basing the troops in any Middle Eastern country would create the same issues that we face in Iraq: Foreign terrorists seeking to kill Americans will attack them, the troops will respond, and there we go all over again. Unless the Dems are gonna handcuff the troops with idiotic rules of engagement like they did in Somalia... that turned out good, didn't it?
Basing the troops outside the Middle East will mean they'll be too darned far away to actually do anything, so they might as well be sent home.
To summarize: you're spinning desperately, and I, for one, am not buying it.
Posted by: C-C-G at October 04, 2007 08:09 PM (6c3XF)
5
they should rename themselves the Baath Party.
Posted by: Reliapundit at October 04, 2007 08:10 PM (YtQYQ)
6
Bush endorsed the idea of giving our ports to Dubai?
Oy. Giving our ports to Dubai.
It is impossible - impossible - to engage in a mature discussion with someone who believes that Bush wanted to just hand over all our ports to Dubai.
In reality, the deal would have allowed the current renter of some of the terminals or stevedore operations at some of our ports to be purchased by a company owned by the government of Dubai.
No ports would be sold. No terminals would be sold. Not a single piece of property of the US would be sold.
Oy.
SMG
Oy. Giving our ports to Dubai.
It is impossible - impossible - to engage in a mature discussion with someone who believes that Bush wanted to just hand over all our ports to Dubai.
In reality, the deal would have allowed the current renter of some of the terminals or stevedore operations at some of our ports to be purchased by a company owned by the government of Dubai.
No ports would be sold. No terminals would be sold. Not a single piece of property of the US would be sold.
Oy.
SMG
Posted by: SteveMG at October 04, 2007 08:25 PM (W+fzY)
7
Over time, it has become more widely accepted that this war was for nothing more than control of the region for energy resources.
There's the problem right there: stupidity and strategic naivete becoming "widely accepted."
Cordially...
There's the problem right there: stupidity and strategic naivete becoming "widely accepted."
Cordially...
Posted by: Rick at October 04, 2007 08:57 PM (Ohkx7)
8
control of the region for energy resources.
Control by who?
The US presence in the region is prevent one nation from stopping the free flow of oil through the Persian Gulf.
No one will control the energy resources of the region except for the countries that own the energy.
Which they will sell for billions of dollars.
It is an odd argument to make that the US invaded Iraq for its oil when we will be paying Iraq billions for that oil.
Some empire.
SMG
Control by who?
The US presence in the region is prevent one nation from stopping the free flow of oil through the Persian Gulf.
No one will control the energy resources of the region except for the countries that own the energy.
Which they will sell for billions of dollars.
It is an odd argument to make that the US invaded Iraq for its oil when we will be paying Iraq billions for that oil.
Some empire.
SMG
Posted by: SteveMG at October 04, 2007 09:02 PM (W+fzY)
9
All America has ever asked for from the countries we've fought in was a spot to bury those that died for that nation's freedom.
If that's an "empire," then up must be down, black must be white, and hot must be cold.
If that's an "empire," then up must be down, black must be white, and hot must be cold.
Posted by: C-C-G at October 04, 2007 09:55 PM (6c3XF)
10
The Democrat party is clearly are the party of treason. They are uneducated scum. Would they prefer Saddam to still be in power building WMD, practising genocide and funding international terrorism? Would they be happier if Iraq was not now a free democracy and an ally against al-Qaida? The joy of seeing a free and stable Iraq will be rivaled only by seeing the unhappiness of these un-American slime.
It begs the question, where were these traitorous idiots on 9/11.?
I noticed today that that ugly bastard Obama stopped wearing his flag pin. Way to piss on the 9/11 victims.
Piss on the racist Peace movement.
Can I question their patriotism now?
It begs the question, where were these traitorous idiots on 9/11.?
I noticed today that that ugly bastard Obama stopped wearing his flag pin. Way to piss on the 9/11 victims.
Piss on the racist Peace movement.
Can I question their patriotism now?
Posted by: Grrrrrrrrrr. at October 04, 2007 10:15 PM (2wI6h)
11
Democrats are invested in American defeat.I cannot recall anytime in history where a US Military defeat would aid any US political party. Until now. Its not just Iraq. Dems have been Anti Wiretap. Anti Profiling. Anti Fence. Anti John Doe Amendment .Anti Swift Financial Tracking of Terrorist money. You name a method used to defend Americans and Dems are ANTI.
Posted by: Dennis D at October 04, 2007 10:18 PM (y9UWN)
Posted by: C-C-G at October 04, 2007 10:55 PM (6c3XF)
13
I think Rush says it best when he says, "A glittering jewel of monumental ignorance."
Keep drinking the kool-aid Mr. Bryan.
Keep drinking the kool-aid Mr. Bryan.
Posted by: Conservative CBU at October 05, 2007 02:17 AM (La7YV)
14
That poll just shows once again that Democrats are traitors. Period.
Our founding fathers knew what to do with them, but what kind of trouble could you get into for tarring and feathering a liberal opinion-leader and driving him around town in the back of your truck?
Our founding fathers knew what to do with them, but what kind of trouble could you get into for tarring and feathering a liberal opinion-leader and driving him around town in the back of your truck?
Posted by: Smarty at October 05, 2007 07:45 AM (+jnQm)
15
My guess is those Democrats hankering for defeat are the grievance community. They think those resources being spent on the military would be put to better use redressing racial, sexual, economic and any other inequality the mind can conceive. See Whoopi Goldberg for a complete list.
Posted by: Banjo at October 05, 2007 07:51 AM (1DQ52)
16
Its not that the left and democrats want us to lose, its that they think we have ALREADY lost. Moreso, I suspect many of them believe that not only is winning CURRENTLY impossible, but that we had NEVER been capable of winning in Iraq from day one.
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at October 05, 2007 08:10 AM (oC8nQ)
17
"Its not that the left and democrats want us to lose, its that they think we have ALREADY lost. Moreso, I suspect many of them believe that not only is winning CURRENTLY impossible, but that we had NEVER been capable of winning in Iraq from day one.
So they are either dismally STUPID, if they believe the above, or TRAITOR SCUM, if as the poll suggests 40% do not think the world will be better off if the free people of Iraq beat al Qaida and Iran.
Not good options
So they are either dismally STUPID, if they believe the above, or TRAITOR SCUM, if as the poll suggests 40% do not think the world will be better off if the free people of Iraq beat al Qaida and Iran.
Not good options
Posted by: Grrrrrrrrrrr at October 05, 2007 09:48 AM (gkobM)
18
John Bryan, Greenspan did not come out and say that the real reason for the war was for oil. He came out and made that explicitly clear. Maybe you don't hear so good. He said that in his view, we should have done it for the oil, not that we did do it for the oil. Also, 39% of the democrats are not sure if it would be good if the US wins in Iraq. Spin it any way you want, that is unpatriotic. The rest want us out but don't equate that to loosing. So that 60% is naive. 39% unpatriotic, 60% naive. Yah, let's have them run the country.
Posted by: Tim at October 05, 2007 04:02 PM (04Ijt)
Posted by: SDN at October 06, 2007 08:31 PM (Hg2oD)
20
That's me... slow. ;-)
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at October 06, 2007 08:36 PM (HcgFD)
21
Glad to be on the same page as you, CY. :-)
Posted by: C-C-G at October 06, 2007 08:44 PM (6c3XF)
Processing 0.0, elapsed 0.008 seconds.
18 queries taking 0.0041 seconds, 29 records returned.
Page size 16 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.