2
Aug

Anti-war Chickendove Democrats: Investing in Defeat

Posted by: Wordsmith @ 11:27 am in The Iraqi War  | 0 views


If victory in Iraq was oversold at the outset, there are now signs that defeat is likewise being oversold today.- Thomas Sowell

If I’ve been accused of "overselling" victory, count me in, guilty as charged. Although I believe that victory has always been possible, undermined mainly by a political will not to win, rather than the belief that "democracy cannot flourish in that region of the world", that "we are babysitting a civil war", that the real battle against terrorism and al-Qaeda isn’t in Iraq, etc. I may have remained optimistic overall, throughout the past 4 years, but this does not mean I do not recognize setbacks and strategies that have failed, as they inevitably occur in any war.

Such is life. In stark contrast, many of the war critics do not acknowledge the successes that we have achieved. It has not all been doom and gloom, every step of the way. The biggest downslide had been the bombing of the al-Askari Mosque of Samarra. The so-called "civil war", instigated by al-Qaeda. That and the demoralizing nature of the MSM-style of news reporting which has undermined American resolve, political will, endangered military and civilian lives, given aid and comfort to the enemy, and distorted public opinion and perception.

I believe that many anti-war Democrats are so cram-filled with BDS and blinded by partisan politics, that they honestly (and for some, dishonestly) cannot perceive anything other than bad news, in regards to Iraq.  The level of depth in the negativity sabotages our attempts to engage the enemy in Iraq with decisive victory.


 As Tony Blankley writes, victories cannot be reliably predicted; but neither so can defeat be reliably predicted. The Democrats have invested so much of their political capital in it, that they own defeat. They have become the Party of defeat. How else does one excuse the efforts of liberal bloggers who slander and malign the character of the General who leads America’s forces into war? These liberal bloggers ache for an American defeat and do much to undermine American victory.  Why?  Because an "American victory in Iraq" would be perceived as a George W. Bush victory. 

Their political partisanship, Bush-hate, and egoes are all invested to see Iraq as a failure. Why else do they want to paint this as "Bush’s war" rather than "America’s war"? Why else can they never acknowledge good news when it happens, and act happy about it? Why is it so rare to see lefty blogs who say they "support the troops", but never talk about sending care packages, contributing to military charities, showing the kindness and nobility of our soldiers toward Iraqi children and helping the Iraqi people? All they can do is disparage on and on about abu Ghraib, Haditha, and prop up on their shoulders, a Scott Thomas Beauchamp.   What a great political and ideological investment the left have made. Too bad it doesn’t beat to the same drum as to what is in America’s best interest.

And just what is in America’s best interest?

Victory in Iraq.

This is what my side has invested in. And it just so happens that most of us are also in the Republican Party. It didn’t have to be this way. But it’s the way it’s worked out in this moment in history: Democrats are for defeat. Republicans are for victory.

Previous post by Todd Anthony:
Pandering to the far-left

  • Share/Bookmark
Print This Post Print This Post
This entry was posted on Thursday, August 2nd, 2007 at 11:27 am and is filed under The Iraqi War. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Trackbacks

8 comments so far

David
 1Reply to this comment  

Nicely said.

Also, you may be interested in what happened when a group of Iraqi teens visited Democratic Gov. Bill Ritter in Denver yesterday when the governor ventured his opinion on the Iraq (which happens to be a recitation of Democratic talking points).

You may read it here: http://www.gazette.com/articles/ritter_25555___article.html/students_troops.html.

Gov. Ritter was hoping this group of Iraqi teens would wholeheartedly agree with him.

(For the record, I did not leave any comment with this article.)

August 2nd, 2007 at 2:01 pm
David
 2Reply to this comment  

Sorry for the poor grammar again. Should read, “… when the governor ventured his opinion on Iraq …”

August 2nd, 2007 at 2:07 pm
Skye
 3Reply to this comment  

Excellent post Wordsmith and David!

August 2nd, 2007 at 5:41 pm
ChrisG
 4Reply to this comment  

Okay, I know this is a repost, but the quotes by the left are too precious not to see again. In tying with the Obama implosion thread, the left is fully invested in a humiliating US defeat that they are engineering with idiotic statements from leftist politicians, vast sums of money from leftists elites (Soros, Progressive’s CEO, etc), and the shrill insanity of the fringe which is the new “mainstream” Democrat base. Democrat politicians are now even walking out of briefings by multiple Generals who are giving the true picture of Iraq since is is 180 degrees different from the “defeat at any cost” left’s position. A two year old does this, not an elected official.

Do not forget that every prominent Democrat who now opposes everything we are doing and states “Bush Lied” all said the exact same things President Bush stated in justifications for Iraq. The fact they are changing their positions is only due to one reason: They are not in power. It is a pathetic excuse to sabotage your nations war efforts, but then, the House Majority Whip did not mean America, our allies, and our Soldiers when he said “us”.

http://www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html

Note the date on the very first quote (I forget when President Bush made a similar quote but I think Hillary beat him to it):

“Every nation has to either be with us, or against us. Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price.”

Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)
September 13, 2001
http://www.wavsource.com/news/20010911a.htm

“I come to this debate, Mr. Speaker, as one at the end of 10 years in office on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was one of my top priorities. I applaud the President on focusing on this issue and on taking the lead to disarm Saddam Hussein. … Others have talked about this threat that is posed by Saddam Hussein. Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, he is trying to get nuclear weapons.”

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
Addressing the US Senate
October 10, 2002
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/
cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=H7777&dbname=2002_record

*Note, Pelosi and every other leftist seems to forget that they had Presidential level access to all the same intelligence and evidence Presidents Clinton and Bush had. Speaking of President Clinton:

“In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now — a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.

If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program.”

President Clinton
Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff
February 17, 1998
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/

And:

“People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons.”

Former President Clinton
During an interview on CNN’s “Larry King Live”
July 22, 2003
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/23/clinton.iraq.sotu/

If the left would stop being “sheeple” for just a few minutes, they would see that calling President Bush a “liar and a criminal” means that their own idols and leaders in the socialist Democratic party are even more guilty as they perpetrated a “lie” through two administrations. The left has hampered themselves in future conflicts. Every reason they have for invading Iran (or Pakistan) is the same ones they attacked President Bush on.

So, if/when a leftist from this current crop gets elected, will they simply ignore attacks, if only responding with cruise missiles as they did in the 1990s? Can we afford another 4-8 years of cowering as terrorists continue to attack our People and our Allies?

Will we then end up fighting a VERY costly world war because we refused to win a regional war while the enemy was weaker (all due to petty politics)?

August 3rd, 2007 at 4:33 am
Scott Malensek
 5Reply to this comment  

I’m interested in seeing how the Dems respond to the report on the Surge next month. Surely many of the Kossack lapdogs will declare defeat (they did months ago before the offensive even started), but by and large what will the party do? I mean, will their base actually hear the leaders they worked so hard to get into a position of power and responsibility, and then will the base sit back and be comforted/appeased by yet another non-binding act against the war? Surely there’s a breaking point where people say, “Hey, we donated to your campaign, we worked the phones, we ranted away online, we sent letters to the editor, we did all we could to get you (Dem leaders) elected to power in Congress, and we did it all in the hopes that you’d get the US out of Iraq….when does the Democratic Party base get SOMETHING for all their money and efforts? Even if the Democratic party leaders declare the Sept report as “proof” that the war in Iraq is a “lost cause,” and even if they vote to cut the funding, President Bush will just veto it again. The only way for Democratic Party leaders finally appease their base, those who send them money, work the phones, etc., will be to use earmarks to bribe enough Republicans to override a veto. That’s not likely-especially if the report next month indicates and highlights successes.

So, when does the Democratic Party’s base ask, “What’d we elect you guys for?” or “What do we get for electing you guys to power?”

I’d like to know when and where the Dem base’s breaking point is? Cindy Sheehan reached hers already. So too did most of Kucinich and others’ supporters.

Better yet, how can the Democratic Party base vote for Sen Clinton or Sen Obama when their positions on Iraq are the same as Republicans, and both Dem leaders have promised to keep 10’s of thousands of troops in Iraq (ie, continue the war)?

After next month’s DNC leader antics which are sure to come, where will the party base go? In 2008, all a Republican would need to do to run against a Democrat for Congress is to say, “Hey, we sent so-and-so to Capitol Hill with the expectation that they would end the war, and they didn’t do it. Send me, and I’ll at least try.” ‘Course, by then, if the surge is working, the war will be winding down anyway.

Dems are gonna have problems in 08, and the problems start in just a few weeks with the report on the surge. Like the article said, they’ve banked it all on Al Queda success over American success. For Democrats to win, America must lose. You’d think some people on the left might realize that, and rethink the issue.

August 3rd, 2007 at 5:12 am
scaulen
 6Reply to this comment  

Should be a huge surge of new Republicans after we win in Iraq. Nothing makes you change sides faster then when you find out you’ve been lied to all these years.

August 3rd, 2007 at 6:51 am
ChrisG
 7Reply to this comment  

Scaulen,

Doubtful. The left has slavishly adhered to losing ideals and obvious acts of betrayal against the United States for decades. The fall of Communism did not make them switch sides; the failure of N. Korea and Cuba to feed their people or make them want to stay in their socialist “utopias” did not change their minds. The bloody result of leftists selling out the South Vietnamese does not cause them to lose sleep. The huge pile of evidence that Saddam violated pretty much every line of the 1991 Cease Fire and every UN mandate did not convince them. The mass graves we found, the rock solid proof of Iranian involvement in Iraq, the multiple ties between Saddam and terrorism, and the continued revelations from translated evidence in Iraq does not convince the left that they were lied to by their leaders.

The multiple Milblogs, true stories from soldiers supporting our efforts, positive stories the Iraq children are telling Democrat governors about life in Iraq, and the fact the Iraqis are actively fighting and killing terrorists does not convince the left. Even conclusive proof time and again that leftists in the media are lying through their teeth does not convince the leftist sheep.

We are talking about a group of people who hold signs saying “Bush is Hitler” right next to signs saying “Kill all the Jews” and “Death to Zionism” and every other National Socialist catch phrase while they march in support of terrorists who will gleefully kill the “progressives”. Logic and rational thought might be a stretch for the new leftist “base”.

August 3rd, 2007 at 8:30 am
Scott Malensek
 8Reply to this comment  

Fear and hate.

They fear Bush so they hate Bush
They fear the message, so they hate the messenger
They fear the reality, so they hate the few choices in addressing it

Fear and hate…it’s what “liberal” means today where it once mean comfort, hope, respect, and even love for others. Today, the reason that those on the left choose to call themselves “progressive” is because the term “liberal” has taken on a bad connotation. It’s a bad word anymore. Why? Because liberal no longer means tolerance or embracing. It means fear of a vast right wing conspiracy of corporate warmongering cabal lead by Jews.

The propaganda (see also TNR Scott B story and more) has turned once tolerant and embracing liberals into progressives who hate Bush, fear the reality he presents by taking action when there are few other options, and when they can’t blame Bush (a rarity), they blame corporations and/or Jews. Gosh this pattern sounds historically familiar.

August 3rd, 2007 at 9:25 am

Leave a reply

Name (*)
Mail (will not be published) (*)
URI
Comment

If your comments get caught in spam a lot please log into your registered account before trying to comment again. You can email me if your comment is caught in spam

 

Identity Verification: If you wish to verify your commenter identity, so no one can steal it, click the below button: