November 6, 2006

"The Democrats appear to be content with losing [the war]."

A hot exchange:
“To pull out, to withdraw from this war, is losing, there’s no question about it,” said Senator Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina, the chairwoman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee [on “Meet the Press”]. “The Democrats appear to be content with losing.”

[Rahm] Emanuel, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, turned sharply toward Mrs. Dole, his face lined with outrage.

“You should take that back, Senator,” he said. But Mrs. Dole kept speaking over him, creating a minute of partisan cacophony on the television set.

“I will not sit idly by with an accusation that Democrats are content with losing,” Mr. Emanuel said.
Here's the clip:



I like the way Dole stands her ground. I find it annoying, but I admire that, especially in a woman. We risk more being annoying and standing our ground, you know. People think a woman won't lock on and hold like that. Russert tried to shake her off as soon as she started, to give the floor to Emanuel to deny the accusation. But she had the presence of mind not to let that happen to her. She's not the good little girl the boys think they can demand at will.

140 comments:

Edward said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Edward said...

I’m all for strong women standing their ground.

But even a strong woman should care more about getting her facts right than about merely standing her ground.

And even a strong woman should avoid sheer rudeness.

Dole was flat-out wrong about the Democrats, and she should have been willing to engage in more of a dialogue with Rahm Emanuel.

Ann Althouse said...

Actually, I think she's right. "The Democrats appear to be content with losing." It's my biggest problem with Democrats. And note, I am not a Republican. I have been voting almost exclusively for Democrats since 1972. I would like to be able to vote for Democrats, but this is my problem with them.

And there was no "dialogue" in the offing. He was just going to deny it, to get his message in. She was just trying to dominate and he was. Simple as that. She didn't sit back and let him do it. Even with Russert trying to make that happen.

Al Maviva said...

You are completely wrong about the Dems being content with losing. "Content" has a connotation of acceptance, of settling for something that is less desirable.

Nobody would work as hard as they have to bring about the preconditions necessary for defeat, were the end result merely contentment.

Trevor Jackson said...

"He was just going to deny it . . ."

What other response is there to such a ridiculous and empty claim? Should Emanuel have responded, "The Republicans appear content to let soldiers die"? Equally as empty and combative a statement.

And why do the Democrats "appear" this way? Because this administration has defined "winning" as persisting in a foolish and direction-less occupation. Any alternative or change in strategy has been defined as "losing."

James Stephenson said...

But you see, cutting and running is losing. Whether you call it, phased redeployment or not, it is still cutting and running. And that is losing, there is not winning if we leave Iraq, there is only losing.

Has the deployment in Iraq been ran correctly, well it is hard to tell at this point. A lot of people felt we were running the occupation of Germany wrong, 3 years into it. And we occupied Germany for 60 years. Still have troops there.

Am I happy American soldiers are being killed? Hell no, I used to be one, so some of my friends may be there. But they as a whole think we should stay and if they believe so, I believe so. Wrong or not, the alternative is wrong, losing. The Democrats are basically saying our men and women can not win this thing.

After all that is what cutting and running, oops, I meant Phased redeployment means.

Jesus, leading Democrats must really think Americans stupid, calling it something different does not make it different.

Ann Althouse said...

Read the next post, above this one. The soldiers on the ground say pulling out would be devastating. The link is to the Washington Post.

James Stephenson said...

Oops, my brain got ahead of my fingers again.

"And that is losing, there is not winning if we leave Iraq, there is only losing."

Should be:

"And that is losing, there is no winning if we leave Iraq, there is only losing."

Sorry.

Danny said...

So what is Elizabeth Dole's plan to end the rift between the Sunni and Shia in Iraq? What is her plan to create democracy where only depotism has ever existed? Does she have a plan for victory or is she content with losing the war?

Too Many Jims said...

This is gladiatorial combat, there is no place for "dialogue" in that envrionment. The problem is once the show ends, it is not helpful to building a consensus for one side to be saying "you are committed to losing" and the other side to be saying, for example, "you are committed to persisting in a foolish and direction-less occupation". This bright line drawing is fine for campaigning or setting policy when you have one party in control, but does little to help build the consensus that is necessary to win the long term struggle against the people who really hate this country.

NSC said...

They are not just content with losing the war. You can almost feel a joy coming from many of them about that prospect.

It's palpable.

Trevor Jackson said...

Whatever hope we had three years ago to help the Iraqis forge an effective and self-sustaining unity government was squandered. It's got nothing to do with whether our troops can die enough or kill enough or even train enough to achieve the impossible. Their leadership has dealt them a losing hand and refuses to reshuffle the deck.

That kind of "winning" sounds like a stubborn refusal to face the facts.

Yes, pulling out en masse would be devastating. Staying seems to be pretty devastating too. So, what's the new strategy? Smear Democrats for asking tough questions? Yeah, that's a winner.

Pogo said...

Of course they are satisfied with losing. To retreat is to lose. To retreat is to cede the area to annihilation. Ever since 1964, the Democrats love to lose militarily. They voted to lose in VietNam. Carter lost against Iran. Clinton lost against Bin Laden and in Somalia. They think we're the worst place on the planet and we deserve to lose. Just ask their guiding light, Chomsky.

The question isn't whether the Dems want to lose. It's clear that they are intent on snatching defeat from the jaws of victory here. The question is 'what next?'

The answer? USA surrender to any and all aggressors in the future. They want to pay the Danegeld. They want to commit national suicide.

Trevor Jackson said...

The only thing that's palpable, nsc, is your blindness to the facts.

The other thing that's palpable is the projection of your rage at this administration for its failures onto the people who knew this would end in disaster from the beginning.

Psychology from a distance is easy. And fun, too! Tell me what I'm thinking now.

Tony said...

I love it... Senator Dole was in the lions den and would not give an inch.

We have given too many "compromises" there is no compromise when the enemy wants to kill thousands upon thousands.

There is either winning or losing the lives. the political realm is not the place to be discussing minute strategy.

one needs to rally around the flag and truly support the troops. No preconditions on a mission.

DaMav said...

I can't believe that anyone would seriously take issue with Dole's point. What exactly is repeatedly demanding that America retreat from the field if not a call for and guarantee of defeat?

My only quibble with Dole's statement is that it shortchanges the Democrats on their enthusiasm. They are not "content" with losing the war, they are demanding it in loud, clear, and consistent terms that can be heard around the globe.

SteveS said...

James Stephenson:

"Jesus, leading Democrats must really think Americans stupid, calling it something different does not make it different."

Right, and Bush saying "Listen, we've never been 'stay the course'" after uttering that exact phrase dozens of times over the last three years is a sign of the Republican party's limitless respect for the intelligence of the American people.

NSC said...

I can't tell you what you are thinking, Trevor, because liberals do not think.

They feel.

In this case their feelings of hatred for Bush outweigh any and all things.

A loss in Iraq would be bad for Bush and that feels so very good to them. So much so that it doesn't matter how it would hurt our nation or the world. It helps them and that is all that matters.

And it doesn't take in psychology from a distance to know this - all you have to do is look and listen.

You guys aren't shy about showing it, after all.

Goesh said...

I was raised around mentally and physically strong women so this is no big deal for me. I would expect this from any woman in a position of power and influence, to hold her ground and abide no sass from anyone.

Fenrisulven said...

Right, and Bush saying "Listen, we've never been 'stay the course'" after uttering that exact phrase dozens of times over the last three years is a sign of the Republican party's limitless respect for the intelligence of the American people

He stopped using the slogan because your side distorted its meaning for political points. Stay the course has always meant to stay true to our goals in Iraq, not the methods we use to achieve those goals. Nothing has changed, not even the sophistry of the Left.

I would go beyond Dole's comments. Dems want us to lose the war - to destroy the validity of any pre-emption doctrine, to avoid another Gorby giving another Reagan credit for ending the Cold War, to blame Bush for everything in the ME for the next decade. They will happily sabatoge our foreign policy for political power. Its sickening. I no longer question their patriotism.

Bart Hall (Kansas, USA) said...

There is a reason most Democrats would be pleased to lose this war. They could then say, "See. This unilateralist approach just doesn't work. We have to rejoin the world community."

Most of America's leftist know they cannot possibly win approval for their approach at the ballot box, at least not if they state it openly. They've been finding it a lot harder to get it done through the courts than it used to be.

Their big hope is that transnationalist and internationalist structures will be able to impose their policies (e.g. gun control, same-sex marriage, carbon taxes, ending capital punishment, government health systems, bans on GMOs, and so on) on an America that has proven repeatedly it does not want such things.

For that to happen America needs to lose in the Middle East and Democrats have to pretend they're centrists long enough to get back in power so they can lock America into transnationalism.

Pogo said...

P.S. Tim Russert is fun to watch as he's dominated by a strong women ignores his agenda. When he said "Time out", I knew he was kneeling to a tougher intellect.

P.P.S. Ha! When Derve has to change the subject this fast, he knows he lost.

Derve said...

Pogo:

You beat me.
You win on Tuesday.

Pull out your gameplan for winning in Iraq and give us a peek after 3 years? I know you've got some strategy up your warrior sleeves...
lmao. "Yeah. It's the Dems. The enemy. Get em!!"

Trevor Jackson said...

Keep believing that the left hates Bush and America first and foremost, NSC. That kind of rhetoric does wonders for the country. Just as Dole's (back on topic) rhetoric clearly and effectively encouraged healthy debate.

AJ Lynch said...

Did not see the show but good for Dole! Dems like Emanuel (who is just a Dem version of Tom Delay) don't care about Iraq BUT they want to control how their disinterest is defined or tagged. Well, Dole showed they can't have it both ways.

And btw, it's truly sickening to see money-grubbing scum like Emanuel and Delay in such high posts in the two major parties.

The Humanity Critic said...

Elizabeth Dole is a disgrace. bShe has not only been lying about and smearing Harold Ford Jr, she looked like a desperate republican on the urge of defeat. She was so unruly and disgusting on Meet the Press, I wouldn't be surprised if she was potty trained at gunpoint. She is absolutely a horrible human being.

Tim said...

"Keep believing that the left hates Bush and America first and foremost, NSC. That kind of rhetoric does wonders for the country. Just as Dole's (back on topic) rhetoric clearly and effectively encouraged healthy debate."

So now you want us to disbelieve our lying eyes and ears?

I pray for the day the Left hates the terrorists and other enemies of the U.S. AS MUCH as they hate Bush, Republicans and the U.S.

I think I'll be waiting a long time.

But I still hope, against all experience.

Too Many Jims said...

Dems like Emanuel (who is just a Dem version of Tom Delay)

If by that you mean he can be ruthless and demand discipline from his party, you are right. But if Dems win the House and the administration thinks that Emanuel is just a Dem version of Delay (assuming the Dems give him a big voice) the administration will get their clocks cleaned just like when Clinton "won" the government shutdown argument with Newt.

Delay is a divide and conquer Rovian. Emanuel is middle way Clintonian.

Trevor Jackson said...

Tim, I pray for the day that your cheap and dishonest rhetorical flourish ceases to be the first thing so many on the right spout when criticized for their failures.

Something something refuge scoundrels. Sheesh, I can't remember how that one goes.

Why is asking for accountability and rational debate equivalent to treason to you? I really wish I could get a decent answer to this question.

DBrooks said...

I have not always been happy with Elizabeth Dole. At times, she has been a little too genteel for the political situation and her role in it. However, I love that she didn't allow Russert and Emmanuel to bully her--which was their obvious intent. They wanted to quiet her, and spend the next two minutes refuting her comment without allowing her to elaborate. For the most part, Tim Russert has been relatively fair over the years. Not so much the past few years. His eagerness to assist Emmanuel in ending Dole's comments, and in refuting them is pretty typical for him lately. Bravo to Mrs. Dole for not allowing it to happen.

To say that all Democrats seem content to lose paints with too broad a brush, but it is inarguable that a significant number of Democrats, particularly those in leadership roles, are more than content to see our efforts in Iraq crash and burn.

Pogo said...

I really don't uderstand the negative reaction Russert and the other Democrats at the table had to Dole's comment.

She simply called "retreat" and "pull out" by its more common term "lose". Their reaction shows how losing is hated by US citizens, so they've had to admit they have no plan for winning, just one for leaving.

Re: "Something something refuge scoundrels."
Boy, that's tellin' him.

Pogo said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
pst314 said...

The point Ann Althouse made, and which some of her commenters seem to have missed, is that Rahm Emanuel wasn't letting Senator Dole finish speaking. He interrupted and kept interrupting, in his best partisan-hack attempt to shut her up. If Dole had said "I'm speaking now, Rahm, wait your turn you arrogant !#@$%" it would have been no more than he deserved, albeit imprudent to say in public.

NSC said...

Keep believing that the left hates Bush and America first and foremost, NSC. That kind of rhetoric does wonders for the country. Just as Dole's (back on topic) rhetoric clearly and effectively encouraged healthy debate.

It's not rhetoric if it is true.

George said...

The good Senator from the Tar Heel State locked on like a B-52 on a bombing run and dropped her payload on Mr. Emanuel.

I'll bet her line was carefully planned and even focus-grouped. The verb "content."
"Content with losing." Beautiful word choice. As though Mr. Rahm's party consists of a field of daisies about to be mowed over.

And what was Cong. Emanuel's retort? "We want a new direction to Iraq." What does that mean? It's pure hot air. A meaningless statement.

Then, immediately after he said that, the mike catches Sen. Dole defiantly stating, "....pull out!" An oddly sexual interjection, I thought, given that two men were trying to shut her up.

The camera caught Rahm's frustated cheeks-blown-out expression towards the end...just like a kindergartener who'd been told to be quiet by a his teacher.

A pair of chipmunks, him and Russert.

Derve said...

He interrupted and kept interrupting, in his best partisan-hack attempt to shut her up.

See, we don't have to applaud "our side" for merely standing our ground against gender norms.

Emanuel was right not to politely take “The Democrats appear to be content with losing.” Of course, he objected immediately and loudly. No special praise necessary.

Outside this blog crowd, I'm betting a good majority saw Emanuel best Dole on that count. You can give her brownie points for speaking up, but nobody bought that line outside the Bushcheerleaders hot to diagnose BDS.

It's like the war. Either we're winning or we're not. Who to blame, who to blame? Why not put all that energy and expense into actually winning the war, not just elections.

Trevor Jackson said...

The only change I'd make to this:

She simply called "retreat" and "pull out" by its more common term "lose".

Is replacing "lose" with "cut our losses."

And, let's be clear, I don't believe that the Democrats first action in retaking control is to begin calling for a "pull out." I'm prepared to be wrong on this point, but I don't believe it. Because what I've heard candidates ask for is accountability (something that's been sorely lacking in this Congress), and a consideration of all options including strategic redeployment or even complete abandonment.

Certainly that last option's not the first choice, but if it's the least bad of all the bad choices we face as the result of this administration's incompetence, then yeah, let's not place more of our sons and daughters in harm's way for the sake of another country's civil war.

Oh, and thanks for your compliment, Pogo. I was just repaying in kind.

Derve said...

"We want a new direction to Iraq." What does that mean?

It means your team -- the Republicans in power, and all those who voted for them -- are plainly losing.

Real people are getting killed ... for what?

Fine, you think Mrs.Sen.Dole won Sunday. Now it's Monday. We're still in Iraq. The Republicans are still leading us. Where's the winning gameplan against the enemy?

Trevor Jackson said...

You keep talking about truth, NSC. And yet I keep hoping you'll come up with a quote from someone on the left where he or she says, "I hate America and Bush more than I hate terrorists." I'll even settle for "I hope America loses." Bonus points if it's someone actually in a position of power in the left and not some blog troll, though even that would be fine.

And you can go on all day about subtext, but then I'm going to go on calling you the Freud of the New Millennium.

Fenrisulven said...

Keep believing that the left hates Bush and America first and foremost, NSC.

Lexus-nexis backs him up. Bush/America bashing from the Left tops terrorist bashing almost 10-1. Look around, those are jihadi's cheering the Dem party on - even they get it. I'm surprised ACORN hasn't registered them to vote.

Mike B said...

Who in their right mind thinks Dole is wrong? Do you need to see the Democrat's willingness to lose in black and white?

Fine, read James Carrol as he writes in the Boston Globe for countless Democrats....

"If the Democrats take power with the elections tomorrow, congressional hearings will have a lot of such questions to consider. But what about the moral question? For all of the anguish felt over the loss of American lives, can we acknowledge that there is something proper in the way that hubristic American power has been thwarted? Can we admit that the loss of honor will not come with how the war ends, because we lost our honor when we began it? This time, can we accept defeat?"

Derve said...

Whether we can accept defeat or not, Americans are not going to accept having troops in Iraq the next 10 to 20 years merely babysitting the region, making it safe for Israel to grow up and account for her policies.

Sorry. America will not be able to be there for that long. Maybe knowing this, people should start acting on it?

(leave this one up, huh Miss Ann?)

NSC said...

Tevor,

I am not going to spend my valuable time searching for quotes about how the left hates Bush. I will simply direct you to the DU website or the DailyKos. There are hundreds of posts and comments there that provide all the evidence I need. There are plenty of other blogs out there that express hatred towards Bush - go read em.

As to Democratic leaders hating Bush, I will give you John Kerry, Charlie Rangal, Nancy Pelosi, Peter Murtha, and Ted Kennedy just to name a few. They aren't shy about it. Or was that "botched-joke" of Kerry's towards Bush a show of affection?

I should point out that I never said Dems hate America - you said that (my it's not rhetoric if it is true comment was about Bush-hatred - I should have been clearer).

What I said, and what I believe, is that their hatred of Bush outweighs all else - even seeing our nation hurt in the short run if it hurts Bush.

I stand by that statement.

Pogo said...

Re: "Where's the winning gameplan...?"

That's why I left the democrats, apparaently for good. They are simply unable to provide meaningful leadership during a war.

Lincoln was opposed to the Mexican War (1844-1849), a war he felt was based on a lie. Lincoln supported a resolution that declared the war unnecessary and accused Pres. Polk of violating the Constitution in waging it. Yet still he voted to fund the American army, supported victory (rather than retreat), and agreed the US should keep territory from Mexico as part of a peace settlement.

Why can't Democrats admit that we are in Iraq, it can't be undone, so the best hope for our soldiers is to prosecute the war fully and completely, and leave only when the job is done? Half measures that result in retreat mean we'll merely have to go back again later, with greater loss of life then (the lesson of WW1).

tjl said...

"Ever since 1964, the Democrats love to lose militarily>"

Of course they do, although they don't openly phrase it that way.

Their goal is to demonstrate that the use of military power always leads to defeat and self-destruction. By doing everything they can to make this happen, they validate their world view -- that we shouldn't waste money on defense when we can spend it on increased entitlements for the Democratic base.

If you need to confirm this assessment, just reread the quote above from James Carroll in the Boston Globe. There you hear the authentic voice of the Democratic paleo-liberals speaking.

Tim said...

Trevor Jackson "Why is asking for accountability and rational debate equivalent to treason to you? I really wish I could get a decent answer to this question."

But you and others like you aren't asking for accountability and rational debate - you and others like you are working furiously to give the terrorists and other enemies of America a victory in Iraq. Or do you really believe leaving Iraq short of victory for the U.S. and its policy is not a HUGE win for the terrorists?

There are only two groups who win if we leave Iraq without victory - the terrorists and the western, anti-U.S. Left.

You might think that to be a " cheap and dishonest rhetorical flourish," but I know it is your goal and that makes you an ally of the terrorists.

Harsh? Like it or not - that's the truth of the matter. And you and others like you cannot disclaim that fact.

Think I' wrong?

Show me the Left's plan for defeating the terrorists in Iraq.

I've been waiting.

I'll wait some more.

Until then, I've voting to win.

Chevyiii said...

Speaking of strong women, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEJ69L3Zxtg
Last week Lynn Cheney knocked CNN down a peg or two. She got Wolfy tongue tied and he both admited and denied that CNN is a propaganda outlet.

Trevor Jackson said...

I apologize for ascribing the America-hating comment to you, NSC. That was Tim.

I don't deny that there's a lot of anti-Bush rhetoric out there from the left. Obviously I know where to find that kind of talk and don't find it all that constructive. But, really, there's a lot to criticize. Whether it distracts them from clear thinking is arguable.

Whether the Pelosi/Dean/Reid rhetoric is just politics and campaign chatter or if Democrats will somehow only enact "Bush-hating legislation" remains to be seen. I think there's little point in a Democratic House pursuing an almost-lame duck even if it hurts the U.S. I have hope they're smarter than that. You, apparently, don't.

Derve said...

That's why I left the democrats, apparaently for good. They are simply unable to provide meaningful leadership during a war.

Lincoln was opposed to the Mexican War (1844-1849)...

...Ever since 1964, the Democrats love to lose militarily


Right now folks, it's your Republicans in leadership. Don't talk yesterday. Talk today. Or better yet, tomorrow.

Again, where is your plan for winning? Or are Republicans content to lose this thing and blame it on ... the Democrat party?

See, talk is cheap. Anybody can "win" at that. Take responsibility and stop blaming others for your trouble. Save yourselves instead of relying on others to always be there for you.

Shanna said...

"He was just going to deny it . . ."
What other response is there to such a ridiculous and empty claim?


It’s not an empty claim. The only democratic plan I’ve heard is to leave, which would be loosing. That may be a valid plan (the quickest way to end a war is to lose it), but that is their plan and the Democrats who believe that should be honest about it.

Derve said...

So that's the Republican secret plan for winning then?

Lynne Cheney and Elizabeth Dole?

Strong Republican women verbally expressing power are going to win the Iraq war? Good luck with that one.

Fenrisulven said...

Americans are not going to accept having troops in Iraq the next 10 to 20 years merely babysitting the region, making it safe for Israel to grow up and account for her policies

We will have troops in the Middle East for at least another decade. How do you plan on handling Iran? Oh thats right, another set of harshly worded resolutions from the UN...

You really don't get how Iraq is part of the war on terror. You should avoid discussing foreign policy until you can catch up. Thats what Pelosi and Reid are doing. Follow your "leaders"

Tim said...

Trevor Jackson:

"FORWARD OPERATING BASE SYKES, Iraq, Nov. 5 — For the U.S. troops fighting in Iraq, the war is alternately violent and hopeful, sometimes very hot and sometimes very cold. It is dusty and muddy, calm and chaotic, deafeningly loud and eerily quiet.

The one thing the war is not, however, is finished, dozens of soldiers across the country said in interviews. And leaving Iraq now would have devastating consequences, they said.

With a potentially historic U.S. midterm election on Tuesday and the war in Iraq a major issue at the polls, many soldiers said the United States should not abandon its effort here. Such a move, enlisted soldiers and officers said, would set Iraq on a path to civil war, give new life to the insurgency and create the possibility of a failed state after nearly four years of fighting to implant democracy.

"Take us out of that vacuum — and it's on the edge now — and boom, it would become a free-for-all," said Lt. Col. Mark Suich, who commands the 1st Squadron, 89th Cavalry Regiment just south of Baghdad. "It would be a raw contention for power. That would be the bloodiest piece of this war."


I stand with LTC Suich and his soldiers defeating the terrorists and winning. You and your pals stand with those who want to defeat LTC Suich. Is that how you hold people accountable and have rational debates?

Ann - sorry for the cut and paste.

Trevor Jackson said...

Tim, I doubt a position paper stating the Democratic Party's platform on fighting terrorism is going to sway you from your belief that one of the two political parties in this country is actually run by appeasers and terrorist-lovers.

I mean, really, when you begin from a position like that, you're not coming into a comment thread like this to actually hear from the other side, you come just to pour poison and twist the words of your "opponents."

It's sad, really, but this is where we are. Permanent campaigning, endless war.

Tim said...

Trevor,

I read the latest policy manifesto from the Democrats - NOTHING on winning the war in Iraq.

NOTHING.

Show me otherwise.

pst314 said...

Shorter Derve: "I disagree with Dole. Therefore I don't need to wait my turn to speak. I can just shout her down."

Derve said...

"NOTHING on winning the war in Iraq.

NOTHING.

Show me otherwise."



Tim --
I'm volunteering to break the bad news. There's no Santa Claus either. Don't blame the messenger. I wish it were otherwise too.

Sloanasaurus said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Sloanasaurus said...

Again, where is your plan for winning?

The plan is to continue to support the democrats (small D) who currently have total control of 15 of 18 provinces, 95% of Iraq's resources, and most of the army, until they can stablize the three remaining provinces which includes Baghdad. That is the ultimate goal. Pulling out would make this goal unattainable.

We should plan to stay in Iraq for decades just as we have been in Europe, Korea, and Japan.

Tim said...

Wise admission of the Left's complicity from Derve. Of course they have no plan for the U.S. winning in Iraq, just as there is no Santa Clause.

At least SOMEONE from the Left admitted it, finally.

Trevor Jackson said...

Tim, I read that story too. And it comes as no surprise to anyone that a complete withdrawal would create chaos. It's nice that we're actually getting to hear from the troops on where they stand. I welcome more of these clear-eyed appraisals.

So, if that's not the answer (and of course who really thought everyone leave tomorrow was a good idea?) then what is the way out? What we're doing now is not working. Or are we staying there permanently? Is that a good idea?

You asked for the Democrats answer? How about just asking these questions instead of saying "my way or the highway" the way Bush and Cheney have these last years? That seems like a pretty good way to start.

You know, first you have to admit you have a problem . . .

Oh, and thanks for retracting that Democrats-hate-America statement. It really makes me want to respond to you at all.

Sloanasaurus said...

As I stated in another thread. Bush should use a dem victory in the House to coopt a bunch of democrats into supporting the war. All the dems want is power. If they can hold power by supporting the war they will.

Bush should meet with the dems and adopt some of their strategies and concerns. Then we can all win in Iraq together... as one country.

Derve said...

Shorter Derve: "I disagree with Dole. Therefore I don't need to wait my turn to speak. I can just shout her down."

Damn straight.
Someone needs to steer.

When you start taking wrong turns, and coming up with bullshit lines like "the Dems want us to lose", you have to quickly grab that wheel before things go spinning out of control.

Mrs.Sen.Dole didn't find a passive passenger in Rahm Emanuel. She didn't get to take us on the fantasy roadtrip she was planning:

"Just go out and smear the Dems. Try to stir up the fear that only Republicans can win this thing. Keep the conversation off what our party is doing, and don't admit any problems with the current course."

Really, if you think Mrs.Sen.Dole came off as mighty or powerful in that exchange, you might be seeing things. Clearly, Emanuel was better in control arguing his side. Impolite though you may see that.

Derve said...

Bush should meet with the dems and adopt some of their strategies and concerns.

I predict... he won't.
Not even engage in an honest dialogue, acknowledging criticism.

Rumsfeld is doing a "fantastic job" remember, and the Democrat party is content to lose the war. Hard to extract yourself from that position.

Edward said...

Chevyiii:

Lynne Cheney made a big mistake criticizing CNN during her recent interview with Wolf Blitzer. Cheney was furious that CNN was running a long documentary called “Broken Government” so close to the election.

Yet that documentary (“Broken Government”) was the most intelligent commentary on the current state of U.S. political leadership that I’ve anywhere.

CNN provided a tremendous public service by producing and showing that documentary.

Instead of simply carping about its title, Cheney should have responded to the substance of CNN’s program. I really doubt that she could have, without admitting that her administration has made a lot of mistakes.

Derve said...

Wise admission of the Left's complicity from Derve. Of course they have no plan for the U.S. winning in Iraq, just as there is no Santa Clause.

Common ground. I like it.

Now Tim,
can you describe a little for us what fabulous toys and games are in store for the Iraqi people with the Republicans in power? What color is your Santa Claus, and can you give us a date on when to expect him bringing joy and democracy -- free! -- to all the faithfully believing good girls and boys?

Please tell us what to expect when your Santa Claus shows himself. I'm thinking of standing on my roof and cheering his arrival.

Derve said...

We should plan to stay in Iraq for decades just as we have been in Europe, Korea, and Japan.


Louder, Sloan.
Say it loud, say it proud!

Get elected on the gameplan:
America second. Middle East democracy first.

Pogo said...

Re: "America second. Middle East democracy first."

Derve, you remain one of the more ridiculous commenters at Althouse I have ever read. That particular comment shows a complete lack of intellect regarding the goals of foriegn policy, the sort of thing a high school debater might say, lacking the capacity for higher reasoning.

Face it, the soldiers on the ground don't think we should leave. They consider it losing. Democrats have embraced losing. Why?

George said...

It just dawned on me....

With a maiden name like Hanford and as she's from Salisbury, N.C., Sen. Dole must be....

Scots-Irish.

One would have though that a 'Rahman' would have learned not to tangle with a battle-ax belle, a modern-day Boadicea.

David said...

The two 'signal events' that capture the winning game plan in Iraq are the blue fingers in the air as Iraqi men and women voted in the face of real death threats and Iraqi justice that tried and convicted Hussein.

The democrats want to lose in Iraq and they want to decimate the military budget again. All this for the short-term gain of a hoped-for win putting them in control of our nations purse strings.

Deomcratic obstructionism has hendered the war in Iraq. Their calls for a new direction is already in place. It is called adapt and overcome by the military on a constantly morphing battlefield.

Meanwhile, the clueless democratic party preaches the destructive hope for a flow-chart of dreamy measurable goals on a constantly changing battlefield run by europeans.

Pathetic!

Fenrisulven said...

Tim: I doubt a position paper stating the Democratic Party's platform on fighting terrorism is going to sway you

WAITAMINUTE! Are you saying there IS a Democrat posisition paper on fighting terrorism?

Can we please see it?

Pretty please with sugar?

kettle said...

The effort they made to drown her out seemed pretty uncouth. Not much of a forum.

Hecla Ma said...

Elizabeth Dole is not "flat our wrong" about the Dems, she is absolutely right. "Pulling out" or "redeploying" is giving up. That's LOSING. And yes, the dems do APPEAR to be CONTENT with losing.

I never liked Sugar Lips before. Like her better now.

Disgustipated said...

Ann:

Things must be terribly rough for you these days, huh? Substance, schmubstance. . . "You go girl! Way to stand your ground and not let those angry men challenge you on your hollow strawman argument!"

Transparent? Yes.

Hilarious? Yes.

Schadenfreude? OK. . .just a lil.

Reminds me of the fembots in Austin Powers right before their heads explode. Keep writing and I may have to leave work. . .

tjl said...

"Bush should meet with the dems and adopt some of their strategies and concerns. Then we can all win in Iraq together... as one country."

You are assuming that the Dem leadership has enough statesmanship to try to find common ground with the administration. An orgy of partisan revenge is more their style. Are you really expecting reasonable compromise from Nancy Pelosi, the Leftist Medusa?

johnstodderinexile said...

Who really screwed this up was Tim Russert. He should've let Dole finish, and then give Emmanuel the time to reply. Those of you who are equating Emmanuel's rude attempts to talk over Dole with somehow asserting his Kerry-like manliness need to go talk to your dads about how real men are supposed to behave. You also obviously missed Ann's posting of that wonderful Woody Allen/Billy Graham dialogue -- two people in deep disagreement who each let the other complete their thought, and then responded with wit and intelligence. There's no reason why Emmanuel had to piss his pants before letting Dole finish. Certainly Russert would have given him the floor at that point, and he could have explained why he believed she was wrong. Instead he came off not so much as a manly bully, which is what turns the left on these days, but as a Stalinesque censor. "I'm not going to let her say..." Who gave him the right to decide what people can say?

On the merits, I disagree that if the Democrats win tomorrow, that leads inexorably to pullout/defeat in Iraq. I don't think that's what they've been campaigning for this fall. I think the Lamont result taught them a lesson, that 2006 is not 1974. The voters want a new direction, not precipitous withdrawal. If the voters choose them, the message will simply be that the Republicans have made a mess of the situation in Iraq, and must be held accountable for it. I suspect that once they are handed the levers of power, many Democrats will decide it is in their best interests to advance the cause of victory in Iraq. And if not -- they'll be blown out in 2008. The smarter Dems know this.

bearbee said...

I did not see the program but I recall Dole during her husbands campaign and liked her toughness and her smarts while at the time feeling that she appeared too scripted and that in a free debate she would not be flexible enough or quick on the uptake to adequately respond.

Derve said...

There's no reason why Emmanuel had to piss his pants before letting Dole finish.

Dems don't tolerate listening to bullshit, whether from a lady or a man.

"The Democrats appear to be content with losing" is a line of scripted bullshit.

Coming from a lady senator or a man, it deserves to be shot down, quickly, so the discussion doesn't steer down an "attack Dems" road. Funny how the Republicans hide behind their "woman status" when push comes to shove. Here I thought that was a lefty tactic.

Derve said...

Face it, the soldiers on the ground don't think we should leave.

Face it, the soldiers on the ground are there to fight and follow orders. Nobody elected them to lead the country (US) and nobody smart expects them to. That's not their role.

Where is the compentent leadership?

Kirk Parker said...

"Americans are not going to accept having troops in Iraq the next 10 to 20 years"

Why on earth not, if that's what it takes? We've managed to have troops in Germany and Korea for an entire half-century without a lot of public heartburn.

And Trevor, how is it that you know that three years is enough time to have accomplished what we need to? It's not enough to keep asserting this, plenty of us are dense enough that we actually need an explanation.

johnstodderinexile said...

Dems don't tolerate listening to bullshit, whether from a lady or a man...Coming from a lady senator or a man, it deserves to be shot down, quickly, so the discussion doesn't steer down an "attack Dems" road.

This is what I'm talking about. This faux-manliness that the left has adopted lately comes off to everyone else as pathetic. Not that that's going to stop you. But frankly, nobody gives a damn whether you think another person "deserves to be shot down," in mid-sentence and inteprets your insistence on the right to do so as weakness, not strength.

To quote the oft-quoted line from the other bogus macho boys on Kos -- "grow a pair," and learn to handle debate in a civilized manner without wetting yourself.

Derve said...

Kirk,
Check out some books.

German and Japan, post War, are not in the same position as Iraq is today in the Middle East. One size does not fit all; you have to be flexible and respect the fight.

Your leadership knows this.

That's why the 10 to 20 year occupation plan has never been publicized. Like it or not, even diehard Republicans (controlled spending, less government) aren't behind this protacted type of war.

Derve said...

No, it's the faux manliness of the right here-- applauding Lady Dole for not being "bullied" into silence when other participants won't put up with publicizing her bullshit like "The Democrats appear to be conten with losing."

If you were counting on special treatment for her gender, those days are long gone. Maybe if she can't handle the "bullying" that regularly occurs on such news analysis shows, you should send out a party representive more um, endowed, as Mr.JohnStoddard so delicately put it. Or else stick to the coffeeshop chatter, where people maybe politely respect such bullshit and give lines like "The Democrats appear to be content with losing" serious consideration. For some, there are better things to mull over. And politeness does not necessarily a good wartime leader make. Duh

pst314 said...

Johnstodderinexile, you are spot on. "Progressives" like Derve believe that free speech is only for those who agree with them. The 30's are long past, and yet the simliarity between red shirts and brown shirts remains.

Derve said...

lol.
Yeah, I'm the one deleting all the opinions that don't match up.

Or calling for Halloween parties to be cancelled.

Or promising school dress codes because some people haven't taught their teens how to dress themselves.

Some of you do not know freedom and you don't like it when others do. You just try to clump together in justifying yourselves, and bring down others who can practice what they believe in.

vnjagvet said...

I have never been a Liddy Dole fan. But this clip influences me to be more supportive. Her demeanor in the face of Russert and Emanuel reminds me of Maggie Thatcher.

As to the "losing the war" issue, retreat and redeployment are all synonyms for losing unless there is a strategy to regain control of the situation diplomatically or militarily. None of the Democrats running for election tomorrow have even implied such a strategy.

George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Golda Meier, Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan; all led their nations during times of grave danger, seemingly abject failure, vehement criticism verging almost on hatred, and eventual victory.

Their common bond was an almost childlike faith in their strategic vision and decidedly unchildlike persistence until they achieved it. Sophistication and nuance was not an apparent quality any of them shared.

Derve said...

Their common bond was an almost childlike faith in their strategic vision and decidedly unchildlike persistence until they achieved it.

Let's all pray things turn out well then. But any chance the Republicans can come up with a backup plan for victory too? So far, just wishing and hoping seems to be killing a lot of innocents. And even our president is off the "Stay the course" line.

"We'd all love to see the plan" for this long hoped for victory y'all are counting on.

Pogo said...

Derve, your comments remain sophomoric and disingenuous. Your post just above suggests a conciliatory tone, wrapped in snotty seventh grade banter. But in the trail of comabative posts behind it, a less laudable picture is discerned.

In fact, could write your posts for you, merely by choosing the most anti-American tone possible. What do you suppose that means?

It's tiresome, much as you prefer to remain oblivious to what many of us can see ahead. There are 30 to 50 cars and buses burning every day in France. And the arsonists are Islamic fascists. The rest of Europe will soon face this same civil war, and I suspect they'll lose, unless we step up to the plate when it happens.

And little minds like yours will still be trying to beat George Bush in 2000.

Fenrisulven said...

Derve is just around in circles now. I think I know why: Growing Unease Amoung Dems, the New Republic via Powerline:

"John Judis and I have been e-mailing about the alarming Pew poll that came out today. It reflects the same trends captured by that earlier Washington Post/ABC poll, except that the trends are, gulp, even more pronounced. Worse, the folks at Pew have graciously posted their cross-tabs, which makes it nearly impossible to rationalize the lousy results. As John points out, the fact that Democrats' 15-point advantage among white women last month has turned into a 2-point disadvantage today is incredibly ominous. Unfortunately, it's not quite as ominous as the erosion in the Democrats' advantage among Northeasterners: from 26 points to 9. The Northeast is, of course, a region where Democrats are banking on roughly half a dozen pick-ups. That kind of dropoff isn't going to get the job done."

Derve said...

Actually, I'm rooting for the Republicans myself, pogo.

Give you the time and continued power to implement your plan, or else accept responsibility without blaming the inferior Iraqi security forces for the chaos.

You want continued opportunity, let's see what you can do with it, short of talking trash, I mean.

Derve said...

Speaking of getting the job done...

(And I mean the big one. Winning wars, not midterm elections.)

Disgustipated said...

Pogo:

So France is in the midst of a "civil war" with Islamic fascists?

Assume for a moment, I were accept your hyperbolic (and incoherent) premise, what does it entail to "step up to the plate when it happens"?

Now that you have informed us all of what the defeatocrats won't do, what are your plans for Iraq? What exactly is the GOP plan (win/democracy/stability are goals not plans)?

Do you read books, Pogo?

Derve said...

There are 30 to 50 cars and buses burning every day in France.

**God, please tell me he's not so nutty to suggest America should intervene militarily in France to solve the growing threats there.**

Pogo hon,
maybe it's not the best time to be suggesting that it's America's job to play world superhero and fight Islam across the globe?

Particularly with so many of your kind sitting on the sidelines cracking jokes. While China, Iran and North Korea move ahead.

There's a reason ball games have a time structure. You play plenty of opponents over the course of the season. Can't put all your energy into a marathon 120-inning game, if you catch my drift...

Christy said...

Wow! Color me impressed. I actually tuned out when Russert announced Dole because she so embarrassed me as a woman last week against Schummer on Fox News Sunday. She had been unfocused and easily diverted to secondary issues. I figured she was getting senile.

I like that she was able to get beyond that abysmal performance and come back swinging.

Pogo said...

Re: "I'm rooting for the Republicans myself"

I thought that should the Congress be turned over to the Dems, they would step back in horror, realizing that they'd actually have to govern, instead of merely bitch. And that this would cost them in 2008.

Re: "God, please tell me he's not so nutty to suggest America should intervene militarily in France "
As usual, you purposely misinterpret. I meant that you ignore the fact that France is in the beginning of a real civil war, one that wil get ugly very soon. It's just begun in England. And soon enough they'll be asking for our help. Again.

Spare me the shopworn sports metaphors, especially as the ones you use are irrelevant.

biwah said...

I disagree that if the Democrats win tomorrow, that leads inexorably to pullout/defeat in Iraq. I don't think that's what they've been campaigning for this fall.

I agree, the Dems stand for accountability. I would no sooner hand over the entire Congress to them than to the Repubs. My vote is for split government, because the lack of accountability IS appalling and deeply damaging. That's where the Dems come in strongest.

Most hardheaded individuals on either side neither want to cut and run nor stay the course. They mostly want to fire Rumsfeld, increase our troop levels to some degree, take some account of our resources dropped on this endeavor, and come up with some creative ways of starting the Iraqi economy and incentivizing greater stability. I have no source for this because the dialogue is hardly this specific - it's just my guess as to what a majority of people will support. Of course, this is not what comes out on the gladiatorial Sunday morning shows pre-election.

Even if Bush hatred is limited to certain lefties, hard criticism of the administration's approach to Iraq is on virtually everyone's mind. The war has been undertaken clumsily and incompletely since the first week. The first real disagreement comes on the issue of whether the admin evinced actual recklessness or some worse motive.

It will be good for the country if Dems take the House or even both houses - not because they are totally right, but because that will strengthen the sensible middle, who seem to be skeptical of both the admin and the Dems, but victory-minded.

Mortimer Brezny said...

She's not the good little girl the boys think they can demand at will.

Yeah, I don't think that has anything to do with the exchange at all. Dole had more stuff to say, and was trying to slip that one in under the radar. The reason she kept going wasn't to repeat the line, but to continue with her speech so as to let the line go unchallenged. So it was a failure for her, because she had assumed she would be able to slip that line in in the middle of her answer, then deliver two more sentences or so, so that either Schumer or Emmanuel would miss it, or have to respond to it as if it were a legitimate statement. That didn't happen. Emmanuel jumped right on it and Russert entered after a bit to let Emmanuel get a response. Dole not stopping the filibuster just looked bad, and says nothing about women across America. Frankly, the fact the Republicans are even in close races is not Iraq's fault, it's Dole's fault. Her recruitment efforts were terrible. I like Dole, but I found her shrill and unpleasant during some of this interview, mostly when she had to make silly assertions that she tried to slip in in the middle of her answer and then move on to something less inflammatory. She had obviously worked with someone over that strategy, assuming it would work because she's a pleasant and sweet woman, but it didn't. I was much more impressed with Mr. Reynolds -- whom I dislike -- when he put down Emmanuel on substance by ripping apart his supposed 5-part plan for Iraq which really was a list of the 5 mutually exclusive ideas 5 Democrats had put forth and that failed to get support from other Democrats.

Mortimer Brezny said...

Who really screwed this up was Tim Russert. He should've let Dole finish, and then give Emmanuel the time to reply.

That's what Dole expected, and why what actually happened was a loss for her.

Shanna said...

No, it's the faux manliness of the right here-- applauding Lady Dole for not being "bullied" into silence when other participants won't put up with publicizing her bullshit like "The Democrats appear to be content with losing."

It’s “faux manliness” for a woman to be proud of another woman who didn’t let two men shout her down when she made a perfectly reasonable point?

Interesting definition.

Trevor Jackson said...

Kirk, I don't think I made any claim about knowing how long success should take in Iraq. But I'll play along, because what I do know is that three years was sufficient to mismanage it into civil war. Three years was long enough to loot Iraqi treasure and American tax dollars. Three years was long enough to kill 3,000 American soldiers and would tens of thousands more. Three years was long enough to turn a bad idea on paper into the greatest foreign policy disaster in American history.

So, now? How long should it take to clean up the mess? Is that what you're asking me, Kirk?

Derve said...

Shanna,
Did you listen to what she was spouting yesterday? The whole thing, not just a selected clip? I did.

Her genitals are irrelevant don't matter that much to me. I was listening to what she was saying.

Isn't it kind of out of date for "a woman to be proud of another woman who didn’t let two men shout her down" ?

Maybe not in Republican women circles, but for most Democrats -- male or female -- such minor "victories" don't add up to all that much these days. (Is that what the single-sex classes for females are going to be geared to? Not teaching substance, but encouraging young women (not all are ladies) not to be bullied when engaged in aggressive conversation with men? Again, some of us got out and mastered that years ago. I suspect it's something new in polite Republican circles too. (Next thing, they'll be encouraging gals to sweat in gym class too! What is this country coming to?)

For the record, I didn't bring up the faux manliness of growing a pair. Read upthread before delections to confirm.

Shanna said...

For the record, I didn't bring up the faux manliness of growing a pair. Read upthread before delections to confirm.

I did read the thread. You didn't bring it up first, but you did say:
"No, it's the faux manliness of the right here-- applauding Lady Dole for not being "bullied" into silence when other participants won't put up with publicizing her bullshit"

That is what I'm responding to. I actually don't like Liddy Dole all that much, but what I also don't like is the idea that just because someone says something you disagree with you have a right to shout them down. It think that's pitiful and an all too common viewpoint. So I'm glad she didn't let herself get shouted down, regardless of her sex. You called it "faux manliness", which I think is stupid, considering the circumstances.

TMink said...

Derve asked a good question about the Iraq war. "Real people are getting killed ... for what?"

I asked some of my pen pals that are fighting in Iraq, and they had two main points.

First, they are dying in Iraq to kill people who want to kill Derve. And they are killing them far away from Derve. There is a place where people who hate us and our way of life and our religious liberty can go to be "marytrs" for the religion of peace. It is Iraq. The line forms at the rear, and the gentleman with the automatic weapon is ready to help you.

Secondly, my pen pals say they are in Iraq because they believe in the mission of starting a beach head of Democracy in the Middle East. They believe that it will have a wonderful effect on the area and that the progress they see everyday is proof of the idea. They believe that "stay the course" is politician for "we have more bastards over here to kill" and "this neignborhood needs an electric light in the town square and school."

That is what they say, and they are there.

Trey

Derve said...

but what I also don't like is the idea that just because someone says something you disagree with you have a right to shout them down. It think that's pitiful and an all too common viewpoint.

Turnabout is fair play. Do unto others and all that.

If someone uses the faux manliness language, you want me to be better than that and use gentler weaponry? Sorry, I'm not that noble.

Remember, the news programs have a set format. You're competing to get your viewpoints out. Limited time. If an opponent, which is what the senator is -- man or woman -- is trying to steer the conversation down a path of spin, espcially slurring your own party, damn right you should jump in and disagree.

It's a talk show, not a courtroom. You might not like such impolite discussion around women, but that's the way it works. Have you watched in other weeks? Giving her the victory for holding her own against "bullying" men is crazy, playing the gender card. Calling her a "girl" at her age is insulting, whether it was meant that way or not.

Just like Miss Ann has noticed here, we don't treat "girl" bloggers with special kid gloves to distinguish them from men bloggers. Women advance when we don't treat them special or as mere tokens.

Shanna said...

Sorry, I'm not that noble.
Clearly.

Look, is it really wrong to hope for more polite public discourse? Because the shouting matches and name calling aren't doing it for me.

Derve said...

Trey: Tell them "they're welcome" for their paycheck and subsequent benefits -- funded by taxpayers like myself.

I hope stringing lights and painting schools in Iraq is satisfying in itself for what we're spending compared to what's being achieved. Damn expensive labor. And couldn't the Iraqi's be doing some of that work in their own country themselves.

I don't like the soldiers as peacekeepers/electricians/painters meme. They're there to fight/paint only until insecure psychologists feel confident that there are more effective ways of battling the external Islamic threat. Namely, by fully defining the enemy. (It's not all Islam, is it? I know a few American families that practice that religioun sincerely, and I don't think a war on a religion is what anyone is currently shooting for.)

Keep reading. The more you know, the less you fear. Most enemies act rationally, targeting only those who legitimately threaten them. Oh, and they all -- no matter their stripe -- tend to fight back in defense.

Derve said...

Look, is it really wrong to hope for more polite public discourse? Because the shouting matches and name calling aren't doing it for me.

Maybe should should speak out more often when you see this happening.

Like when the ugly tactics of divide and conquer first began. You can hope all you want, but it is what it is. I suspect the discourse will get even uglier as time passes and the promises fail to pan out. Then the real blame game begins.

John Clifford said...

Here's the plan for winning in Iraq: use enough force to get the job done without worrying about who we offend. If we have problems with Sunni terrorists in Al Anbar province, go in there with a large force and clean house. If we have Taliban hiding out in the Pakistani tribal areas, go in with a large force and clean house. In each case, bring overwhelming force to bear.

The problem we've run into is that we've tried to fight this war in a nice way. The Democrats have been the first to cry foul when the Bush administration tries something that will work but that will be seen as perhaps not quite aboveboard... like monitoring international phone calls to known Al Quaeda phone numbers, or waterboarding captured, identified, self-admitted Al Quaeda members. But the Dems aren't objecting on principle; they're objecting because it is an easy, cheap way to score political points.

The difference between the GOP and the Democrats is that one party believes we are truly fighting a war against terrorists, and the other doesn't. One side wants to hit back as hard as we can, the other thinks that hitting back is bad and that it's our fault that the rest of the world doesn't like us. Never mind that anti-American sentiment is fueled by the irresponsible statements made by the 'loyal' opposition, e.g., "Bush is a fascist" or "America is no better than Saddam". The message that others receive about America is the one that the MSM trumpets in our newspapers... that America is bad, that Bush is evil, ad nauseum.

How many people who excoriate the Bush administration on Iraq realize that we suffered more casualties in a day, on many days, during WWII, than we have suffered in total in Afghanistan and Iraq? How many people who think we've really screwed up in Iraq realize that victory ALWAYS looks uncertain until it is achieved? How many people who think we can't win the war in Iraq realize that the tactics being used against us are the tactics of desperation, and that our enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan cannot possibly defeat us military... but if we abdicate the battlefield as we did in Vietnam we will hand victory to the vanquished, as we did in Vietnam?

How do we 'fix' Iraq? We send in more troops. We actively go after our enemies, and we KILL them. We do NOT provide due process to those captured on the battlefield who fight without benefit of a uniform as guerrillas; we provide a blindfold, a cigarette, and a bullet... as the Geneva Convention allows. We show our enemies that they cannot and will not win, that the only thing they can control is how many of them die uselessly. And, once we kill the fanatics, the rational ones will give up.

This strategy is brutal, but war is brutal; that's why starting wars is a bad idea. This strategy worked against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, as it has throughout history. It will work in Iraq.

The only question is, do we have the fortitude to follow that strategy?

Revenant said...

I wouldn't say that the Democratic Party is content with us losing the war in Iraq. I'd say they're thrilled by the idea. If we were successful in Iraq, Democrats wouldn't have a shot at taking control of the government. Their political future depends on Republicans getting blamed for a losing war.

Derve said...

Talk is cheap, Rev.

How bout you, and the rest of the big talkers, prove us wrong by providing a winning Republican strategy in Iraq?

Unless the strategy is to blame your losses on the Democrats who might assume power 3 years in?

Sorry, if there's to be no promised victory in Iraq, it's the starting pitcher, not the late-inning relievers, who is in line to take take the loss.

Derve said...

The only question is, do we have the fortitude to follow that strategy?

Our current leaders have proven they don't even have the fortitude to even consider such an option, much less seriously suggest it to the American people.

Rumsfeld is doing a "fantastic job" is the official line, remember. Why change a thing?

Revenant said...

Talk is cheap, Rev. How bout you, and the rest of the big talkers, prove us wrong by providing a winning Republican strategy in Iraq?

I said that the Democrats would be happy to see us lose. I did not say I knew how to win. Maybe we *can't* win -- that doesn't change the fact that the Democrats don't actually want to anyway, because victory isn't in their interests as a party.

But in any case, my feeling is that our best chance for victory is to simply outwait the enemy. We have, compared to them, nearly unlimited money and manpower -- they will get exhausted before we do, unless we simply give up and go home.

johnstodderinexile said...

I'm the one who brought up the "faux-manliness" because Derve, in defending Emmanuel, growled something to the effect that Democrats "don't have to put up with" rhetoric they don't like, that they're "not about to let" those words be said. It's of a piece with many hard-left commenters on this and other blogs. They affect this psuedo-tough guy stance, which I assume they learned from studying their ultimate alpha-male, John Kerry.

I just find that pose ridiculously transparent -- the stuff of satire. They want it both ways. "I'm anti-war...but don't you dare doubt I'm tough!" (With a few four-letter words and vulgarities mixed in there, so they sound rilly rilly scary!) So I'm sorry if Derve resembled, er, resented my remark. My point was, if Emmanuel really wanted to be, rather than merely pretend to be, tough, he would've allowed Dole to finish her sentence, and then followed up with something impressive to refute her. Instead, he took the course of just trying to shut her down, whining about what he shouldn't have to put up with.

Democrats: Contrary to the Berkeley academics who have misled our party's leaders for the past six years, it's not about the language we use, nor is it about the language we "allow" the Republicans to use. It is not about a "narrative" or "framing" or the rest of that crap. It is about what you stand for, what you propose to do, and the case you make for it. To think anything less of voters is to disrespect them, which any marketer knows is a route to failure.

vnjagvet said...

How bout you, and the rest of the big talkers, prove us wrong by providing a winning Republican strategy in Iraq?

Then Rev did. Bravo, Rev.

You will also note, Derve, that Rev is not any more a "big talker" than you are.

One thing I will say as someone who served in a combat theatre many years ago. Sometimes there are a number of possible strategies any one of which will prove successful if only it is carried out with patience and persistence.

Giap, the victorious general in Vietnam, has made it very clear that his side won in large measure because our side did not continue a winning strategy a bit longer.

Of course in this country, that strategy was thought to be a loser.

This is often the lesson of war, as students of its history will tell you.

Derve said...

which I assume they learned from studying their ultimate alpha-male, John Kerry.

Never assume. It makes an ass of you...

I suspect I'm less a John Kerry Dem than you JohnStoddard. You give him more time of day and respect than I ever did.

And I'm not anti-war. I'm anti fighting a war like this one has been "fought". You Republicans embarrass our country and our military. And try to weasel out of accepting responsibility. Piti - full. Then, for the icing on the crapcake you're trying to pass off as nutrition, you hide behind a woman's skirts and the "politeness" factor.

What I got inside measures up to so much more than what you may be packing... I don't think you can even begin to imagine, my little friend.

Keep fighting all your Berkeley enemies though; that sounds like a fair match, which in your struggles, you might even be capable of winning. Come back when you want a no holds-barred match -- we'll see what, if anything, you can really do.

THIRD WORLD WAR said...

VOTE REPUBLICANS - VOTE 4 ECLECTIC SECULAR EMPIRE NOT 4 MONOTHEISM THEOCRACY – DUMP DEMOCRATS: KALKI GAUR
Kalki Gaur, Editor Institute of Geopolitics, Washington DC, 5:00 PM, Monday, November 6, 2006. Just 14 Hours Before Polling Opens. VOTE REPUBLICANS FOR EMPIRE – DUMP DEMOCRATS SEEKING CHURCH RULE STATE: Vote Republicans in 2006 to elect Condi Rice as Vice President in 2008. Vote for Republicans to Denuke Islamic WMDs. Vote Republicans to take America to 21st Century Aquarius Age. Reject Democrats as they leading America to Medieval Dark Age. Vote for Politics and Reject Intolerant Religions Led by Evil Clergy seeking to break the Constitutional Wall separating the State and Church. Vote for Republican Petro-Empire. Reject Democrats Theocracy Axis of Medieval. Good Luck America. Good Non Denominational Christians Vote for Secular American Empire. Vote to Sign USA-India Defense Pact. Vote for Bridge to Future. Reject conspiracy to take USA to Medieval Dark Ages.
ELECTION 2006 IS CLASH OF GOOD Vs BAD: Good Religion, Good Clergy, Good Politics is secular imperialism seeking to realize the manifest destiny of the United States, which in 21st century defined in terms of control over oil and gas reserves of the OPEC nations. President Bush and Secretary Rice represent in the Election 2006 relatively speaking, Good Politics, Good Imperial Diplomacy, Good Oil Business, Good Church directed by good politicians. Democrats President Carter, Clinton represent relatively speaking Bad Politics, Bad Diplomacy, Bad Frauds, Bad Medieval Religion that harmed the national interests of USA. Earlier in Administrations of Clinton, Carter and Kennedy, the Bad politicians had aligned with Bad Priests to conspire Nexus of Bad Politics – Bad Religion – Bad Crime Frauds to misdirect the policies of Secular USA. The sacred purpose of political elections in United States is to elect the political direction of the political state USA, without the influence of Religion or Church. President Carter was the political implant of conspiratorial Religion over Secular White House to politically destroy the vitals of the secular United States. Bill Clinton also represented Religious Right Conservative Conspiracy. Catholic Kennedy, Baptist Carter and Baptist Clinton implemented the religious agenda from the White House, in a manner that harmed the national interests of USA defined in terms of Realism and Richelieu’s Raison D’etat. Kalki Gaur advises American Voters to Vote Wisely, to empower secular political forces triumph over Medieval religious forces, to elect the secular political leadership of America. The cardinal principle of 21st Century in contrast to Medievalism is that secular politics must not be guided or controlled by Church or Religion. Strengthen the Wall that separates White House and Church, let not Priests have any influence whatsoever over Politicians. Vote to End the Influence of Christian Religion over Secular American Politics. Religion and Clergy has no rights whatsoever to be in politics. Those that want Church to have an influence over White House or Capitol should leave 21st Century USA and they belong to Europe of Medieval Dark Age. Do not allow Religion, Church or Clergy to misuse the freedom of secular political democracy to end the independence of secular Politics itself. Choice is yours. Vote Wisely on 7th.
SECULARISTS OUTNUMBER CHRISTIAN FANATICS: Secular Non Denominational Americans vote for secular imperial agenda of Republican Bush administration. Secular Americans outnumber religious right Christians. Non-denominational Christians number more than 180 million and are overwhelmingly secular and outnumber Catholics, Baptists, Evangelicals, Denominational Churches and Prophetic Christians combined. Non Denominational Christians openly reject Christian Religious Right Conservatives. Non-Denominational Churches represent true Christianity as is revealed by Da Vinci Code and Gospel of Judas. Non-Denominational Christians support Secular Petro-imperial Agenda of Republican Bush Administration and reject Islamic terrorism. Non Denominational Christians represent Good Guys America, love Republicans and hate Christian religious fundamentalism. Votes of the Non-Denominational Christians determine more than the votes of the Catholics, Fundamentalists, Denominational Christians and Evangelicals in USA. It is End of Time for Prophetic Christians and Religious Right in American Elections. Election 2006 is revenge of Secular Christians over Christian Right. American Voters are demanding that Church undergo reforms to meet the demands of Da Vinci Code and Gospel of Judas. Elections reflect the Revolt of the Laity.
DEMOCRATS LOVE TERRORISTS TERRORISM: Vote Republicans because Democrats loved protected nurtured Islamic terrorists during Clinton administration, while Bush waged war on terrorism. Jimmy Carter created empowered Ayatollah Khomeini. Bill Clinton created nurtured financed Osama Ben Laden, Taleban, Al Qaeda. Bill Clinton rewarded Osama Ben Laden for World Trade Center bombing and Nairobi Embassy bombing with the Taleban Kingdom of Afghanistan. Bill Clinton overthrew the government of Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaj Sharief because he offered to arrest Osama Ben Laden and hand over to USA. Democrats, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton developed very deep ties with intolerant monotheist Islamic terrorism to implement the hidden patriarchal monotheist agenda to engineer the descent of New Dark Age and End of Time Apocalypse. Bush wages war on Islamic Terrorism, Democrats support Islamic and Maoist terrorism. No wonder Americans reject Democrats and reject Terrorism and Vote for Republicans. Jimmy Carter is the Father and Smiling Face of Shiite Iranian Terrorism and Jonestown Massacre. Bill Clinton is the patron of Chinese and Pakistan theft of nuclear weapon technology and components and father of Islamic Terrorism.
KING vs. PRIEST CLASH IN ELECTIONS: Vote Republicans in American Elections as it is a replay of Clash of King versus Priest and Business versus Crime. Republicans represent the interests of King and Business. Democrats represent the interests of Priest and Crime. Republicans want White House to be King over world’s Oil and Gas reserves and are pro-Business. Democrats want to make White House the Servant of the Church and Pope. Democrats created financial frauds as all frauds took place during Democratic Administrations, namely, Enron, WorldCom and Marc Rich. Elect Republicans and Dump Democrats. US Elections are classic war between Good versus Evil, except when in 4,500+ Election Canvassing Boards both parties join forces to fraudulently manipulate the entire election process to keep good politicians and third parties win elections.
GLOBALIZATION OF POLITICS FAVORS REPUBLICANS: All politics in America were local earlier that allowed Priests at the pulpit overwhelming clout in campaign fund raising, volunteer force mobilization and local level attitude formation. The Papacy, religious right conservative conspiracy took advantage of the situation to get their nominees elected, namely, archconservative Catholic John F. Kennedy, Masonic Lodge Leader Gerald Ford, Baptist Jimmy Carter and Baptist Bill Clinton, which allowed the Church to misuse the power of the White House to implement anti-pagan anti-Buddhist anti-Hindu patriarchal iconoclast intolerant monotheist agenda worldwide, in Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Iran, Haiti, South Korea, China, Burma, Congo, Rwanda, Burundi, Sudan, etc. The stagnant white Christian population and end of East European immigration, rising population of USA crossing 300 million mark and globalization of politics ended or lessened the role of Church in American elections and primaries nomination process. There is no permanent political machinery and political cadre except that of salaried or elected politicians in United States. The entire American election process is fraudulently manipulated at the grass root level at 4500+ County Canvassing Boards, which are controlled by salaries party officials of two major political parties, Republicans and Democrats. If Internet Political Blogosphere succeeds in mobilizing Voters turnout and voters voting behavior in American elections would result in the decline of the role of religious right conservative conspiracy in American election process. The American politics is heading towards Three Party System, where the new Third Party shall become the second strongest political party in America. Since Republican Party funded by secular leaders of economy and Oil, it would emerge stronger than the Democratic Party, which has ejected Blacks, Latinos and Immigrants from the top corridors of power. Before 2020 the top three political parties in declining order shall be Republican Party, Third Party, and Democratic Party. Remember as a sitting President Bill Clinton had declared that Pope John Paul II is the God’s representative on earth. No wonder patriotic Neocon WASPs fear that Democrats have a hidden agenda to transform Oval Office as an Executive Office working for the Church or Papacy. The Globalization of Politics means that the United States of 300+ million population would prefer Republicans over Democrats in Elections 2006 and 2008, to ensure that secular economic Oil interests determine US foreign policies rather than the diktat of the Church or Papacy.
GOOD GUYS Vs BAD GUYS: United States is a Two-Headed Giant, where First Head is of the Good Guy Republican America that wants to create American Empire. The Second Head is of Bad Guys Democrats that wants to make White House the Servant Quarters of the Church and Papacy. Good Guys want to Rule the Oil World, wage war on Terrorism and befriend India and Democracies. Bad Guys want Pope to Rule America and nurture Islamic Terrorism and Communist intolerance and overthrow democracies. Choice is yours. Vote your conscience on 7th November 2006. Vote for Virtue and Dump Evil.
REJECT DEMOCRATIC AGENDA OF DECEPTION NEWSPEAK DOUBLETHINK: Democratic Party, Presidents Administrations are experts in Deception and fool people by proving that Black is White, Upside is Downside, Good is Bad, Evil is Virtue and this is recognized worldwide as Wilsonian Policy of Deception Newspeak Doublethink. Republicans especially Bush and Rice are straight shooters. Petro-Pax-Americana in Afghanistan, Iraq and possibly Iran, is a Virtue and good for American economy and a moral imperative for War on Islamic Terrorism. Vote against Democratic Deception Newspeak. Clinton Carter Kennedy weakened America. Reagan and Bush empowered America and destroyed Communism.
DEMOCRATS UNFIT FOR OVAL OFFICE: American Blacks, Latinos and WASPs should vote for the Republicans in elections 206 and 2008 to protect and empower secular Petro-Pax-Americana. The Carter, Clinton and Kennedy Administrations represented the New Dark Age of Axis of Medieval that harmed the national interests of the United States by extra-constitutional misuse of the power of the White House to implement the hidden Iconoclast Monotheist Agenda of the Church. The Election 2006 is the electoral clash of Democratic Medievalism Vs Republican Machiavellian Colonialism. Democrats have offered no policy alternatives, except to deploy Inquisitions for Republican sexual digressions, the same Democrats who opposed Monica Lewinski allegations. The 2006 Election Clash of Religious Democratic Medievalism Vs Secular Republican Petro-Colonialism is a Real Choice for American Voters. Americans have to choose between Pope’s lobbyists or Oil lobbyists, and between Fundamentalism-Terrorism Axis or War on Terrorism. American Voters now have an election opportunity to choose between Democratic Religious Medievalism and accommodation of Islamic Terrorism and secular Republican Machiavellian Petro-Colonialism and War on Islamic Terrorism. Democrats want the Global New Dark Age to descend on Earth. Republicans wants the New Age of Colonialism in 21st Century. Democratic Party represents Dark Age Medievalism. Republican Party represents Secular Machiavellian Modernism. The Two Party System no longer represents the same wine in differently colored bottles. Jimmy Carter, Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Samuel P. Huntington, Madeleine Albright represent the pro-China patriarchal iconoclast fundamentalist intolerant Axis of Medieval in American Politics that seeks to implement the End of Time eschatology of Prophetic Christians that conducted foreign policy to implement the religious agenda through an alliance with genocidal Islamic terrorism and Communist extremism. George Bush and Condoleezza Rice represent the morally right secular axis of modernity that seeks to implement the Oil agenda through an alliance with nuclear India and via War on Islamic terrorism. The elections of November 2006 and 2006 present to American Voters an opportunity to choose between Medievalism and Modernity. The Congressional Cox Report Jan 1999, details how Democrats allowed the theft of American nuclear technology to China and other countries? Global Axis of Medieval engineered the transfer of nuclear weapon technology to Pakistan, Iran, Malaysia and North Korea to ignite Christian-Islamic Armageddon to fulfill End of Time Eschatology.
APOCALYPTIC AGENDA OF JIMMY CARTER IS EVIL CORE OF AXIS OF MEDIEVAL: To Republican Neocons, Democrat Jimmy Carter was a Traitor to USA, as he refused to invade Iran to free Americans. As a Democratic President Jimmy Carter made United States a laughing stock of the world and he betrayed United States by refusing to attack Iran to liberate American embassy prisoners and now he is conspiring to sabotage Republican President George Bush’s determined effort to tame Iran. Jimmy Carter is the patron-Saint Father of Ayatollahism, Islamic theocracy and Islamic Terrorism. Jimmy Carter symbolizes Evil Medievalism, which is morally wrong. George Bush & Condi Rice symbolizes Machiavellian Colonialism, which is morally right.
PRESIDENT JIMMY CARTER FATHER OF ISLAMIC TERRORISM: Jimmy Carter Created Terrorism. George Bush wages War on Terrorism. President Jimmy created Islamic terrorism and Iranian Shiite Theocracy. President Jimmy carter organized the overthrow of enlightened Shah of Iran and engineered the enthronement of Ayatollah Khomenini. Jimmy Carter sabotaged democratically elected government of Prime Minister Shahpour Bakhtiar and ruled out the transfer of power to Military generals in Iran. The pro-Islamic fundamentalism and anti-Islamic modernization policies put into place by President Jimmy Carter, while he was in office, at behest of Christian Religious Right Conservative Conspiracy laid the Islamic terrorist forces in motion that resulted in Islamic terrorist attacks of 9/11/2001. President Carter has been the patron saint of Osama Ben Laden and al Qaeda. President carter could be held responsible for 9/11 terrorist attacks. Novice President Clinton appointed the officials of the Carter Secretary of State to first Clinton administration, who conspired to legitimize Islamic terrorism, al Qaeda and Osama Ben Laden. President Carter should be worshipped at Mecca as American Father of Islamic Terrorism, Islamic Theocracy, Al Qaeda and Osama Ben Laden and his likes. The religious right conspiracy that Jimmy Carter presides over could cause more harm to the secular United States than that of his protégé Islamic terrorism. Ideas of Jimmy Carter present greater threat to secular USA than Islamic terrorism.
JIMMY CARTER CREATED ISLAMIC & NORTH KOREAN ATOM BOMB: Ex-President Jimmy Carter is responsible for the North Korean Nuclear explosion by his negotiations with North Korea during Clinton Administration. President Carter cemented the Mecca-Vatican ties that united the forces of extremism and fundamentalism. President Carter was very friendly with the Jones of Guyana that resulted in the massacre of American Christians in Guyana and murder of American lawmaker in the jungles of Guyana. As the leader of Christian religious right conservative conspiracy and patron of Islamic extremism, Islamic fundamentalism, Islamic terrorism and Islamic theocracy, President carter is engaged in implementing the agenda of Apocalyptic End of Time Eschatology Teleology now. If white Western Christian Civilization continue to accept Jimmy Carter as responsible American politician by virtue of his being ex-President then the fate of the Apocalyptic White Christian world would be doomed to the delight of Prophetic Christians as the advice of President Jimmy Carter can only lead to the death of the Christian Civilization as we know it. More than Osama Ben Laden, Christians like Jimmy Carter could cause the Apocalyptic End of White Christian Civilization in not so distant a future. Just as Pope conspired with barbarian invaders to Rome in 415 AD, similarly Democrats like Jimmy Carter conspiring with Islamic terrorism to engineer the descent of New Global Dark Age in Western hemisphere in 21st Century. Secular USA can also fall in 21st Century, just as Roman Empire fell in 415 AD, once religious extremism got control over Roman Empire. Now, the Islamic terrorism and Christian fundamentalism presents the threat to USA, similar to that presented by barbarian invasions of Roman Empire in 415 AD. Christian Fundamentalism might have provided logistic and ideological support to Wahhabi terrorists for 9/11 attacks on secular United States, especially in the ensuing Anthrax attacks. Patriotic WASPs need to be vigilant in ongoing War on Terrorism to ward off dangers of sabotage for Axis of Medievalism. Next time Islamic terrorists will attack United States with Islamic Nukes, to fulfill the Apocalyptic Fatima Prophesy of Armageddon. Prophetic Christians might foolishly join the War of Religions on the side of nuke-armed Islamic terrorism. Patriotic WASPs must take preventive measures to break the emerging Nexus of Islamic terrorism and Apocalyptic Prophetic Christianity. Democrats created Islamic Atom Bomb, and Republicans fight to tame Islamic Atom Bomb.
CARTER AGAINST USA-INDIA NUKE DEAL: President Jimmy Carter is against Indo-US Nuke Deal reported HindustanTimes.com Friday, October 27, 2006. On a visit to India after 28 years, former American President Jimmy Carter saw no threat to Asian peace or world peace from India’s intentions to acquire atomic energy sources to generate power, but is firm that New Delhi ought to sign the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Though he has no authority in government to thwart the deal, Carter does not favor the Indo-US civil nuclear deal because, he said, there is need to discourage testing and development of nuclear weapons and the spread of fissile material. Hastening to add that his concerns were global, not India-specific, Carter said, "any nation with nuclear weapons should be under the NPT. It is my hope that the NPT becomes universally acceptable," said the 82-year-old Nobel laureate, who was severely critical of the US administration’s handling of the North Korean nuclear issue. Carter said he hoped other aspects of the bilateral relationship would not be affected if the Indo-US civil nuclear deal fails to go through the US Congressional process.
AXIS OF MEDIEVAL IN AMERICA SEEKS TO DESTROY SECULAR USA: Jimmy Carter represents the Evil Core of Axis of Medieval Fundamentalism. Wahhabi Al Qaeda represent the Core of Islamic Medievalism. Beijing China represents the Evil Core of Axis of Communist Medievalism. The Pure Evil resides at the Core of the Global Axis of Medievalism that conspiring to descend New Global Dark Age on the world in 21st Century to implement the End of Time Apocalyptic agenda. What one can expect from Jimmy carter who is the Father of Islamic Theocracy, Islamic Terrorism, Islamic fundamentalism? Jimmy Carter is so ludicrous that it is not worth wasting time on him, as he is determined to bring White Christian Civilization to an Apocalyptic End in alliance with his buddies in Iran to cause Christian-Islamic Armageddon, by his evil design to sabotage USA-India Nuclear deal that President George Bush signed with India.
BUSH REPUBLICANS ARE MORALLY GOOD VIRTUE & RIGHT: The President Bush is more competent than John Kennedy, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. The people and Capitol Hill have a choice to make, whether they support the morally Good George Bush or morally Evil Jimmy Carter. The choice that the people of the United States would make, shall determine the fate of the Christian World and would determine whether likes of Jimmy carter would succeed in causing Apocalyptic damage to Christian civilization, with their determined pursuit of End of Time agenda. Apocalyptic teleology of ex-President Democratic Jimmy Carter presents greater threat to the secular WASP Protestant United States than al Qaeda or Osama Ben Laden. It is high time that Republican Neocons should grab the horns of the Evil directly rather than let is cause Armageddon by stealth to establish theocracy in USA. As President, Jimmy carter made United States the laughing stock of the world by his failure to attack Iran to free American embassy staff imprisoned by Ayatollah Khomeini. Was President carter on the payroll of Ayatollah Khomeini that Pentagon did nothing to invade Iran? Many patriotic WASPs consider President Jimmy Carter a traitor for his failure to use force to liberate American embassy officials held prisoners in Tehran. As a diplomat and Commander in Chief president Jimmy carter holds the greatest distinction of formulating most stupid foreign policy during his tenure as the President of USA. With Jimmy Carter as leader and a friend the United States does not need any enemy. So far as foreign policy is considered Jimmy Carter can only be called a Traitor to USA when compared to the patriotic George Bush and Condi Rice. In the eyes of patriotic WASPs in American politics Democrat Jimmy Carter represents the Core of Axis of Evil and on other hand Republican Bush-Condi Rice represent Core of Axis of Virtue. Axis of Evil caused 9/11 Terrorism and Axis of Virtue waged war on Terrorism. The Election of November 2006 and forthcoming November 2008 Elections, provide American Voters a Clear Choice, whether to Vote for Axis of Evil or vote for Axis of Virtue. Remember the 9/11 attacks would not have taken place without the active involvement of Core of Axis of Medieval. Remember the Pure Evil core of Axis of Medieval wants to destroy secular WASP United States just as in 415 AD it destroyed secular Roman Empire to cause European Medieval Dark Age, to engineer in the 21st Century the descent of Looming Global Dark Age on the White Christian Western World, to fulfill the End of Time eschatology of Prophetic Christians. To secular WASPs and patriotic Neocons Jimmy Carter and Osama Ben Laden represents the two sides of same Coin of Evil. Hindu, Buddhist and Pagan Civilizations representing more than 3.5 Billion people denounce the Evil represented by likes of Jimmy Carter as well as Osama Ben Laden. Dear American Voters, please prudently think before you vote on November 7, 2006, it is a vote for or against Evil.
ANTI-BLACK DEMOCRATIC PARTY: From Civil War up to 1964 Democrats were anti-Blacks, anti-Latinos and anti-immigrants. Party of Lincoln, the Republican Party had been pro-Blacks from the Civil war up to 1964. President Carter (1977-1981) and President Clinton (1992-2000) engineered to kick out Blacks and Latinos our of leadership position in the Democratic corridors of power and replaced them by fundamentalist religious leaders and Wall Street donors. In American Elections 2006, the Republican Party is the preferred party of choice for Blacks and Latinos. The Democrat’s Ideology of Medievalism seeks to break the Constitutional Wall that separates the State and the Church in the United States. The Republican Modernism seeks to empower American Blacks vis-à-vis East European immigrants and secures Energy Security of Industrial America by controlling Oil and Gas reserves of the Middle East. If you want to vote for the Party of Church, then vote Democrats. If you want to vote for Pax Americana then vote for Republicans. The choice that you would make shall determine the 21st Century.
Kalki Gaur, Editor World Press Club, Washington DC, November 6, 2006, Monday, 5:00 PM
Blog: http://Indiatalking.com/blog/kalkigaur/ Blog http://clearblogs.com/kalkigaur/
KALKI GAUR BLOGS
© 2006 Copyrights All Rights Reserved Author: KALKI GAUR
Kalki Gaur Books are as follows:
Kalki Gaur, “GLOBAL CLASH OF RACES” (2006)
Kalki Gaur, “DIPLOMACY OF CIVILIZATIONS” (2006)
Kalki Gaur, “MANIFESTO OF NEOCONSERVATISM” (2006)
Kalki Gaur, “HINDU HOLY GITA – MOKSA VIA RELIGIOUS WARS” (2006)
Kalki Gaur, “DA VINCI CODE AS CLASH OF RELIGIONS” (2006)
Kalki Gaur, “GLOBAL CLASH OF RELIGIONS” (2006)
Kalki Gaur, “GNOSTIC BIBLE” (2006)
Kalki Gaur, “POPULIST MANIFESTO” (2006)
The complete text of 5,000 pages of Books by Kalki Gaur available for free download at following Kalki Blogs for academic and non-commercial usage.
http://360.yahoo.com/gaurkalki ;
http://360.yahoo.com/clashofreligions ;
http://360.yahoo.com/diplomacyofcivilizations ;
http://clearblogs.com/kalkigaur/ ;
http://kalkigaur.blogstream.com/ ;
http://my.opera.com/kalkigaur/blog/ ;
http://my.opera.com/kalkitv/blog/ ;
http://indiatalking.com/blog/kalkigaur/ ;
http://diplomacyofcivilizations.blog.com/ ;
http://kalki.newsvine.com/
http://kalkimail.googlepages.com/1
http://kalkigaur.googlepages.com/1
© 2006 Kalki Gaur Copyrights All Rights Reserved, Email: kalkimail@gmail.com
KALKI GAUR BLOGS @ GOOGLEPAGES
http://kalkigaur.googlepages.com/1
http://kalkigaur.googlepages.com/01
http://kalkigaur.googlepages.com/12
http://kalkigaur.googlepages.com/13
http://kalkigaur.googlepages.com/14
http://kalkigaur.googlepages.com/15
http://kalkigaur.googlepages.com/16
http://kalkigaur.googlepages.com/17
http://kalkigaur.googlepages.com/18
http://kalkigaur.googlepages.com/19
http://kalkigaur.googlepages.com/01
http://kalkigaur.googlepages.com/02
http://kalkigaur.googlepages.com/03
http://kalkigaur.googlepages.com/04
http://kalkigaur.googlepages.com/05
http://kalkigaur.googlepages.com/06
http://kalkigaur.googlepages.com/07
http://kalkigaur.googlepages.com/08
http://kalkigaur.googlepages.com/09
http://kalkigaur.googlepages.com/10
http://kalkigaur.googlepages.com/11
http://kalkigaur.googlepages.com/2
http://kalkigaur.googlepages.com/21
http://kalkigaur.googlepages.com/22
http://kalkigaur.googlepages.com/23
http://kalkigaur.googlepages.com/24
http://kalkigaur.googlepages.com/25
http://kalkigaur.googlepages.com/26
http://kalkigaur.googlepages.com/27
http://kalkigaur.googlepages.com/28
http://kalkigaur.googlepages.com/29
http://kalkigaur.googlepages.com/30
http://kalkigaur.googlepages.com/31
http://kalkigaur.googlepages.com/32
http://kalkigaur.googlepages.com/33
http://kalkigaur.googlepages.com/34
http://kalkigaur.googlepages.com/35
http://kalkigaur.googlepages.com/36
http://kalkigaur.googlepages.com/37
http://kalkigaur.googlepages.com/38
http://kalkigaur.googlepages.com/01
http://kalkigaur.googlepages.com/02
http://kalkigaur.googlepages.com/03
http://kalkigaur.googlepages.com/04
http://kalkigaur.googlepages.com/05
http://kalkigaur.googlepages.com/06
http://kalkigaur.googlepages.com/07
http://kalkigaur.googlepages.com/08
http://kalkigaur.googlepages.com/09
http://kalkigaur.googlepages.com/0i
http://kalkigaur.googlepages.com/0ii
http://kalkigaur.googlepages.com/0iii
http://kalkigaur.googlepages.com/0iv
http://kalkigaur.googlepages.com/0v
http://kalkigaur.googlepages.com/41
http://kalkigaur.googlepages.com/42
http://kalkigaur.googlepages.com/43
http://kalkigaur.googlepages.com/44
http://kalkigaur.googlepages.com/45
http://kalkigaur.googlepages.com/46
http://kalkigaur.googlepages.com/47
http://kalkigaur.googlepages.com/48
http://kalkigaur.googlepages.com/49
http://kalkigaur.googlepages.com/50
http://kalkigaur.googlepages.com/51
http://kalkigaur.googlepages.com/52
http://kalkigaur.googlepages.com/53
http://kalkigaur.googlepages.com/54
http://kalkigaur.googlepages.com/55
http://kalkigaur.googlepages.com/56
http://kalkigaur.googlepages.com/57
http://kalkigaur.googlepages.com/58
http://kalkigaur.googlepages.com/59
http://kalkigaur.googlepages.com/60
http://kalkigaur.googlepages.com/61
http://kalkigaur.googlepages.com/62
http://kalkigaur.googlepages.com/63
http://kalkigaur.googlepages.com/64
http://kalkigaur.googlepages.com/65
http://kalkigaur.googlepages.com/66
http://kalkigaur.googlepages.com/0v2
http://kalkigaur.googlepages.com/0VI
http://kalkigaur.googlepages.com/0VII
http://manifestoofneoconservatism.blog.com/
http://diplomacyofcivilizations.blog.com/
http://clashofreligions.blog.com/
http://constitutionindia.blogstream.com/
http://neoconservatism.blogstream.com/
http://clearblogs.com/indianconstitution /
http://clearblogs.com/neoconservativeparty/
http://neoconservatism.manicfish.com/
http://members.nowpublic.com/neoconsusa/
http://www.xanga.com/kalkigaur/
http://kalki.newsvine.com/
http://www.clearblogs.com/diplomacyofcivilizations/
http://neoconservatism.blogstream.com/
The complete text of 5,000 pages of Books by Kalki Gaur available for free download at following Kalki Blogs for academic and non-commercial usage.
http://360.yahoo.com/gaurkalki ;
http://360.yahoo.com/clashofreligions ;
http://360.yahoo.com/diplomacyofcivilizations ;
http://clearblogs.com/kalkigaur/ ;
http://kalkigaur.blogstream.com/ ;
http://my.opera.com/kalkigaur/blog/ ;
http://my.opera.com/kalkitv/blog/ ;
http://indiatalking.com/blog/kalkigaur/ ;
http://diplomacyofcivilizations.blog.com/ ;
http://kalki.newsvine.com/
http://kalkimail.googlepages.com/
http://kalkigaur.googlepages.com/
© 2006 Kalki Gaur Copyrights All Rights Reserved, Email: kalkimail@gmail.com
KALKI GAUR, Washington DC, 5:00 PM, Monday, November 6, 2006.

Derve said...

Then Rev did. Bravo, Rev.

You ex-soldiers make such good cheerleaders, it seems. Following routines and all that. This impressed you so?

"I did not say I knew how to win. Maybe we *can't* win -- that doesn't change the fact that the Democrats don't actually want to anyway"

Face it. You want to win over the Democrats, "vjagvet". You don't have a clue about what it would take to win in Iraq, even if you were provided all the time and the money in the world. 3 years on, and an open checkbook, and where are we? Where have your chosen leaders, reaffirmed in 2004, led us? You can't even sell your own party on the idea of wartime victory, much less the whole country.

Yep, I'm talking big here today. That frighten you a bit, that you can't pass off all this spouted wisdom unopposed? Practice those Bravo cheers; I suspect you'll be needing them.

Fenrisulven said...

Derve: Turnabout is fair play. Do unto others and all that. If someone uses the faux manliness language, you want me to be better than that and use gentler weaponry? Sorry, I'm not that noble.

Actually, it has nothing to do with nobility - its cowardice. You already intend to sink to the lowest common denominator, your standard is if you "believe" the other does it. Hence the tough talk. Real men don't need to thump their chests.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

The shouting matches that substitute for discussion on panel discussions are disgusting and they are becoming more and more prevalent. Libby Dole should have been allowed to complete her sentence and make her point, instead of being shouted down. There is no need to constantly be talking, yelling over each other.

I have noticed that the shrillest and most determined shouters do come from the left.

And Derve needs to get a job or something. He obviously has way too much free time on his hands.

Derve said...

Real men don't need to thump their chests.

Fen, you're not as dumb as you pretend. You got it! (Course it would have been better had you got it a few years back, when I just happened to be preaching against "chest thumping" myself.


Oh and if you want to stand back and be noble at this late stage, not respond immediately to outrageous rhetoric, feel free. I fight to win myself, always have.

The other side -- the Republicans -- have made it quite clear there's no national unity. Look at how they fight in targeting gays and race-baiting. Take some responsibility for this lowest common denominator stuff, huh? What was that phrase VP Cheney used a few short years back, for which he was so lovingly labeled a real fighter? Look at how some of your blogger pundits spin. Then tell me to play nice? No dice Fen; you reap what you sow. And Lord knows some of you have been sowing.

Garage Mahal said...

"The Democrats appear to be content with losing the war"

That's funny, George Bush is my President, and George Bush is running this war, has been running this war, and will continue running this war, regardless if Democrats take the House/Senate.

So Republicanos, blame the media, Democrats, and anyone else besides the leaders in charge. Sharpen up that pencil, and jam it in your ear tonight. You might as well get it over with -- cuz you're in for a mighty rude awakening tomorrow.

Derve said...

I have noticed that the shrillest and most determined shouters do come from the left.

And Derve needs to get a job or something. He obviously has way too much free time on his hands.


Off today.
No need to worry about me.

And I haven't shouted yet, neither did Rahm Emanuael. It's called disagreeing with how the opponents are trying to spin your views. Perfectly legal. Nothing to cry about, or whine over either. Makes you look like a baby, incapable of handling yourself in the face of ... words.

Derve said...

Sharpen up that pencil, and jam it in your ear tonight.

Oh sure, that's easy to advise them. But what -- what o' great garagemahal -- is the master plan for gettting it out?

You Dems don't really have a plan for extracing that pencil, do you?
Just admit it. Damn cowards, always holding us back from achieving true victory.

Pogo said...

Re: "you're in for a mighty rude awakening tomorrow"

No, we'll awaken to more of the same:
"The Democrats say if they prevail in Tuesday's legislative elections they may launch investigations into past actions taken by President George W. Bush's administration, possibly even issuing subpoenas to compel prominent officials to testify."

Electing Democrats is like giving whiskey, baseball bats, and car keys to 17 year old boys.

vnjagvet said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
vnjagvet said...

I don't think my posts can be fairly characterized as chest thumping.

I am merely stating basic (and well documented) historical facts about the nature of war and the kind of leadership which is successful in wartime.

Derve doesn't seem to like discussing things at a factual or historic level.

Rhetorical excess and ad hominem argument seems more to Derve's liking.

Garage Mahal said...

Electing Democrats is like giving whiskey, baseball bats, and car keys to 17 year old boys.

Well, whiskey and 17 year old boys seem to be a Republican problem. But a baseball bat will be coming from Henry Waxman, no question about it. And instead of spending 140 hours of sworn testimony on Clinton's Christmas Card list, it will be spent on investigating waste, fraud, and abuse. There are only 2 years, they won't waste time on the little stuff.

The Foley and Abramoff scandals aren't going anywhere, in fact, probably just getting warmed up. Jack has his own desk with FBI, and surely at least a few will have to fall on a sword for the Foley scandal.

Derve said...

Rhetorical excess and ad hominem argument seems more to Derve's liking.

Yeah, whatever it takes to "win", noblesoldierman. You remember winning, don't ya?

Ok, my work here is done.

Good luck!

vnjagvet said...

Maybe the Kossites see you as a winner. Somehow, I don't think the commenters here share that view.

I'll take this audience any time.

Fenrisulven said...

Speaking of blowhards, Kos is threatening revenge on all Dems who "betrayed" Lamont. Instapundit has the link. The comments there are hysterical. Esp the one about "not respecting the nutroots in CT". Does anyone respect the nutroots in CT? Will they after tomorrow?

The sooner the DNC/DLC throws them overboard, the sooner the Democrat Party can come back from the wildernness - sane, refreshed, refined, and willing to fight for America.

I hold them accountable for that too. The job of the opposition party is to provide honest alternatives, to keep the majority sharp. But they've been throwing a temper tantrum since Gore lost, and the nation has suffered for it.

chickenlittle said...

Ann said:
"I would like to be able to vote for Democrats, but this is my problem with them."

I would add that the present Democratic leadership is too arrogant to care about the countless people like Ann who add up to the difference between winning and losing.

Daryl Herbert said...

What's with this "Mrs.Sen.Dole" business?

She's a United States Senator in her own right. That makes her "Senator Dole," not Married-to-a-Senator Dole.

johnstodderinexile said...

This link:

http://tinyurl.com/vyd3w

takes you to a Democratic Congressional Committee site that has a recent video about Iraq. It describes the horribles about the war -- the dead, the injured -- and has headlines about Generals disagreeing with the Administration.

However...as I've been saying...it does NOT call for a pull-out. All it asks is to give the Dems a chance "to ask the tough questions."

Some might consider this a dodge. If the Dems don't win, they may live to regret this vague policy. I think in a lot of voters' minds, the vote tomorrow is "cut and run" versus "stay the course." A lot of Americans think both of those answers suck. The Democrats are implying a third course with their ad, but most definitely not offering one.

Although, someone who looked at this ad and said, "They agree with me. They think we should leave," would be justified in thinking that.

John Clifford said...

I was surprised to see that those clamoring for a clear strategy to win in Iraq didn't bother to respond to my earlier post.

I also think that the claim of Democrats that electing them will allow for the asking of hard questions is specious. Not to mention silly. Make that stupid.

If Bush is incompetent at anything it is this: for a guy who supposedly is the leader of the new drive to strip Americans of their right to free speech, he certainly can't seem to be able to shut his disloyal opposition up.

The Democrats have had SIX whole YEARS to ask the hard questions. Instead, all they've done is bloviate. There hasn't been a significant Democratic contribution to the national debate on ANYTHING since before the 2000 election.

What do I mean? It's not enough to say you're against the war. I'm against the war! Who ISN'T against the war??? The problem is, what is your alternative?

Leaving Saddam in power? No freakin' way. The sanctions were about to be lifted. The NYT has published info on Iraq's nuclear program that shows they could quickly have built a nuke once the sanctions were off. Saddam killed millions of his own people, plus he killed over a million people in neighboring countries... just in the past two decades. And, the US was spending billions and risking the lives of our servicemen enforcing the post-Gulf War UN no-fly zones. Saddam's time was up. (We should have shot the SOB at the end of the first Gulf War.)

This is one of the many problems that the Dems have... and it all comes back to the same thing. The Dems basically follow irrational public policies that are based on wishful thinking, not facts. Take gun control. People are shot with guns, so banning guns seems like a no-brainer... yet why is it that the areas with the strictest gun control laws have the highest level of violent crime? Why is it that the violent crime levels rose in those areas AFTER the laws were passed? Could it be that the wishful thinking which believes people who won't be stopped by murder laws will be stopped by gun control laws is fatally flawed?

The same is true of Iraq and the War on Terror in general. The reason Iraq is such a mess is because the people we're fighting (our enemies) DON'T want to lose. They see the discord reflected in our media, they know about Vietnam, and they truly believe that, if they just hold out long enough, we'll quit. The Dems encourage this stubbornness by their words and their actions; in many ways the 'loyal' opposition is responsible for the obstinacy of our enemies.

I don't know who first called the GOP the Stupid Party, and the Democrats the Evil Party. But that is the choice that faces us tomorrow. Do we stick with Stupid, in the hopes that Stupid can eventually learn? Or, do we change to Evil, who will duck responsibility, leave 26 million people who have put their trust in us in the lurch, and transform the terrorists from dispossessed losers to the rulers of a crucial Middle East oil source, and all that implies?

Kent Walker said...

Sadly, I have never been more ashamed of women as when she opened her mouth....

Dave said...

I agree with Ann. Liddy Doe is just annoying. She says false things and then just keeps talking.

And she's done a lousy job as RSC chair. Just like she's done in every other job she's been appointed to.

Charlie (Colorado) said...

Then, immediately after he said that, the mike catches Sen. Dole defiantly stating, "....pull out!" An oddly sexual interjection, I thought, given that two men were trying to shut her up.

God, if I could make leaps like that I could have been an English major.

Kill All Turtles said...

The Republicans appear to be content about losing Afghanistan and the resurgence of the Taliban. They appear to be content with bin Laden never coming to justice. Because that is the consequence of the diversion in Iraq.

And they don't seem particularly bothered by the deaths of our soldiers.

luagha said...

I'd love to see someone in Senator Dole's position have a Super Soaker ready to spray someone who interrupts and tries to talk her down. It'd be just like spritzing a cat to keep it off the couch. Eventually the moderator would only have to point the squirtgun to get the message across.

Fenrisulven said...

Kill All Turtles: Republicans.. don't seem particularly bothered by the deaths of our soldiers.

No. We just don't use our dead soldiers as political props, as you just did.