Contemptible - The Democrat Iraq Strategy

Finally someone has explained it...

"The Democratic Party position on Iraq:

Our position has been consistent: we have CONSISTENTLY OPPOSED the use of military force to effect regime change in Iraq, except in two special circumstances:
a) When it was official US policy during the Clinton administration, and;
b) When we were asked to vote on the question with an election upcoming.

Thus, our recent position that the US should immediately leave Iraq was driven by our unshakable conviction that:
a) We no longer have a Democrat in the White House, and;
b) The public was finally responding to our efforts, aided by the media, to portray Iraq as a disaster.

Recent opinion poll developments indicate that the public may not yet have responded sufficiently, however. Thus our unshakable patriotism may require that we join in supporting the current administration’s position until it can be discredited, hopefully at some time prior to it succeeding."

This was a comment made by DaveR at Captains Quarters to this post.  It summarizes the Democrat quandry about as well as is possible.

The snarkiness of the comment masks the fact that some of those who oppose the war are far less opportunistic.  It is possible for an honest disagreement about the Iraq policy.  What irritates me is the entirely dishonest political opportunism.  If you thought the war was a good thing based upon the intelligence that you were provided, changing your mind today when you think you can obtain a political advantage is...wait for it...unpatriotic.

These are strong words...

but not strong enough...

let me really say what I mean...

::releasing the chain::

Yes I am willing to call some of these soulest pigf**ers unpatriotic.  They have earned that moniker and I hope they wear it with all of the feeble minded pride I'm sure the Move-On crowd is willing to lavish upon them.  Those who are willing to oppose the completion of what they started need to head on out to Iraq and join Saddam Hussein in the courtroom.  They can sit there with him and listen to the evidence.  They are the moral equivalent of Nazi sympathizers with one BIG exception...not even the Nazi sympathizers defended Hitler after seeing the ovens...only the swinish lefty barfing pig stickers could try to score political points using Saddam Hussein as their commrade!

Hey Rep. Murtha...you wanted to leave these guys in power...

"A woman testified in the trial of Saddam Hussein and his seven lieutenants Tuesday that she was assaulted and tortured with beatings and electric shocks by the former president's agents...

"I was forced to take off my clothes, and he raised my legs up and tied up my hands. He continued administering electric shocks and whipping me and telling me to speak,"...

Several times, the woman, hidden behind a light blue curtain, broke down. "God is great. Oh, my Lord!" she moaned...

The witness, who was 16 at the time of her arrest, repeated that she had been ordered to undress.

"They made me put my legs up. There were more than one of them, as if I were their banquet, maybe more than five people, all of them officers," she said." (source)

Rep. Murtha...is letting this lady be tortured again worth the calculated political advantage you are obviously trying to obtain?  How about you Rep. Pelosi?  I'm sure this applies to Howard Dean too!  I'm sure you favor returning the Baathists to power...right?  I mean to hell with them, we're talking power politics here...right?

If we had an honest media...anywhere...this evidence would be blasted all over the television sets and published in every newspaper, not buried and hidden...this is above the fold stuff.  As it is you have to dig and search to find it.  Our liberal asswipes in the media are probably afraid the public might see this testimony and draw the obvious conclusion that the liberal wing of the Democratic Party needs to be horse-whipped.  They should be gutted and strung up by their entrails...

::pant::pant::pant::reattaching chain::

Well that was an interesting diversion.

Comments

[Adam]

You call yourself a Democrat? Y really think that a Democrat would have gotten us unto this mess in the first place. Democrats would never vote for it, because if a Democrat was in the WH, we wouldn't be in Iraqin the first place. A Democrat wouldn't have LIED to Congress to get into a war. Instead of focusing on the War on Terror, Bush has been focusing on the War in Iraq (they are NOT the same thing)! Murtha, unlike other Democrats, had the military and congressional experience to know that there is a real problem with Iraq, so he did the right thing by calling for a pullout. He supports his country and his military; all politicians should be like him. No the other Democrats will stand up and say "Yeah, you're right", and the troops will sart coming home within the year. A full and immediate pullout wouldn't be smart, but a slow, steady, and well thought out pullout, weaning the Iraqi military to become self-sufficient, will be the best thing we can do!

[Mahatma]

Adam:

You really need to focus on facts and not party spin.

The only fact that I would recommend that you research completely...and I mean actually research, not read the sites which tell you what you want to here...is what every politician actually was saying about Iraq's posession of WMDs PRIOR to the Iraq war. If you do this and are actually honest with yourself, you will have to conclude as every honest person has concluded, that Bush did not lie, he was misled by either poor intelligence from the CIA or lazy government workers who just kept finding the same way of saying the same old things over and over again.

Remember this fact...Bill Clinton prior to the Iraq War and even after the Iraq war has publicly admitted that he was told that Hussein had WMDs by the CIA. The United Nations Security Council had stated publicly that Hussein had WMDs. All of these facts and more are publicly available and easy to find. So you can just drop the entire Bush lied propaganda; that is a silly and ignorant troupe of the Loonatics on the left who are destroying the Democratic Party.

Now as it regards to the liberation of Iraq...unless you are clearly a racist bastard...and I can't tell for sure from your comment...you must acknowledge that Saddam Hussein enagged in genocide based upon religion. This was exactly the same behavior that Adolf Hitler engaged in. One murdered Jews the other murdered Shi'ites. Saddam Hussein murdered children, teens and women in front of their men folk to try and obtain confessions. Based upon your comment, people will believe that you have no problem with that. Is that accurate?

Some of the very same people that you suggest are 'good Democrats' were in favor of the U.S. military charging into Sudan to prevent the religious genocide by Islamic Fundamentalists even without the approval of the UN. Perhaps you can explain to me why that action was OK in Sudan, and a tragedy in Iraq.

You are probably used to arguing with the ignorant...welcome to real world kid. If you drop silly comments like this here, you will be eaten alive. Some of my readers can get quite sarcastic!

[Carol]

Mahatma,

Loved the comment by DaveR. I’m not sure that it is possible to have an honest disagreement on Iraq. To do so would require the democratic leadership to place the good of this country ahead of their desire to control it. Ain’t gonna happen.

I’m guessing there’ll be no counter response from Adam. According to those who live by the liberal-democratic playbook, one must always avoid any sort of debate on the actual facts. I do think this sentence by Adam was interesting:

“A full and immediate pullout wouldn't be smart, but a slow, steady, and well thought out pullout, weaning the Iraqi military to become self-sufficient, will be the best thing we can do!”

It sounds so familiar. Hmmm, where have I heard that before? Oh, yes, I remember now: that’s the Bush strategy.