Raving Conservative


Wednesday, December 06, 2006

Loser Dems

I just watched an interview with Senator Barbra Boxer on Fox News. She was talking about the Iraq Investigative Committee’s report. In short, she interpreted it as a vindication of every defeatist thing the Democrats have been saying from the beginning.

Boxer: I think the Iraqis need to show us that they want freedom and democracy as much as we want them to have it.

This statement, more than any other is infuriating to me. What this retard is saying is that the overwhelming voter turnout, despite the overwhelming numbers flocking to join the Iraqi police and military every day, despite the cooperation of the general population in our efforts to put the insurrection, in spite of all this she is not convinced that the Iraqis want to be free. How stupid can one person be?

The Iraq Investigative Committee’s report appears to be all about getting out and rejects anything resembling a victory. The Democrats are crowing about this “vindication” of their defeatist rhetoric that is emboldening all of our enemies around the world. This is not good.

If any of you care to follow the history of our enemies since this war began it is important to note that the vast majority of our enemies have either revealed themselves or grown so bold as to be outright defiant only since the Democrats began actively seeking to undermine the war in Iraq. The Terrorists running the insurgency tell their people to keep fighting because America has lost the will to fight, and this is based entirely off of the statements made by Democrats and other liberals.

In case any of you did not notice, the violence in Iraq has not abated one bit since the Democrats won Congress. The violence got worse just before our elections in an effort to get the people who have been staunchly supporting our military out of power so that the people the terrorists view as too weak to continue fighting will take power and bring our troops home in shame and defeat. At least, that is what some terrorists were saying. The violence will continue unabated now because the terrorists see the election as a sign that victory is within their grasp. We, the American people have vindicated their view of us as weaklings with no will to fight.

Politicians like Barbra Boxer are showing them that they can win the war here in the U.S. even as they die at a ratio of 25/1 or more.

Think on that.


  • "Planners continued to try 'to write what was called Phase 4' -- plans that covered post-invasion operations such as security, stability and reconstruction, said [Army Brigadier General] Scheid, [ . . . ] but 'I remember the secretary of defense saying that he would fire the next person that said that.'"

    What bizarre, twisted sense of loyalty makes you want to defend these people by scapegoating anybody who points out what a terrible job they've done?

    Also, how do you rationalize your statement that "the vast majority of our enemies have either revealed themselves or grown so bold as to be outright defiant only since the Democrats began actively seeking to undermine the war in Iraq"? It appears to me that the Dems only seemed to grow a pair when it became impossible to go on pretending the war wasn't a disaster.

    Now even the likes of Don Rumsfeld, James Baker, and Robert Gates -- liberals or Democrats none of them -- are admitting it, and here you are, still blaming people that had no control over anything.

    Very strange. And more than a little sad.

    By Blogger catastrophile, at 10:58 AM  

  • What Cat said...

    Regardless of how much we all wanted Saddam's oppression to end, of how much we all want people to stop using terrorism to resolve problems, of how much we'd like to see more freedom in other places, Bush's approach has been an abject failure.

    That's not to blame our military or even Bush' ideals, just to say that there is an increasingly universal agreement that Bush's approach was simply wrong.

    By Blogger Dan Trabue, at 5:02 AM  

  • Try this for growing a pair:

    For victory we must neutralizw the emeny who is arming and training the ones who are fighting us. We must invade Iran.

    By taking the fight into Iran we will instantly end the proxy war they are fighting against us in Iraq. How much more simple can t be?

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 9:54 AM  

  • Will you excuse the majority of us if we think that's the same sort of reasoning that has created the current mess in Iraq?

    That, once we've stirred things up in Iran for a few years at thousands of lives and billions (trillions?) of dollars, that you'll say, "Now we must invade Syria (N Korea? Montana?) to take the war to them," leaving behind further messes in our wake and greater hostility towards us/more support for the "terrorists."

    No, thanks. You're free to think that but it just ain't going to happen.

    Again, we've tried Bush's way and found it to be an utter failure. We're not going further down that road.

    By Blogger Dan Trabue, at 10:26 AM  

  • You obviously were not paying attention any of the times in the past that I said we needed to invade Iran FIRST, then syria, then Iraq last, and Syria and Iraq only if they did not capitualate once Iran was toppled.

    Of course, there is another idea you commie lovers out there might like . . . support a Chinese invasion of Iran and let them do there what they have done in Tibet . . . and just think about all the Oil they will have and not need to compete with the U.S. on the open market for. Anyone think Russia will dare to oppose this?

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 1:00 PM  

  • It's really funny how the Pentagon -- in Virginia -- kept insisting that Iran was running supplies and support across the border, and the UK military -- on the Iraq-Iran border, kept saying it wasn't true.

    It's almost as if the people in Virginia/DC were looking to cook up a casus belli to go into Iran.

    Oh, and now they say they've got proof. They've gone from "we know where the weapons are" to "we know where the weapons came from" . . .

    But, really, the fact is that the attacks on American troops aren't happening because Iran wants to pick a fight with us. The attacks on American troops are happening because so many Iraqis don't want American troops in Iraq.

    I mean, wouldn't you do exactly the same thing if the UN landed on Alaska promising to "free" you?

    By Blogger catastrophile, at 3:02 PM  

  • "The attacks on American troops are happening because so many Iraqis don't want American troops in Iraq."

    Define "so many". 1%, less? Are 20,000 terrorists in a country of over 20,000,000 truly significant? (I hope this argument sounds familiar ot you since both you and Dan T have used this to supportthe religion of murder.)

    Does half or more of them being foreigners make it less an Iraqi insurgency than a proxy war of foreign powers?


    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 3:54 PM  

  • Where in the blue hell did you pull those numbers out of? Or do I want to know?

    "Support for attacks against U.S.-led forces has increased sharply to 61 percent (27% strongly, 34% somewhat). This represents a 14-point increase from January 2006, when only 47 percent of Iraqis supported attacks. This change is due primarily to a dramatic 21-point increase among Shias, whose approval of attacks has risen from 41 percent in January to 62 percent in September."

    In fact, the only Iraqi ethnic group that doesn't overwhelmingly want us the f@ck out of there are, of course, the Kurds.

    Now, why would the Kurds have a different perspective? Maybe because they were able to have autonomy from Saddam AND foreign occupation for all those years, and build their own f@cking stability without a foreign military occupation drawing terrorists and throwing society into chaos? Could that have anything to do with it?

    So, explain to me how more destruction and occupation is going to fix this. We just keep blowing $#!+ up until there's nobody left to hate us, is that it?

    This is just amazing. No matter how disastrous the failure, the answer is always more war. More aggression. More domination. Unreal.

    By Blogger catastrophile, at 10:54 PM  

  • There is a difference between suport and action as you have consistently pointed out in my posts about how islam is a violent religion. You and Dan T have consistently justified Islam by stating that there are far fewer terrorists than non-terrorists and have consistently denied all claims that terrorists enjoy wide support among the general Muslim population. To quote the Iranian ambassador to the UN "Hezbollah is teh most popular movement in the muslim world."

    so, let me get this straight, you are willing to ignore teh facts when the reality of the violent nature of Islam is presented, but if teh violence is directed at our troops you suddenly find support for terrorism to be indicative of the attitudes of a people where you ignored it before? Well, that's mighty good of you.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 7:33 AM  

  • You still haven't told me where your numbers come from. And now you're distorting to try and dodge the issue.

    The most recent statistics I remember hearing were that the proportion of foreign fighters we were facing was somewhere below 10%. The other 90% are Iraqis. They are taking action. They are trying to take their country back.

    Last night Lew Rockwell published an article by a US Marine who's served in Iraq, and is supposed to be going rotated back in next year. Guess what he thinks?

    "The sad fact of the matter is that we are not fighting terrorists in Iraq. We are fighting the Iraqi people who feel like a conquered and occupied people. Personally I have a hard time believing that if I was an Iraqi that I wouldn't be doing everything in my power to kill and maim as many Americans as possible."


    Wake up. It's not working.

    I ask again: Do you propose that we should just keep blowing $#!+ up until there's nobody left to hate us? Even knowing that the more $#!+ we blow up, the more people hate us?

    Is that your solution? If not, then what?

    By Blogger catastrophile, at 12:16 PM  

  • The only country we should be invading is Saudi Arabia, they are the true enemy.

    Bush should pick up the phone and tell these asshats that if one more American dies from terrorism we will remove them from the planet and turn Mecca into a pig-racing arena.

    All terrorism against the USA would stop.

    But no, Bush has them over for dinner.

    By Blogger Ranando, at 7:38 PM  

  • "I ask again: Do you propose that we should just keep blowing $#!+ up until there's nobody left to hate us? Even knowing that the more $#!+ we blow up, the more people hate us?

    Is that your solution? If not, then what?"

    Tune in to Raving Conservative Radio next week for my answer tothis question.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 10:04 PM  

  • America should just invade everywhwere that doesn't like America and that'll stop all the problems, right?

    Oh Dear God.

    If republicans are finally admitting their Iraq fiasco was all wrong then it must be serious. Yet certain people still think the cunning plan could have a tail pinned on it and be labelled a fox.

    By Blogger DanProject76, at 4:49 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Listed on BlogShares