Yep, the left is finally realizing that the anti-war movement is nothing more than a catalyst for anti-Bush activism. People are waking up (years too late, but hangovers are hard to wake up from).
“At long last, the Democratic leaders of Congress have publicly surrendered on the Iraq War, just one year after being swept into power with a firm mandate to end it.”
In the late summer/fall of 2006 when the Democratic Party was trying to take the House of Representatives based largely on the promise that they had a plan for a “New Direction in Iraq,” I questioned it. I doubted it. I found no plan. The only plans for post-war Iraq that I found were a few token 1-2 page brainstorm ideas from a handful of Democratic senators, and the Bush Plans. There was the Bush plan from 2003, the 2004-2005 Bush plan, the updated to 2006 version, and later there’d be the 2007 plan (the Surge). The Democrats had no plan for a New Direction in Iraq. I was lambasted by the left for suggesting that only fools would blindly vote for politicians based on the idea that they might have a plan.
On election night, Howard Dean-the DNC Chairman-admitted to Chris Matthews live on MSNBC that there never was a plan. There was never even a brainstorm committee for an idea on a plan. Why? Because they didn’t want to accept the responsibility for defeat. It’s that pure and simple. If they’d have demanded defeat, and that demand was successful, then they’d own the defeat.
Well, it looks like the left is finally waking up. Thank you Rolling Stone magazine. The Democratic Party is a bunch of Chicken Doves.
“Working behind the scenes, the Democrats have systematically taken over the anti-war movement, [emphasis added-sm]packing the nation’s leading group with party consultants more interested in attacking the GOP than ending the war. “Our focus is on the Republicans,” one Democratic apparatchik in charge of the anti-war coalition declared. “How can we juice up attacks on them?”
Now, I wonder if these writers/music critics will have the courage to perform an introspective look into how they parroted the Democrats’ lies, or if they’ll at least have the nerve to question the lies presented to them from the left in the present and future. In the past, they’ve never had a problem or missed a heartbeat in challenging, doubting, questioning, or even deliberately misleading people about what President Bush and his administration have said and done about the war in Iraq. Yet, they’ve almost never dared question the accountability and/or responsibility of those Democrats who promoted, authorized, funded, supported, and called for more troops in the war. Nope. Those people have a D next to their name, so they got a free pass; no fact-checking, no effort to balance the power, no fairness, nuthin.
So it is, that we come to ask…how did Democrats get elected on promises they so obviously never even planned or brainstormed on meeting? How did Democrats get away with misleading so many? How did they come to use the anti-war movement as Rolling Stone points out? When will people who vote for Democrats hold them accountable for their lies, their misleading, and their deliberate division of America?
“The story of how the Democrats finally betrayed the voters who handed them both houses of Congress a year ago is a depressing preview of what’s to come if they win the White House. And if we don’t pay attention to this sorry tale now, while there’s still time to change our minds about whom to nominate, we might be stuck with this same bunch of spineless creeps for four more years. With no one but ourselves to blame.”
Pardon me while I pat myself on the back for saying that this was the case 5 years ago. In Nov2003, I wrote the book, Iraq’s Smoking Gun, and in it I detailed how the anti-war movement was used, funded, fueled, and misled by professional lawyer/lawmakers in the Democratic Party as a means of reducing support for the Commander in Chief during the war and conversely boosting their own political support. I’ve repeated this every day now for years.
Finally, a few of the misled have had mustered courage to dare and question the Democratic Party. Shame on them for doubting! Right?
Not trying to start an argument, but what you saying is that anyone who opposed or opposes the war is a leftist? There are many republicans who dislike the war as well. Also, are you saying the war was never going poorly? It was never strategized wrong? If you would like to say the war is going better now I will agree, but I think it is ridiculous to say anyone who opposes the war is a liberal.
“Solidifying his reputation as one of the biggest pussies in U.S. political history, Reid”
Fortunately for the Democrats they don’t have to be great to be elected.
They only have to be better than Republicans.
Good thing not one of the Democrats are better then….
Well John, then with that logic, the Dems should be defeated in Presidential and congressional elections until a new crop of Dems comes up around 2016.
Or does Intrade have bets that far out already?
It’s a good thing that’s not what Scott was saying then, isn’t it?
Not really an argument to have-just clarification:
-Nope, I’m saying the same thing the Rolling Stone piece is saying…that the anti-war movement is at it’s core an anti-Republican movement. Yes, there are some Republicans who have been successfully misled by the left, but statistically not many.
-Historically speaking, all wars have tougher times than others, and this one is no exception. See, in a war the enemy can do things, and not every contingency can be prepared for since some are counter to each other. For example, flooding Iraq with millions of troops in 2003 would have been like stomping on a puddle of burning gasoline and just spread it. However, I do think that counter insurgency ops should have been started in more earnest earlier, but to do so would have weakened other areas and given the enemy opportunity to strike in those areas. Part of war is that bad things happen, you do your best, and you aim for the least suffering-historically speaking.
-Well, I didn’t say that at all in this piece, but I do think that it’s wrong to say we shoulda done this or that. The enemy gets a vote. Look at any battle in history, and say, “Man, if only X would have done such and such.” Well, if one re-writes the actions of X then the reactions of Y equally get to be re-written. If the US had detected the Japanese and sent out its fleet then what? Answer, the Japanese fleet which was bigger, more experienced, and better technologically would have had a huge advantage, and given the history of the day where battleships were sunk by aircraft (see also Prince of Wales and Repulse), as well as the subsequent history of US carriers engaging Japanese carriers (Coral Sea), then it can logically be said that the US would’ve suffered a defeat still. Point here is that if we say, “Bush shoulda done this or that” then we also have to ask, “Would AQ still have been able to set off the pile of kindling that was sectarian violence waiting to happen? Nah, I think things have gone incredibly well by historical comparison.
-I didn’t. I said that the anti-war movement has been taken over by Democrats using it as a catalyst and cover for their real agenda which is any and all things anti-Republican; well, actually Rolling Stone said that. Recall the title of my piece is DEMOCRATS-not everyone who opposes the war is a leftist
Now you expect them to not only actually read and comprehend it, but to know it was a leftist who wrote it? Man, you are a mean one….
The “interesting” part of reading the Rolling Stone articles are the comments left by the leftists. Such “happy”, “tolerant” people…
Doesn’t “LIBERAL” mean, open-minded, tolerant, forward-thinking, imaginative, etc? Must be a neocon that wrote the piece, right Chris?
Yep, must be a plant… 😉
Except, like the article from the very far leftist who was ashamed of being liberal who wrote an article for Rolling Stone a few months ago. The comments from the VERY intolerant leftists were, not surprisingly, full of hate, venom, and “we are doing all we can to forcefully silence conservatives, give us a break”.
They just did not get the author’s point…. Instead they vindicate it.