John Gibson of FoxNews has this take on it.
He is right. The leftists in this country have opposed the war in Iraq, opposed the war on terror, and opposed anything and everything that the President has done. I honestly believe that the majority of the country, indeed the world, is oblivious to the threat of radical terrorism and the Muslim extremists. The democrats love this because it is a result of their decades long attempt at changing society so that it is anonymous and meek.
If we leave Iraq before the mission is accomplished, they win. In 1989 with the help of the U.S., the Afghan mujahadeen forced a Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan. This success fueled the Muslim belief that they could defeat governments and superpowers. Radical Islam has brought Spain, France, and Thailand to its democratic knees. They are attempting to do it to the U.S. through the use of our own ballot boxes!
The left is whining about the number of deaths and the money that we are spending. There are few on the left side of the aisle who will even acknowledge the threat to the U.S. If we leave Iraq, as will be done with a democratic win over both houses of Congress, then we lose. We lose the region, and we lose vital elements of our national security.
Chuck Schumer(D-NY) stated that the democratic party will have significant turnout for election day. Of course, they have already ordered carpet and new furniture for offices, but the conventional wisdom isn't always right. We can defeat this threat from the left, if republicans and conservatives get out and vote.
Get motivated, get loud, and let us make sure that radical liberalism doesn't defeat the United States.
You Are Among The Elite!
Thursday, October 26, 2006
If The Democrats Win, Terrorists Win
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 Posts From Readers:
There are few on the left side of the aisle who will even acknowledge the threat to the U.S. ..Therein lies the problem!....great post and keep burnin the light of Truth..:-)
I will make sure u are on my blogroll..please visit again..smiles.:)
I cannot agree more, there are some who will say the posts and rallying cries from the Right are because we are afraid of losing. There is some validity to that, but we understand the consequences if the Democrats win. They have proven not to be a wartime party and are a risk to the safety of our country. Democrats may have the domestic routine down, but have failed to show any real courage in this War Against Terror.
The dems have pathetic track record about anything that involves the military and intestinal fortitude. YOu can believe that crap about Clinton all you want, but Somalaia happened under Clinton, the USS COle happened under Clinton, and a dozen other attacks.
If the dems did so much, how did al-Qaeda become so powerful? How did they amass the ability to strike the US? How did they form cells worldwide that has brought democracies and societies to their knees? How did they bomb the WTC in 1993?
Clinton did nothing except lob a few cruise missiles. If he were still in office, 9/11 would have been treated like a law enforcement problem (again) and nothig would be happenenign against terrorism. You, of all people, should realize the futility of that approach.
I don't think the repubs are exagerating. There are too many dems on record as wanting out NOW, and if they control both houses, they will pressure the President and cut off funding for the troops.
If the dems win control, and if the dems cut and run, then I guarantee a republican landslide in '08. (Silver linings and all that...lol)
And yes, we get stuck with the bills whether Iraq is right or wrong.
Give me a break, Robert. Most of the Dems, some Republicans, and most of AMERICA oppose the war in Iraq because they now realize (albeit too late) that the occupation is unjust, and the majority of this country was led there under (numerous) false pretenses. (Talk about flip-flopping.) As of this point, radical conservatives have brought America to the gates of Hell in a handbasket. The only prayer we may have is to let somebody else give it a try.
"YOu can believe that crap about Clinton all you want, but Somalaia happened under Clinton, the USS COle happened under Clinton, and a dozen other attacks."
This takes the cake. When I mention that 9/11 happened under Bush, you're going to insist he "inherited" the problem because of Clinton's failures. When are you going to wake up, Robert? Terrorist attacks have ESCALATED under the Bush administration! Is that Clinton's fault, too?
Laurie, in your bluster here you have ignored everything I have said in the past.
Clinton is not personally at fault for terrorrist atacks. No particular president is responsible. They are ALL responsible, but Bush the least. He was only in office for eight months, where Clinton had eight years.
Terrorist attacks against the US have escalated? I call BS, and urge you to show me that there have been more terrorist attacks against American interests (NOT including the insurgency in Iraq, the comparison is invalid) in the past 6 years than the period of 1992-2000.
Most people oppose the war because it isn't going well at this point. It has happened in every conflict since WWI. It really isn't even news, except that Republicans are in office so dems can use it to win an election.
Oh, and how cute of the left to take a tactic of being quiet about their Iraq plan before the election. Nice way to frame lack of a plan by saying you just aren't going to tell anyone. You expect people to vote for a difference is they don't know what they are voting for? Nice try...It may just keep the GOP in control.
Nice to see you back and in the ring!
"Laurie, in your bluster here you have ignored everything I have said in the past."
I was, in my bluster, responding to your post and comments. If they happened to contradict things you've previously said, what's a moderate to do?
"Clinton is not personally at fault for terrorrist atacks. No particular president is responsible. They are ALL responsible, but Bush the least. He was only in office for eight months, where Clinton had eight years."
So if you give Bush an 8-month free pass (he was thanking you from his ranch, I'm sure), why is Clinton not given the same when he came into office only a month before the first WTC attack? Is Bush, Sr. primarily responsible for that particular attack?
"Terrorist attacks against the US have escalated? I call BS, and urge you to show me that there have been more terrorist attacks against American interests (NOT including the insurgency in Iraq, the comparison is invalid) in the past 6 years than the period of 1992-2000."
No, I mean terrorist attacks overall, and Bush's own intelligence officials admitted as much in their recent report.
"Most people oppose the war because it isn't going well at this point."
I'm in the process of picking my jaw off of the floor. You've actually admitted Iraq's not so hot.
"Oh, and how cute of the left to take a tactic of being quiet about their Iraq plan before the election. Nice way to frame lack of a plan by saying you just aren't going to tell anyone."
And what's the GOP's plan, Robert? Time-tables, benchmarks, (no) exit strategies, permanent military bases....They're having trouble wiping their own asses at this point and are hardly worth the faith you put into them.
"Nice to see you back and in the ring!"
Warmed up and ready to go! ; )
Once again, NO President is responsible.
Terrorist attacks against the US is what I care about. I mean, we care about it all, but if we invade Iraq and the al-Qaeda answer is to bomb France...sounds like we are doing something right in that they don't bomb the US.
Pick your jaw up, I never said everything was roses. War is war, and war means that people die in horrific ways. Innocent people die. Tragedies happen. I have killed in war, and have seen the more gruesome outcomes of modern weaponry. So what? We stay until we win, or we quit like yellow bellied democrats. Oh sorry, that was yellow DOG democrats....so easy to get confused.
Lastly, in the American revolution we didn't need the French to tell us how to set up our government. We did need assistance in a secure environment to do so. The GOP plan is to have stability in Iraq. The reason that there is no "exit strategy" or timetable is because itr is contrary to military doctrine. It is simply BAD POLICY to define an end game to the enemy.
We have permanent military bases all over the world. Don't you people realize that it makes sense? ANd do you think that is some accident caused by being there this long?
Unlike democrats, the military tries to think a decade ahead.
"Once again, NO President is responsible."
"They are ALL responsible, but Bush the least."
Okay.
"Terrorist attacks against the US is what I care about. I mean, we care about it all, but if we invade Iraq and the al-Qaeda answer is to bomb France...sounds like we are doing something right in that they don't bomb the US."
The latest in a long line of justifications for the Iraq war was that, all along, we intended to bring peace and democracy to a region plagued with murder, poverty, and crimes against humanity. Simply diverting the chaos to another region seems contrary to the purpose of the morally superior U.S.
"We stay until we win, or we quit like yellow bellied democrats. Oh sorry, that was yellow DOG democrats....so easy to get confused."
Hmmm. Ironic, isn't it, that the "yellow-bellied" men who avoided combat get to tell today's brave Americans how long they have to remain in harm's way?
"We have permanent military bases all over the world. Don't you people realize that it makes sense?"
Makes sense to install ourselves in almost every country on the planet so that we appear more like an empire, or, at the very least, a country with imperial aspirations? No, sorry, you'll have to explain that one to me.
"Unlike democrats, the military tries to think a decade ahead."
Oh, I'm sorry, you're right. By their calculations, then, shouldn't we have several streets and parks in Iraq named after administrative officials by now?
Post a Comment