Raving Conservative

Google

Monday, February 19, 2007

Democrat’s Screwed-up Priorities

The recently sworn–in Democrat controlled Congress, the same Congress that took the day off for the college football championship game, worked an extra day to try to force a treasonous resolution through the Senate FOR THE SECOND TIME! Fortunately, more intelligent and moral heads prevailed.

It is infinitely fascinating that the Democrats have as their top priority a non-binding resolution condemning sending reinforcements to our troops fighting a war in Iraq. They call it an “escalation”, President Bush calls it a “surge”, but in reality it is merely sending reinforcements into the war zone to bolster our troop strength to meet a new aspect of the mission in that country. It is a normal military tactic that has been used ever since war was invented, and the retarded Democrats in Congress oppose it because they are afraid it might work!

For years the Democrats were screaming that we needed more troops in Iraq. Now that the President has given what they asked for they want to condemn him, the troops, and the mission with a non-binding bolster enemy morale act! This is what is known as giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Such an action has always fallen under the legal term “treason”. Treason is punishable by death in case you didn’t know.

Not that I am suggesting that we execute more than half of Congress. I am simply pointing out the fact that what is being attempted by Democrats with a small amount of support from a vast minority of Republicans could be taken as criminal by people who are strictly by the book.

What about the budget deficit? What about saving Social Security? What about ax reform? What about border security and immigration reform? What about the thousands of other impactful bills that could be worked on right now? APPARENTLY NONE OF THEM ARE AS IMPORTANT TO DEMOCRATS AS UNDERMINING OUR TROOPS AND EMBOLDINING THE ENEMY SO THEY CAN TRY TO PROVE THEIR LIE ABOUT IRAQ BEING UNWINNABLE TO BE TRUE!

I’ll tell you why the Democrats oppose reinforcing our troops in Iraq. I’ll tell you why John Murtha is trying to sneak measures to defund the war and prevent new troop deployments into finance bills. It is because they are afraid that it might work and prove them all to be the hopeless, defeatist traitors that they are! As long as America loses this war they can proclaim their wisdom to the world and pretend to be the great peacemakers while they really enhance terrorism. But, if this war turns into a decisive victory then their lies will be exposed and they will be given over to the wrath of an American population that will feel betrayed and lied to.

Put simply, the Democrats have to make the U.S. lose this war or they stand to lose power for decades to come.

It is a sad state of affairs when people put personal power over what is good for America. It is even worse when doing so gets people killed like the actions of Democrats did in the Civil War, Korea, Vietnam, and now in Iraq as well. Democrats have a long history of trying to gain power by getting Americans killed. It is simply wrong, and it is utterly despicable.

18 Comments:

  • "Now that the President has given what they asked for they want to condemn him, the troops, and the mission with a non-binding bolster enemy morale act! This is what is known as giving aid and comfort to the enemy."

    You're making a leap in linguistics and logic to go from supporting this resolution to "giving aid and comfort," but surely you know this.

    The reason they are working so strenuously in opposition to Bush is not so much reasons of power (although that may play into it for some) but simply because that's why they were elected. We, the people, have said we believe that this invasion is a strike AGAINST national security and we want Congress to work to stop this bad policy.

    NOT because we hate America, NOT because we support terrorism, NOT because we hate Bush, but simply because we think Bush's invasion works against national security.

    IF that is what we think (and it is), then what else would you have us do?

    By Blogger Dan Trabue, at 6:52 AM  

  • "IF that is what we think (and it is), then what else would you have us do?"

    Have you considered medication?

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 7:59 PM  

  • Ha.

    So, does that mean you still prefer to think of anyone who disagrees with your unlimited wisdom to be on the side of the terrorists? That we WANT to see death and destruction visited upon us and our children? That we hate America?

    I'll give you - it IS easier to think in terms of black and white like that, less intellectual strain to assume, "He disagrees with me, must be a terrorist supporter" and to divide the world thusly.

    And medication may help with that, as well.

    By Blogger Dan Trabue, at 4:45 AM  

  • I didn't think there was anybody who still thought that the horrible mes that is Iraq is in any way a win-able situation. An occupying force that is hated by the locals who are already in the middle of a bloody civil war? How can that help anybody?

    The bit about Democrats wanting American soldiers to lose their lives just to prove a political point is a disgusting viewpoint but it's what I have come to expect.

    By Blogger DanProject76, at 5:35 AM  

  • You think it's disgusting to hold those views? I think it's realistic. It's happened before, in Vietnam. The politicans are the disgusting ones, not the people who can see through them.

    And you can't say no one supports the war anymore, not while I'm alive.

    By Blogger Robert M., at 8:16 AM  

  • Okay, the politicians are the ones with power and plenty of them do disgust me. Good parallel with Vietnam as it's rather similar.

    By Blogger DanProject76, at 11:49 AM  

  • Dan T,

    I think that people who think America brought the terrorists on ourselves are delusional, ignorant, hate America, or all three. I firmly believe that the Democrats are trying to recreate the Vietnam Disaster by bolstering enemy morale while undermining our own military. I believe the Democrats are too heavily invested in loss politically to do anything else BUT try to force us to lose.

    DP76,

    You are mistaken in that nobody think Iraq is winnable. The majority of Americans believe Iraq is very winnable, but the majority, myself included, believe that political interference will lose this war if the corrupticons don't keep thier retarded paws out of military affairs. If this war is lost then it will be the same kind of loss we had in Vietnam . . . one where the Democrats undermine our troops, abandon our allies, and create mass chaos in the region while siimultaneously creating a hostile foreign regime that murders its own people. Yes, inthis way Iraq and Vietnam are identical.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 2:57 PM  

  • Well, Daniel, you are free to think whatever you want. But I am, in fact, not delusional, nor ignorant nor do I hate America.

    For my part, I don't suspect most who disagree with me are delusional or ignorant or America-haters or war-lovers. I simply think you're plainly and obviously wrong.

    And I believe that the greater majority of folk around the world and around the US happen to agree with me.

    Not that a majority makes right (the majority in congress was wrong to allow Bush to begin this invasion), merely that this IS the direction that we are going in.

    And the question remains unaddressed: IF that is what the majority of the US thinks (that invading Iraq was against our national interests), would you have us to go along with the minority against what we thought was the right and moral thing to do?

    For my part, I wouldn't have you go against what you thought was right. If you think invading Iraq was the morally right thing to do, then by all means, make your case for it.

    But Bush and his supporters have made their case and the majority disagrees.

    You have no basis in reality - zero evidence whatsoever - for suspecting that we are delusional, ignorant, self-haters and if that's your best argument, then that helps explain why your side is losing this debate.

    By Blogger Dan Trabue, at 5:54 AM  

  • Did you see the new report showing that fatal terrorist attacks by jihadists has increased sevenfold since the Iraq Invasion?

    This would be real evidence that what we've said all along is correct: invading Iraq would only make matters worse in terms of stopping terrorism.

    Reality trumps your wrong assumptions (the delusional, ignorant, self-hatred argument).

    Do you really think that I (and danproject and the tens - hundreds! - of millions of others opposed to this war) am delusional? Ignorant? Hate my home?

    Based on what evidence?

    By Blogger Dan Trabue, at 5:58 AM  

  • "But I am, in fact, not delusional, nor ignorant nor do I hate America."

    The delusional and the ignorant are never aware of thier delusion or ignorance.

    "IF that is what the majority of the US thinks (that invading Iraq was against our national interests), would you have us to go along with the minority against what we thought was the right and moral thing to do?"

    Here is where ignorance comes into play. If you, like the majority of people who think like you, recieve the tainted news and assume it is telling the whole truth than you are wrong, hence; ignorant. First off, I, and most clear thinking patriots, don't care what anybody outside of America thinks when we are defending our national interests. Look it up and you will see that a majority of Americans believe that the "world community" is not interested in America's best interest. Also, the same polls you use to claim that a majority of Americans believe it is not in our national interests to be in Iraq are not asking that exact question. They ask if other questions, like "Do you believe that it was VITAL (emphasis on vital) to U.S. interests to invade Iraq?" "Do you believe it was NECCESSARY to invade Iraq?" And other such stringently specific questions that most clear-thinking people would answer "no" to simply because we understand that there are always numerous possibilities and that none of us can predict what would have happened if we had not invaded Iraq. When the poll ask questions like "Do you think that deposing Saddam Hussein was a good thing?" the great majority answer "yes", as they do when asked "Should the U.S. stay in Iraq until victory is certain?" "Was liberating the opressedpeople of Iraq a good thing?" "Do you believe the war is winnable?" (A majority say yes to this quetion while answering "no" to the question of whether we are winning with the current political strategy, myself included) The list could go on.

    The fact is that depending on the questions asked and hopw the results are reported, polls either show that we are serving our interests in Iraq and we have every ability to win, or that people think that we have no business there and never did. Bothof these results can often be taken from the same polls depending on which portion the media chooses to report on. The fact that the MSM chooses only to show the most negative interpretations is solid proof of liberal bias that seeks to taint people's minds through media. Naturally, as a full-fledged leftists you will claim, against the evidence, that what I have said here is incorrect and will not bother to research it, or, if you do, you will simply dismiss anything that agrees with my assertions as "right-wing lies", again, against the evidence.

    "Did you see the new report showing that fatal terrorist attacks by jihadists has increased sevenfold since the Iraq Invasion?"

    Did you see how these attacks are almost entirey musims killing Muslims and not one of them has hapened on U.S. soil? Did you see how the majority of the rest are insurgent attacks against allied troops in Iraq? Wow . . . attacks in a war zone . . . what a shocker! Who could have guessed that terrorists would actually fight back when we go in to kill them? I don't know about you, but I am so totally shocked by this old news that anyone with half a brain saw coming when we went to war. Seriously, what kind of terrorist actually kills people when they have an enemy to fight right in their home?

    In case you didn;t get it, whatyou are touting as proof of the U.S causing terrorism is not that at all. your argument here is exactly like going back to WWII and saying teh following: "Before the U.S joined the war the death toll in Europe and the Pacific was far smaller. We are causing the Axis powers to attack us by fighting this war." Are you able to comprehend the sheer dishonest stupidity of this kind of argument? CLUE: If you say "no" you are delusional.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 7:52 PM  

  • Some might say that one is delusional if one supposed the majority of the world is delusional and they are sane.

    By Blogger Dan Trabue, at 12:46 PM  

  • I don't think liberals hate America, they just have a one-step thinking approach to helping it. It's wrong, and we know that Daniel, but they don't hate America. The problem is they view things too simplistically, and they assume terrorists are rational. It's faulty logic but they have good intentions.

    That being said though, I'm going to try to stay out of the war debate. You know where I stand. We have to fight. I understand it, the soldiers understand it, and I'm not going to spend time debating it here. It's not the kind of thing I think needs debate. You lefties can disagree with us, but please just get out of the way, we have a job to do, and you're not helping.

    By Blogger Robert M., at 12:48 PM  

  • Actually, it appears you "righties" will have to get out of the way. We're taking this fight in a better direction. We tried your way and have decided it was wrong.

    You also said:

    "The problem is they view things too simplistically, and they assume terrorists are rational."

    and this indicates you still don't quite understand our position (although thanks for acknowledging that we don't hate America). It's not so much whether or not they're rational but rather, whether or not they can be made to see why it is not in their own best interests to use terrorism.

    I'd suggest that we believe the options are:

    1. we can isolate the true die-hard terrorists, marginalize them and arrest them. When it is apparent that we are fighting terrorism, not Muslims, the world can unite behind that ideal.

    OR

    2. We can make this a war against Islam (which is what Bush's approach is doing), in which case we will have to stop 1 billion people PLUS those who will side against us in opposing an ill-conceived crusade.

    The first approach makes most sense to us.

    By Blogger Dan Trabue, at 2:29 PM  

  • Dan T,

    What do you think about the polls that say that Americans overwhemingly believe that we should not leave Iraq until the war is duely won? This is indirect opposition to your assertions that Americans just want out. This also proves my point about the polls you try to claim as evidence for your own viewpoint. Take a look at the whole picture sometime. You might actually learn the truth instead of just buying into the same, tired old leftist propaganda.

    Also, you are once again proving your inability to grasp basic concepts. I don't care what the "world" thinks about America because teh "world" has its own interests in mind, not the interests of teh U.S. This proven fact is naturally going to tain how the "world" sees America. Heck, if I lived in a small country with power that is utterly insignificant to the power the U.S> wields I wouuld feel the same way. The difference between you and me is that I am informed and honest enough to recognize amd acknowledge the truth when it slaps me in the face while you continue to believ lies in spite of every last shred of evidence.

    For example, just look at your 2 options. Option 1 has been used for decades and has been proven to be an uter failure, and yet you still have the naivete to suggest following the same old failed plan. Option 2 is ridiculous, and you present it as a red-herring in place of anything real. YOu see the world as a fail/fail place for America, but you interpret some kind of victory from failure.

    Oh yeah, and if the first choice that is a proven failure actually makes sense to you then I am forced to conclude that you are either ignorant or delusional. What fantasy world do you live in and what are you smoking to live there?

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 12:37 AM  

  • Interesting that you keep mentioning Democrats, given that 17 Republicans also voted for that non-binding resolution. That's nearly 10 percent of the Republicans in the House. Also, two Democrats voted against it.

    Secondly, this is the fifth time there has been a surge/escalation in troop levels in Iraq:

    * "Operation Together Forward" (June-October 2006)[+25,000]

    * Elections and Constitutional Referendum (September-December 2005) [+22,000]

    * Constitutional Elections and Fallujah (November 2004-March 2005) [+12,000]

    * Massive Troop Rotations (December 2003-April 2004) [+15,000]

    The first four didn't particularly make a difference. Why would this time be any different?

    By Blogger Wasp Jerky, at 6:16 PM  

  • "Interesting that you keep mentioning Democrats, given that 17 Republicans also voted for that non-binding resolution."

    Wow . . 17 Republicans versus 231 Democrats. That almost an identical number . . . not!

    184 out of 201 Republicans voted againt the resolution, 2 out of 233 Democrats voted against the resolution.

    I call this a decisively Democrat issue.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 9:17 PM  

  • Since you don't consider 10 percent to be a significant number, I guess you won't be opposed to sending me 10 percent of your paycheck.

    By Blogger Wasp Jerky, at 1:54 PM  

  • 8.4% actually. And the government already gets 30% of my paycheck before write-offs. Plus I donate to church, charity, and political organizations as well as private giving. I'll call that bigger than 10%, and I don't even miss it, just like I won't miss the 8.4% of Republicans and 99.1% of Democrats that voted to undermine our troops if they all vanished from Congress in 2008.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 3:50 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home


 
Listed on BlogShares