It worries me.... and this is why

[mrs. red]

I was sent this article, by a friend - probably some of you were as well, but I want it in here.   I want you to read it carefully and think about it.... and let me add that in a recent poll taken by Rassmuesien, (sp) it has been stated that over 34% of Democrats hope that we lose this war in order to gain office....


the article:
When Congress Commits Treason
The Fifth Column Raymond S. Kraft
February 5, 2007 URL: http://www.newmediajournal.us/staff/kraft/02052007.htm
 
Al Qaeda wants an American retreat, defeat, and surrender in Iraq.  So do America's Democrats.  Hezbollah wants an American retreat, defeat, and surrender in Iraq.  So do America's Democrats.  Iran wants an American retreat, defeat, and surrender in Iraq.  So do America's Democrats.  Muqtada al Sadr wants an American retreat, defeat, and surrender in Iraq.  So do America's Democrats. Osama bin Laden wants an American retreat, defeat, and surrender in Iraq.  So do America's Democrats.  When an American political party aligns itself with the goals, hopes, and ambitions of America's enemies in a time of war, in my view there is only one word for it - Treason.
 
Today, most of the "leading Democrats" in Congress are falling all over themselves to give aid, comfort, and hope, to the Jihad, the Islamic Resistance Movement, the Islamist movement for the decline and fall of Western Civilization and the ascendance of Jihadist Islam in Iraq and around the world.  Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, and many of the rest give their assurance that with Democrats in power, America will retreat, embrace defeat, and surrender, selling their souls and their country down the river for primary votes and and trucks of money from the Pacifist Left.   Here, the ignominious spectacle of Democrats selling out the future freedom of the Iraqi people for votes and dollars.  Osama bin Laden once called America "a paper tiger."  America's Democrats seem determined to prove him right.  Treason for votes.  Treason for dollars.  Treason as a political calculation.  Treason, for revenge on George Bush.
 
Treason, to put a Democrat in the White House.
 
Thirty-two years ago, in 1975, after America and the Republic of Vietnam had fought and won a ten-year war to save South Vietnam from the predations of the communist north, a Democrat Congress voted to terminate life support for South Vietnam in the face of another North Vietnamese invasion, backed by the USSR.  A Democrat Congress voted to "pull the plug," and condemned millions of Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laotions to death, torture, imprisonment, re-education camps, condemned others to flee their homes and countries as refugees.  That, in my view, was the blackest day in American history, and the blood of those people is on the hands of the Democrats who voted to abandon them.  Until now.
 
Now, another Democrat Congress is poised to repeat that act of infamy, and abandon the people of Iraq to the conflagration that will almost certainly follow if the United States withdraws its forces prematurely.  Another Democrat Congress declares to the world that America is a fair weather friend, that America cannot be relied on, that America cannot be trusted to stand by its promises when the going gets tough, that America no longer has the will to lead the world toward a future of freedom, that America has decided to embrace defeat, to retreat and surrender.  Another Democrat Congress declares that America, having liberated the Iraqi people from the bloody tyranny of Saddam Hussein, has grown tired of the messy business of liberation and will now wash its hands of the whole affair, and abandon the Iraqi people to the bloody tyranny of the Jihad.
 
After the 2000 election, the Democrat Party backed itself into a corner that threatens to destroy the Democrat Party, IF Republicans and other responsible Americans recognize the Democrats' strategic blunder for what it is, and call them out on it.
 
Even before he took office, Democrats commited themselves to the ideology that George W. Bush was (a) an "illegitimate president" who had "stolen the election," and (b) that he was stupid, dumb, incompetent, and unworthy of the office.  They maintained these positions until 9/11, when, with America obviously under attack, they came to their senses long enough to pass (with only one dissenting vote) the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq (2002) which references the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 signed by President Bill Clinton on October 31, 1998, which commited the United States to the goal of regime change in Iraq, the two acts of Congress from which Senator Hillary Clinton is now feverishly trying to distance herself.
 
By primary time before the 2004 elections, they had reverted to the stance that George W. Bush was an illegitimate president, dumb, stupid, incompetent, and unworthy of the office, and a liar, and that the Iraq war was badly bungled.  Today, they have retreated even further, with Hillary Clinton declaring that "if we had known then what we know now, there would have been no vote," no war in Iraq, that America's Democrats would have left Saddam Hussein in power to pursue the weapons of mass destruction he either had, or wanted, and to continue dumping the bodies of Shias and Kurds into mass graves, in the killing fields of Iraq.
 
During the 2004 election season, Democrats and their candidate, Senator John F. Kerry, held out military experience in general, and combat experience in particular, as the sina qua non for qualification to be president (the Kerry Axiom).  The Democrats and Kerry were adamant that since Kerry had combat experience in Vietnam, however brief, and Bush did not, that Kerry was indisputably qualified to be president, and Bush was indisputably not.  In the debates Kerry declaimed that he could fight the War on Terror "better and smarter," whatever that means, for he has never told anyone exactly what, if anything, that means.  When pressed at the time, he replied that he would have to be elected and see what sort of mess Bush had left him before he could know what "better and smarter" means.  Now, John Kerry wants to fight the war on terror "better and smarter" by capitulating to Iran, even as Iran threatens to destroy Israel, England, and America.
 
Since Bush's re-election, America's Democrats have persistently raised the ante against Bush, holding hands ever tighter with the Pacifist Left, from whence flow many millions of dollars in campaign contributions and many millions of primary votes.
 
In a remarkable about face from the Kerry Axiom that only a combat veteran is qualified to be president, the three leading candidates for the Democrats' presidential nomination in 2008, Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator Barak Obama, and former Senator John Edwards, haven't one day of military experience among them (which means, of course, by the Kerry criterion, that George W. Bush, although he has no combat experience and served only as a fighter pilot in the National Guard, is better qualified to be president than any or all of the three).  But the Kerry Axiom no longer matters, of course, that was then, this is now, live in the present.
 
Democrats are making the President's alleged bungling of the war they authorized by the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 and the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq (200) the fulcral point of the 2008 election - and are now poised to pass a non-binding resolution of Congress demanding a quick "redeployment" of American armed forces from Iraq, and debating whether to "defund" the war in six months, while Senator Clinton demands that America must be "out of Iraq by 2009."
 
This has backed the Democrats into a corner, a conundrum for which there is only one solution, and which is laden with many opportunities for the Democrat Party and all of its Congressional leaders and presidential contenders to plunge into the abyss of political disaster by November, 2008.
 
In order to sustain the Democrats' dogma that:
(a) George W. Bush is an "illegitimate president" who "stole" the election;

 
(b) George W. Bush is dumb, stupid, incompetent;
 
(c) George W. Bush led us into an "illegal war" by false pretenses and lies ("Bush lied, people died," even if all but one of the Democrats in Congress voted for it) and;
 
(d) The Iraq War has become a "quagmire" like Vietnam (which, of course, was a "quagmire" of the Democrats' own making, only because of Democrats' refusal to do the obvious things necessary to win the war quickly and decisively) - a war that America and the Iraqi government cannot possibly win against a small cadre of insurgents with Iranian support -
 
-  THE IRAQ WAR MUST BE LOST BEFORE THE 2008 ELECTION.
 
If the Iraq War has not been either won, or lost, before the 2008 election, then whoever is elected president - Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama, John Edwards - will become a Wartime President in January, 2009, a position which (per the Kerry Axiom) none of them has the slightest qualification to hold.  
 
Worse, this catastrophe would force a Democrat president to either win, or lose, the Iraq War.  If she, or he, presided over the loss of the Iraq War, the Democrat Party would, for years or decades, be tainted, smudged, smeared and besmirched, with the loss of the Iraq war, and the loss of America's leadership and geopolitical credibility.  She, or he, would fulfill Osama bin Laden's prophecy that "America is a paper tiger."  But, if she, or he, saddled up and proceeded to preside over the winning of the Iraq War, the party would be devastated by the loss of ideological cohesiveness and financial support, and votes from its base on the Pacifist Left.  Thus, the Democrat Party cannot afford to have a Democrat either lose, or win, the Iraq War.
 
The conundrum for the leading Democrat candidates for the next presidency is that all of them, Clinton, Obama, and Edwards, are now on record as opposed to the war and demanding that America retreat, embrace defeat, and surrender.  If Bush hasn't the good grace to lose the war before any of them becomes president, then, regardless of their misqualifications, whichever of them is elected will have to either (a) reverse their policy and decide the war is worth winning, to the vengeful opprobrium of the Pacifist Left that has staked its hopes and dollars on electing an anti-war president dedicated to defeat, or (b) fulfill their campaign promises by losing the war as expeditiously as possible, which will tag the Democrat Party as the Party that Lost the War for all the foreseeable future, the party that lost Iraq, the party that lost America's leadership and geo-political credibility in the world, the party of retreat, defeat, and surrender.  The party that ushered in the end of the American Era.
 
The party is hobbled, or trapped, by its resolute determination that America must not win a war that would vindicate the illigitimate presidency of George W. Bush, and by its thrall to the moneybags and votes from the Pacifist Wing of the Democratic Party.
 
Therefore, for the Democrats to succeed, the Iraq War must be lost by George W. Bush, so they can "blame Bush," so they won't have to dirty their hands with it, nor accept any responsibility, nor any blame.
 
However, even worse than having to grapple with a war they haven't a clue what to do with, is the possibility that the Iraq War might be won, or at least be making distinct progress toward a good resolution and a free, prosperous Iraq, under the George W. Bush presidency before the next election.  This would vindicate the George W. Bush presidency, and George W. Bush the man, and shatter the Democrats' ideology of Bush's incompetence and illegitimacy.  So -
 
If by the fall of 2008 the Iraq War is still seen as a stalemate, a quagmire with no hope for success, it is most likely that a Democrat will be elected president.  Then, regardless of her (or his) misqualifications, she or he will then have to either lose the war, or win it, and either will be a political fate worse than political death.  Either will doom the Democrat Party.   If the Iraq war is still underway, and neither victory nor defeat is certain, the Democrat president elected in 2008 will be damned if she (or he) wins it, and damned if she (or he) doesn't.
 
But If by the fall of 2008 the Iraq War is won, or is making clear and conspicuous progress toward a good outcome, the Democrats' dogmas will have been gutted, disemboweled, flayed, and decapitated, by success and events, and a credible Republican candidate will be elected the next President.  Nothing succeeds like success, and nothing loses like a failed prediction of failure.
 
Worst of all, success in Iraq will be vindication for George W. Bush, as stupid, evil, mendacious and illigitimate as he is.
 
The only acceptable solution, then, for a Democrat candidate, is to have the Iraq War decisively lost, or surrendered, by George W. Bush, or during the George W. Bush presidency, so that George W. Bush can take the fall, and Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama, John Edwards, and all the rest of the gaggle who get in the ring can wash their hands of it and blame it all on Bush.
 
Fortunately, or unfortunately, depending on whether you prefer an American victory or an American defeat, and to the Democrats' obvious dismay, President Bush is refusing to cooperate.  This presents the Democrats with a truly nasty dilemma.  If George W. Bush, illegitimate and dumb, refuses to lose the Iraq War when we ask him to, what shall we do about it?
 
The solution du jour is to pass a "nonbinding resolution" condeming the war and calling on America to surrender to its enemies.
 
So, now, Al Qaeda wants America to surrender.  So do the Democrats.  Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the President of Iran who prophesies the death of Israel, England, and America, wants America to surrender.  So do the Democrats.  Hezbollah wants America to surrender.  So do the Democrats.  Osama bin Laden wants America to surrender.  So do the Democrats.  What do you do when you want what America's enemies want?  When you take the side, adopt the goals, of America's enemies?  You give political and psychological aid and comfort to America's enemies, in a time of war.  You extend to America's enemies the promise that they will win, and America will surrender.  You turn on your own country, your own history, tradition, principles, Constitution, your own citizens and constituents, your own government, your own soldiers in combat.  You commit treason.  You commit treason.  You commit treason.  You commit treason.  YOU COMMIT TREASON.
 
And this is exactly what America's "leading Democrats" in Congress are actively and publicly doing.  Committing treason.
 
The essential values and ideals of Liberal Democracy are the freedoms enshrined in our own Constitution, our Bill of Rights, and in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights.  The first among these, from which all others follow, are the rights of intellectual freedom, religious freedom, political freedom, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press.  These are the liberties that Liberals and Democrats allege they believe in - but they do not.  They propose to abandon the vast majority of the Iraqi people who are not participating in the "civil war," who are only bystanders, who are only the victims of the bombs and bullets of the tiny minority (less than 1%) that makes up the Shia and Sunni militias and the Iranian-sponsored insurgency sent to foment chaos and savagery, sent to prevent the freedoms of civilization from taking root and blossoming in Iraq.
 
The leading Democrats in Congress propose to abandon the Iraqi people to a radical Islamic Jihad that is the antithesis of Democratic values, the antithesis of Liberal values, a religious totalitarianism for which the only freedom is the freedom to be not just Muslim, but Muslim Enough, and in which all intellectual freedom, religious freedom, political freedom, freedom of speech and press, contrary to radical Islam, is prohibited.  A religious totalitarianism for which "multiculturalism and diversity" are anathema.  Just as another Democrat Congress abandoned the peoples of South Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, to communist totalitarianism thirty-two years ago.  Then, Democrats voted for retreat and defeat, and surrendered South Vietnam to its enemies, and millions of people died.  Once again, Democrats and their presidential candidates invoke the Democrats' core values of retreat, defeat, and surrender, and if they succeed, millions more will die.
 
America's Congressional Democrats en masse are betraying, rejecting, repudiating, their own ostensible dedication to the Liberal values of freedom and liberty, multiculturalism, diversity, democracy, for money, for votes.  Their half-spoken mantra is, "No war for oil, no victory for freedom."
 
We see America's Congressional Democrats becoming the American Judas, betraying America, and Iraq, for the proverbial thirty pieces of silver.  We are watching the astonishing, appalling, and unprecedented spectacle of a Democrat Party so hungry, so greedy, so blindly avaricious for political dominance that it is committing itself to the retreat, defeat, and surrender of America, of Iraq, of the Middle East, perhaps Africa, perhaps Europe after that - where, if anywhere, will the Democrats' firm resolve to retreat and surrender end?
 
This is treason.
Raymond S. Kraft is an attorney and writer in northern California.

[justinsmama]

I perceive that article as putting words into Democrats' mouths. I am Democrat (though have voted outside of the party at times), and I do not want "an American retreat, defeat, and surrender in Iraq", I want a solution. Continuing as we have been will provide in the same results. In AA, we have a definition for insanity: Doing The Same Thing Over And Over And Expecting Different Results.

[mrs. red]

I perceive that article as putting words into Democrats' mouths. I am Democrat (though have voted outside of the party at times), and I do not want "an American retreat, defeat, and surrender in Iraq", I want a solution. Continuing as we have been will provide in the same results. In AA, we have a definition for insanity: Doing The Same Thing Over And Over And Expecting Different Results.

Well it's a fact that when polled so many Democrats say they want the war lost in order to gain power... it's those Democrats I am speaking to....

So Justins - have you ever thought about this - this is the first time that we ARE doing something different?  We have taken the fight to them in their back yard instead of ours.   If you wonder what I mean, I am saying that under Carter, Bush 1, and Clinton we stood by and didn't dirty our hands, and we kept sticking our heads in the sand.... .

so in my opinion this is a change.

Also, what about creating another KILLING FIELD?  what about that?  what, we want to leave the Iraqi's to be slaughtered like we did in Vietnam?  Isn't staying and  trying to win doing something different?

I have said before and I will say agian... the solution, in my opinion is to stop playing and get on with it... take the gloves off...

[justinsmama]

Is this being perceived as a black and white or all or nothing type of issue? There are other means of resolving the Iraq problem other than abandoning the people to other forces. A sincere question: Were these polls actually phrased in terms of losing the war?

[justinsmama]

Is this being perceived as a black and white or all or nothing type of issue? There are other means of resolving the Iraq problem other than abandoning the people to other forces. A sincere question: Were these polls actually phrased in terms of losing the war?

Edited to add: If so, then shame on those people.

[mrs. red]

Is this being perceived as a black and white or all or nothing type of issue? There are other means of resolving the Iraq problem other than abandoning the people to other forces. A sincere question: Were these polls actually phrased in terms of losing the war?

Well if we leave then what?  It will fall apart I would think, and we will then truly have Vietnam all over again..... I am thankful that during the WW's that the media wasn't such schumucks..... we would all be speaking German or Japanese... not that there is anything wrong with that, but I am an American..... first and foremost and proud to be (not that I am saying you aren't, but I don't want to be anything else I guess... not that you do... ).  So what do you think needs to happen? What is the solution?  I keep hearing the Democratic candidates talk about leaving... that is what the article talks about...

so if you don't agree with staying and trying to win by unhandcuffing our troops then what should we do?  What would you like to see happen?  How do we resolve with an enemy that declares they want all of us to die?  

as for the poll, yes it was termed  in the very black and white wording of losing the war....

[justinsmama]

Simply leaving is, in my opinion, not acceptable. There must be a solution other than the two extremes. Let's (Americans) find it.

[Cat]

If we leave now,nuclear war will break out.The Turks will not tolerate the Kurds,the Iranians will take over everything,and the Israelis will launch,no maybe their.CAT

[LouiseVargas]

I don't want to debate or argue so I'm just sitting here reading your posts, laughing. That does not negate the importance of your passions, it only means I have stepped out from the middle ring of the circus and am sitting in the stands watching the circus.

[justinsmama]

Is there no ability to address the issues in a problem solving manner? Can we not identify the issues and brainstorm means of addressing them? Or must it be a "your candidate" or "your party" fight? My God, people, I think we all agree that we are in deep poo poo on an international scale! We are not the Hatfields and McCoys. We are Americans. Continuing to move in even more polar positions will not solve our problems. We have come together in a wonderous manner for Natalee, why can we not do so in this forum? Our difficulties are not about who is right, wrong, said or did this or that. Does that kind of reasoning bring us to potential solutions? What is done is done. We cannot change the past. Today, we can identify the aspects involved in any issue and problem solve them for a better tomorrow. Anyone up for that here?

[A's Fever]

I wish I had a solution to offer, but I am clueless. That's why I'll be looking carefully for a candidate who offers workable solutions and strategies - so far, I've not seen any ideas of substance.

I would like to see increased or renewed dialog with Europe and the Middle East.  Summits and talks.  Even the United Nations.  I know some posters have been very critical of the UN, but in this world going it alone seems a far more dangerous path.  In the face of increasing instability and increasing rhetoric regarding Iran and their role in Iraq, I would like to US to reach out to other countries for fresh ideas, strategies and alliances.  Perhaps naive, and certainly JMO.

[mrs. red]

A's - I don't think personally, that we can talk any longer.  Unfortunately, we are trying to combat what has already happened in Europe - and that is that the Muslims have completely taken over.  

Did y'all know that it is projected that within two years Rome will be  a completely Muslim city?  This is the home of the Vatican!!! If a city like Rome - which is dedicated (in my mind anyway) so much to Christiantiy is losing its identity to becoming Muslim then how do we hope to combat it?  It has already been a HUGE issue in France over the burka and scarves in schools and now... there is no turning back the tide.  I don't necessiarly think all Muslims are bad, don't misunderstand me - but whether or not we admit it, our country is founded on Christian-Judeao prinicipals which are completely incompatible with this widespread ideology.

[Cat]

we need to change our view.We are losing site,quickly of key points.cat

[Anna]

Justins,
Only one party stands to gain from a defeat in Iraq.  There is a video on YouTube of this strategy being spelled out by Rep. Murtha.  He says he has several tactics to "undermining the president's policies in Iraq and on National Security."  Can't get much plainer than that.

---Jack Murtha's Goal: Undermine the president's foreign and national security policy      
Written by N.Z.    
Wednesday, 14 February 2007  
Just in case there was any doubt about the true intentions of the defeatists in Congress, check out the following, which was sent out via email and can be seen (until they smarten up and decide to edit it) here :

 

 

Coming Tomorrow!!


CHAIRMAN JACK MURTHA TO OUTLINE COMMITTEE STRATEGY ON BUSH’S IRAQ FUNDING REQUEST THURSDAY MORNING AT 11:00 AM EST ON MOVECONGRESS.ORG


Join Us!
 
Join us tomorrow at 11:00 AM EST when Congressman Jack Murtha will outline new details of a strategy to use his Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense to oppose the Bush war in Iraq. Congressman Jim Moran, another Committee member, predicts the Committee action will be the “bite” that follows this week’s Congressional “bark” – the three-day debate on a non-binding Congressional resolution.

The Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense has begun consideration of the president’s $93 billion supplemental appropriations request for Iraq. Action on the request will be the first opportunity for the new Congress to exercise its “power-of-the-purse” over the Iraq war.

Chairman Murtha will describe his strategy for not only limiting the deployment of troops to Iraq but undermining other aspects of the president’s foreign and national security policy. Chairman Murtha discusses these steps in a videotaped conversation with former Congressman Tom Andrews (D-ME), the National Director of the Win Without War coalition, sponsor of MoveCongress.org.
Join us here tomorrow for this exclusive interview.
 

 
(highlighting and emphasis on the key sentence mine.)
 
Update 8:11pm EST:  And as predicted, MoveCongress.org has sanitized their page and removed the offending sentence above. Sorry kids: multi-hour response time just doesn't cut it here in the big leagues. Gotta be faster than that !  
 
http://victorycaucus.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=57&Itemid=1
 

It is certainly in the best interest of the GOP to find a workable solution but the outside interference is overwhelming especially with the refusal by the Majority Party of Congress to support a troop surge or anything else that Bush might propose, no matter how well thought out or whatever, they will oppose it no matter what it is.

Should Iran annex the southern half of Iraq where the oil is, they would have possibly as much oil as the Saudis, the proceeds from which could go to funding terrorists as well as development of their nukes.

And of course, Vlad is in the region visiting what are supposed to be our allies this week.   He is Johny on the Spot for helping terrorists then pretending he doesn't.

[Anna]

Both the Washington Post and NY Post are totally liberal rags that cater only to the liberals and dedicate much to the trashing of the current administration in every possible situation.  

Both have now come out with very strong words for those in Congress who seem to have taken their very narrow win last November as some sort of mandate to do as they wish.  I was stunned to see this article and one just as bad in Washington Post chastising this kind of attitude.  It is a very sad commentary on our times that this is happening.  Expect more of the same as it seems some are in a continual campaign mode and there are no longer times between which for actually running the country.  They are all much too busy trying to garner a few votes any way they can.  And not just my opinion on that, it seems.

DEMS' DISGRACE


 
 
 
February 17, 2007 -- Rep. Peter King, the Long Island Re publican, got it exactly right yester day.

"Never before in our history has Congress attempted to control or restrict strategic battlefield decisions. It is wrong as a matter of policy, and it will haunt us for years to come," said King - as the House of Representatives dishonored itself with a non-binding resolution expressing disapproval of President Bush's strategic plan for Iraq.

Seventeen Republicans voted in favor of the resolution; two Democrats voted against it.

The Senate takes up the measure today.

On its face, the supposedly non-binding measure expresses disagreement with the surge of 21,000 troops into Baghdad and Anbar Province.

In fact, it is more than that - and perniciously so.

It is an initial step by newly empowered congressional Democrats to completely undermine the war by limiting funds - to deny the troops the beans and bullets they need to win, and to broadcast to America's enemies in the Middle East and around the world that the United States has lost the will to protect itself, and its friends.

Again.

Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania let that cat out of the bag with a videotape message to MoveCongress.org, a fellow-traveler of the hard-left Move On.org.

Murtha, who has become Speaker Nancy Polis's enforcer on contentious issues, said: "The real vote will come on the legislation we're putting together."

That would be the $93.4 billion supplemental war-spending measure that the appropriations subcommittee on defense will take up next month.

Formerly that committee's ranking member, Murtha notoriously used his influence to sprinkle goodies on cronies and campaign contributors.

Now he's in charge, and he intends to attach so many restrictions on the funding that it will - in his own words - "force the administration to consider alternatives instead of escalating."

And once the so-called "escalation" is pushed back, the next target will be ongoing operations.

So, this vote puts the lie to the Democrats assertion that they "support the troops while opposing the mission."

Yet, as Rep. King also said yesterday:

"[Talk] is cheap, and actions have consequences. You cannot support the troops if you are undermining their mission and challenging their commander in the field. By opposing this new policy, the supporters of the resolution are clearly undermining our new commander in Iraq at such a vital time in the conduct of this war."

The Democratic Party took America down this road once before, in the '70s, and the consequences for the nation and its allies were appalling.

Yesterday's vote was the Democrats' first major move toward defunding the war, handing Iraq over to insurgents and militia - and allowing the sacrifices of some 3,000 American soldiers, Marines and their families to be in vain.

Those sacrifices include that of Long Island's Sgt. James Regan - an Army Ranger and veteran of two tours of duty in Afghanistan - recently killed by a roadside bomb during his second deployment in Iraq.

He was buried yesterday in his hometown of Manhasset - even as Democrats took the first effective steps toward surrender in Iraq.

They dishonored Sgt. Regan.

They dishonored America.

It was, in a word, disgraceful.

Will the Senate follow suit today?

We pray not.


http://tinyurl.com/27pdaf

[Anna]

Left Allows Europe to Fall to Muslims
by Rabbi Aryeh Spero (more by this author)
Posted 02/08/2007 ET
Updated 02/08/2007 ET


In a recent interview, Prof. Bernard Lewis, famed historian and leading expert on Islam, warned that "Muslims seem to be about to take over Europe." The irony is that this takeover -- be it in 10 years or 30 -- is not because Islam has more tanks or better missiles than the Europeans. It is because the minority Islamic populations already living within Europe are making demands to Islamize Europe and no one seems to be willing to say no. No one has the political will to announce to the Islamic communities that daily life and laws in Europe must be in accord with the Western outlook that is Europe's heritage.

Was the fall of Europe inevitable? No, according to Prof. Lewis, who says it is coming about because "Europeans have surrendered on every issue regarding Islamic demands, due to political correctness and multi-culturalism." Europe has become woefully secular and its tepid attachment to a forgotten and dismissed Christianity is no match for the zeal of Muslims who remain fervent believers in their faith. Having been force fed that all cultures are equally valid, Europeans consider it unenlightened to assert the primacy of their culture even in their own countries.

What is even stranger is that secularized and politically correct European elites do insist on the primacy of indigenous cultures and religions when speaking of other faraway regions, yet find such insistence arrogant when it concerns the indigenous culture of its own lands. In other words, other countries are there to preserve their own way of life while the West is supposed to jello-ize and even deny its historic way of life. The bottom line: "Europeans have no respect for their own culture." Their worship of open-mindedness, no matter the cost, is leading to their demise.

Perhaps for the first time in history, we are witnessing the death of a civilization not due to outside forces stronger militarily but because "instead of fighting the threat, Europeans have simply given up, and do not want to fight." Pacifism in Europe runs so deep that it goes beyond a reluctance to take up military arms and extends to not even battling verbally, be it with laws or assertive opinion, or by fighting for Western culture even in routine social conversations.

As is well known, after World War II, Europe began denigrating the concept of nationalism, and the further left it became politically, the further it extolled transnationalism. Brainwashing citizens against the natural human inclination to be proud and loyal to one's own country over others has boomeranged to the point where Europeans can no longer even make the case for their own culture and history.

The lesson for the United States is clear. So as not to fall and disintegrate as is Europe, we need strong national patriotism, a genuine belief in the West's Judeo-Christian heritage and religion, and a conviction that our inherited culture and civilization is best for us and has been the true source of our blessings, success and freedom. Bereft of these deep and abiding associations, what is there to fight for?

Moreover, it is necessary to assert that our historic ethos is superior to that which Islam is demanding. Europe, as well as history, shows that those unable to assert the primacy of their own culture at home are unwilling to even assert its parity, and mire in "suicidal self-abasement."

This self-abasement has gone so far that "sophisticated" Europeans extend respect and "understanding" to Islamic marital habits that they’d condemn if practiced by their own. They would never accept rampaging and burnings in response to cartoon publications and statements if done by fellow Englishmen. Nor would they countenance censorship of the press if a bishop was offended by some newspaper article.

Yet out of a strange deference and submission to things Islamic, many are accepting that which they would condemn if perpetrated by a native Christian Brit. In other words, Islamic "honor" is more important than British honor, and Islamic habits are given more deference than Western customs and mores continually under self- assault and self-criticism. Criticism is reserved only for our culture, the "bad, discredited, and passé Western culture."

What brought Europe to this pitiful surrender is the left/liberalism that has controlled it since the 1960s. This post-modern liberalism has used political correctness and multi-culturalism to strip Europe of that which had previously made it great, and worthwhile. If it has proven a disastrous recipe for Europe, it certainly is no prescription for us in America. It is a cultural poison, a death potion. We, therefore, must not allow the elitist left to do here what they've already done to Europe. We know, however, that is precisely what the American Left is trying to do, and we see how the elitists in this country always ape Europe, demanding that "we Americans act more European-like."

To be sure, some in Europe accede to the demands of Islam over European life not out of a sense of cultural inferiority but fear, palpable fear. But the question remains: Given that the Islamists living inside Europe are not armed with tanks or other heavy military equipment, why can't the better equipped police forces subdue the Islamic gangs and imams that are intimidating the British and European public? Why can't law enforcement shut down the Islamic hot heads and centers that are creating such fear among Europeans that they’d rather forfeit actual civil liberties (freedom of speech), their culture, and way of life so as to appease the threatening Islamists?

Because political correctness has tied the hands of those entrusted to protect the home-grown citizenry. The courts and the ruling elites in charge of European legal institutions have made it almost impossible to enforce the laws and protect the people. New operational terms, such as racial profiling, cultural understanding, mosque sanctuary, community deference, etc., have been sanctified so that Moslems are exempt from the very tough investigatory and law enforcement procedures normally used when trying to apprehend other criminals and violators of the law. Sociology is replacing strength and common sense.

Worse, the blood-curdling threats by imams against the public go unpunished while candid and forthright apprehensions over what the Islamic community is doing to society is punishable as a hate crime.

Out of fear, Europe is appeasing. It has become a supplicant. Out of guilt, Europe is acquiescing. Out of years of self-criticism, it no longer feels worthy. Cynicism has lead to defeatism. Pacifisim has replaced religion. They believed in the parity of everything, so they now believe in nothing -- not even themselves. They, not the enemy, are orchestrating their own national demise.

To those elites in Europe, and America, who feel a greater kinship with the exotic peoples of other cultures than with the dull citizens of their own country, there is nothing to fear. For what will have been lost is something, a set of cultural beliefs, they discarded long ago; nationalisms that were objects of scorn and had, for them, become boring. An Islamized Europe is nothing to fret and worry over. Wrong!

Prof. Lewis warns: "The growing sway in Europe is of particular concern given the ever-rising support within the Islamic world for extremist and terrorist movements." But these self-righteous, self-centered elitists born of the 60s Left still need not worry. They probably will not be the victims of the annihilation they have wrought. It will be their children and grandchildren.

Rabbi Spero is a radio talk show host, a pulpit rabbi, and president of Caucus for America. He can be reached at www.caucusforamerica.com.

Advertise | Privacy Policy | Terms and Conditions
Copyright © 2007 HUMAN EVENTS. All Rights Reserved.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=19328

[Anna]

I do not personally care for this individual at all but he is suggesting a solution at least.  Sort of makes sense.  But in order for anything to work, we need a united front before the terrorists, something we no longer have since the change over in congress.


Iraq's Cincinnatus solution
By Arnaud de Borchgrave
March 4, 2007
The late Peter Ustinov once remarked, "Terrorism is the war of the poor and war is the terrorism of the rich." The trouble in Iraq is that the poor have more staying power than the rich.
    The insurgency in Baghdad has gone to ground and doesn't plan to resurface until Gen. David Petraeus' lightning $6 billion surge of U.S. and Iraqi troops has swept through the capital and declared "mission accomplished."
    With Iranian backing and thousands of tons of arms and ammo cached in Saddam Hussein's salad days, the insurgency can keep going for several more years. The United States cannot. So last weekend a gathering of the trans-Atlantic mandarins of the "realpolitik" clan gathered in Washington, albeit off the record, to dispense sage advice on an honorable exit from Iraq -- and a geopolitical compromise that would obviate a military showdown with Iran.
    Realpolitik is a policy of political realism, or the politics of the real world rather than politics based on theoretical, moral or idealistic concerns. That is a tall order in Iraq as the rationale for the invasion was a blend of all three.
    With Ahmad Chalabi -- once described by his neocon friends as the best hope for democracy in Iraq, and now closer to Tehran than Washington -- moving back into the Iraqi political imbroglio, the realists see this as the institutionalization of corruption at the top. Mr. Chalabi is now supposed to serve as the intermediary between Baghdad residents and Iraqi and U.S. security forces whose main function is to assess how much compensation the U.S. should pay for damages caused to homes and automobiles by Gen. Petraeus' surge.
    Mr. Chalabi is also in charge of "de-Ba'athification," an organization that has fired scores of thousands of Sunni civil servants -- adding to both the ranks of the unemployed and the insurgency. More recently, Mr. Chalabi claimed he had reversed course and taken back 14,000 Sunni civil servants. He also pledged when all is said and done more will have been said than done as only 1,500 former Ba'athists would be permanently excluded from government employment.
    It was Sheikh Muqtada al-Sadr, the anti-American head of the Shi'ite Mahdi Army militia, now lying low for the duration of the surge, who instructed Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to create a post on adjudicating "reparations" owed by the Americans. At least that's what Mr. Maliki's entourage told some Iraqi reporters.
    The realists now say the entire U.S.-built "democratic" infrastructure is rotten to the core. Ministers and former ministers absconded with millions of dollars. There is still no proper accounting for the more than $30 billion a year derived from some 2 million barrels of oil pumped daily. Also unaccounted-for is the $12 billion in $100 bills the U.S. trucked in behind the original invasion to get the country moving again.
    One Iraqi-born Iraqi expert among the realpolitikers said, not for attribution, there is only one way to save democracy in Iraq and that is by temporarily suspending it and getting a strongman to take over and declare martial law. "This potential Ataturk," he explained, "would have to be a former general known for his competence rather than his subservience to Saddam Hussein. There must be such a popular and friendly general that U.S. or Arab intelligence agencies know about. He could be in prison or in Syria or Beirut or even London. He might even be a general now in the insurgency underground. But he must be a man who understood all the details of the hidden persuaders of Saddam's control apparatus. His job would be to impose martial law and to get everything moving again through dictatorial edict and action. He should be given $5 billion to $10 billion to dispense as he sees fit to get the job done."
    The Bush administration once considered the strongman solution (known as the Cincinnatus option, named after one of the heroes of early Rome five centuries B.C., and a model of Roman virtue and simplicity) but rejected it. Potential candidates were presumably too strong -- or too weak.
    The kind of action this prominent ex-Iraqi realist had in mind would "suspend or jail corrupt officials. Electricity should not only be brought back to Saddam levels but to uninterrupted 24/7 power. Oil revenue would have to be centralized under strict control and revenues allocated for urgent needs, such as health, hospitals, garbage collection and so forth." Insurgents would be given a week to surrender their weapons, or face execution if captured. In return, the martial law government would guarantee them a job.
    What we call democracy in Iraq today is a parody; it's a kleptocracy. It cannot be reformed, this prominent Iraqi internationalist argued, and a coup by a nonsectarian strongman would be welcomed by most Iraqis who say life was less stressful with fewer hardships under Saddam.
    Iraq needs a Kemal Ataturk ("father of all Turks"), the dictator who seized control of the dying Ottoman Sultanate in 1923, and singlehandedly cajoled and browbeat his country into the modern Western mold. His puritanical blend of secularism abolished the caliphate, closed religious schools, banned veils and fezes, purged Turkish of its Arabic alphabet. Three times since 1960, the army, as guarantor of Ataturk's legacy, seized power to defend Turkey against terrorism of both the far left and far right.
    If President Bush concludes he cannot risk a freshly minted "Save Democracy" campaign in Iraq as Republican and Democratic presidential hopefuls jostle for position at the starting gate, the entire experiment will flop and U.S. troops will come home to a failed mission. The line of least resistance is to kick the can down the presidential road, leaving an exit deal to the next administration. But the Democrats will ensure this won't happen.
    The practitioners of geopolitics, in their small offline huddles this past weekend, agreed the time had come for Mr. Bush to swallow his pride and accept a royal invitation to hold a tripartite summit in Riyadh -- with Iran.
    The geopolitical realists said off the record this would be a propitious period for the three principal powers of the Gulf -- Iran, Saudi Arabia and the U.S.-- to hold a regional summit on Gulf security. Saudi King Abdullah would do the inviting. The only two invitees would be Mr. Bush and Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the man who holds the real power over hothead President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. All three have the biggest stakes in Gulf security, and legitimate security concerns.
    A week ago, Mr. Bush said nothing could move until the mullahs first suspended uranium enrichment activities. After the weekend think tank palavers, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said nothing had changed but the U.S. would sit down March 10 in Baghdad with Iraq's neighbors, including Iran and Syria.
    The diplomatic waters quickly muddied again as the Maliki government expanded the guest list to include its six neighbors, the Arab League, five permanent members of the Security Council, and the Organization of Islamic states. A recipe for gridlock.
    Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, a former president and chairman of Iran's highest body, remarked that America's two invasions "had only served Iran's interests... and the Americans are... like a wounded tiger, and we must not ignore this." Peace or war with Iran is still in the balance.
    Arnaud de Borchgrave is editor at large of The Washington Times and of United Press International.




http://tinyurl.com/yp4llw


Anything is better than the cut and run or the worse yet, slow bleed of our troops while under fire suggested by Pelosi and Murtha.  We already have the reputation for being notorious cowards globally from Vietnam, Somolia, refusing to do anything when the Kobar Towers were blown up and having our embassies bombed with no retaliation not to mention the USS Cole blown up with no response other than words.

Having a military and lacking the will to use it is the same as not having one.  

.

[Anna]

Even as we speak Ted Kennedy and RINO McCain are drafting a bill granting amnesty to illegal aliens in this country so we can share the misery.

And as for the Moderate Muslims, I see more evidence of the Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy than those.  Where are they and if they are in such a majority as some claim, why have they allowed their religion to be hijacked by extremists?  Where are the demonstrations and protests when terrorists strike?
----------------

 

Islam is taking over, says Dutch politician
By Bruno Waterfield in The Hague
Last Updated: 2:29am GMT 02/03/2007



An anti-immigrant politician is making a meteoric rise with his call on the Dutch - once one of the most tolerant nations in the world - to stop Islam taking over Europe.

Geert Wilders, the 43-year-old leader of the Freedom Party, is convinced that governments are being forced to accommodate a 'tsunami of Islamisation' that is fundamentally incompatible with European social values.

"Islam itself is the problem. Islam is a violent religion," he told The Daily Telegraph. "The Prophet Mohammed was a violent man. The Koran is mostly a violent book. We should invest in Muslim people but they have to first get rid of half the Koran and half of their beliefs," he said.

The Freedom Party has jumped from six to 10 per cent in opinion polls since November. His passionate campaign for a ban on the Islamic veil, or burqa, in public places is gaining such momentum that the country's new coalition government could be forced to introduce the ban it does not support.

On the burqa, Mr Wilders is adamant: "It is a medieval token of a barbaric time, of how not to treat women, even if they want to wear it themselves," he argues.

advertisementAllowing Muslims to wear the burqa in the Netherlands, or to have segregated swimming sessions so as not to offend religious sensitivities, amounts to "religious apartheid" he says.

The new government coalition of mainstream centre right and left political parties had planned to ditch a decision by the previous government to ban the burqa in the Netherlands which now has a population of one million Muslims, six per cent of the total population. But, Mr Wilders crows, weekend opinion polls show 66 per cent of Dutch citizens support a ban.

The minority opposition leader who has won two previous votes for a ban on the burqa is convinced that support will be there for new legislation he will table in the spring as the Dutch become increasingly concerned over Muslim separatism.

Wilders is convinced there is growing support for his views across Europe but its political leaders, particularly in Britain, are too obsessed with being politically correct.

"There is almost no country more politically correct than the UK. Look at the terrible things that happened in London after Madrid, you have more reason than most to make this debate transparent and public," he said.

Mr Wilders split from the Dutch liberals in September 2004 over their support for EU membership for Turkey.

Two months later he was living in fear after police arrested suspected terrorists, armed with grenades, accused of planning to kill him. The Dutch politician says he and his wife have received more than 600 death threats.

Mr Wilders, who is always surrounded by plain clothes police guards, said: "I lost my freedom and privacy because of my opposition to Islam."
 
http://tinyurl.com/yr7gf6

Information appearing on telegraph.co.uk is the copyright of Telegraph Media Group Limited and must not be reproduced in any medium without licence. For the full copyright statement see Copyright

[WidgetTheMidget]

I was sent this article, by a friend - probably some of you were as well, but I want it in here.   I want you to read it carefully and think about it.... and let me add that in a recent poll taken by Rassmuesien, (sp) it has been stated that over 34% of Democrats hope that we lose this war in order to gain office....


the article:
When Congress Commits Treason
The Fifth Column Raymond S. Kraft
February 5, 2007 URL: http://www.newmediajournal.us/staff/kraft/02052007.htm
 
Al Qaeda wants an American retreat, defeat, and surrender in Iraq.  So do America's Democrats.  Hezbollah wants an American retreat, defeat, and surrender in Iraq.  So do America's Democrats.  Iran wants an American retreat, defeat, and surrender in Iraq.  So do America's Democrats.  Muqtada al Sadr wants an American retreat, defeat, and surrender in Iraq.  So do America's Democrats. Osama bin Laden wants an American retreat, defeat, and surrender in Iraq.  So do America's Democrats.  When an American political party aligns itself with the goals, hopes, and ambitions of America's enemies in a time of war, in my view there is only one word for it - Treason.
 
Today, most of the "leading Democrats" in Congress are falling all over themselves to give aid, comfort, and hope, to the Jihad, the Islamic Resistance Movement, the Islamist movement for the decline and fall of Western Civilization and the ascendance of Jihadist Islam in Iraq and around the world.  Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, and many of the rest give their assurance that with Democrats in power, America will retreat, embrace defeat, and surrender, selling their souls and their country down the river for primary votes and and trucks of money from the Pacifist Left.   Here, the ignominious spectacle of Democrats selling out the future freedom of the Iraqi people for votes and dollars.  Osama bin Laden once called America "a paper tiger."  America's Democrats seem determined to prove him right.  Treason for votes.  Treason for dollars.  Treason as a political calculation.  Treason, for revenge on George Bush.
 
Treason, to put a Democrat in the White House.
 
Thirty-two years ago, in 1975, after America and the Republic of Vietnam had fought and won a ten-year war to save South Vietnam from the predations of the communist north, a Democrat Congress voted to terminate life support for South Vietnam in the face of another North Vietnamese invasion, backed by the USSR.  A Democrat Congress voted to "pull the plug," and condemned millions of Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laotions to death, torture, imprisonment, re-education camps, condemned others to flee their homes and countries as refugees.  That, in my view, was the blackest day in American history, and the blood of those people is on the hands of the Democrats who voted to abandon them.  Until now.
 
Now, another Democrat Congress is poised to repeat that act of infamy, and abandon the people of Iraq to the conflagration that will almost certainly follow if the United States withdraws its forces prematurely.  Another Democrat Congress declares to the world that America is a fair weather friend, that America cannot be relied on, that America cannot be trusted to stand by its promises when the going gets tough, that America no longer has the will to lead the world toward a future of freedom, that America has decided to embrace defeat, to retreat and surrender.  Another Democrat Congress declares that America, having liberated the Iraqi people from the bloody tyranny of Saddam Hussein, has grown tired of the messy business of liberation and will now wash its hands of the whole affair, and abandon the Iraqi people to the bloody tyranny of the Jihad.
 
After the 2000 election, the Democrat Party backed itself into a corner that threatens to destroy the Democrat Party, IF Republicans and other responsible Americans recognize the Democrats' strategic blunder for what it is, and call them out on it.
 
Even before he took office, Democrats commited themselves to the ideology that George W. Bush was (a) an "illegitimate president" who had "stolen the election," and (b) that he was stupid, dumb, incompetent, and unworthy of the office.  They maintained these positions until 9/11, when, with America obviously under attack, they came to their senses long enough to pass (with only one dissenting vote) the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq (2002) which references the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 signed by President Bill Clinton on October 31, 1998, which commited the United States to the goal of regime change in Iraq, the two acts of Congress from which Senator Hillary Clinton is now feverishly trying to distance herself.
 
By primary time before the 2004 elections, they had reverted to the stance that George W. Bush was an illegitimate president, dumb, stupid, incompetent, and unworthy of the office, and a liar, and that the Iraq war was badly bungled.  Today, they have retreated even further, with Hillary Clinton declaring that "if we had known then what we know now, there would have been no vote," no war in Iraq, that America's Democrats would have left Saddam Hussein in power to pursue the weapons of mass destruction he either had, or wanted, and to continue dumping the bodies of Shias and Kurds into mass graves, in the killing fields of Iraq.
 
During the 2004 election season, Democrats and their candidate, Senator John F. Kerry, held out military experience in general, and combat experience in particular, as the sina qua non for qualification to be president (the Kerry Axiom).  The Democrats and Kerry were adamant that since Kerry had combat experience in Vietnam, however brief, and Bush did not, that Kerry was indisputably qualified to be president, and Bush was indisputably not.  In the debates Kerry declaimed that he could fight the War on Terror "better and smarter," whatever that means, for he has never told anyone exactly what, if anything, that means.  When pressed at the time, he replied that he would have to be elected and see what sort of mess Bush had left him before he could know what "better and smarter" means.  Now, John Kerry wants to fight the war on terror "better and smarter" by capitulating to Iran, even as Iran threatens to destroy Israel, England, and America.
 
Since Bush's re-election, America's Democrats have persistently raised the ante against Bush, holding hands ever tighter with the Pacifist Left, from whence flow many millions of dollars in campaign contributions and many millions of primary votes.
 
In a remarkable about face from the Kerry Axiom that only a combat veteran is qualified to be president, the three leading candidates for the Democrats' presidential nomination in 2008, Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator Barak Obama, and former Senator John Edwards, haven't one day of military experience among them (which means, of course, by the Kerry criterion, that George W. Bush, although he has no combat experience and served only as a fighter pilot in the National Guard, is better qualified to be president than any or all of the three).  But the Kerry Axiom no longer matters, of course, that was then, this is now, live in the present.
 
Democrats are making the President's alleged bungling of the war they authorized by the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 and the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq (200) the fulcral point of the 2008 election - and are now poised to pass a non-binding resolution of Congress demanding a quick "redeployment" of American armed forces from Iraq, and debating whether to "defund" the war in six months, while Senator Clinton demands that America must be "out of Iraq by 2009."
 
This has backed the Democrats into a corner, a conundrum for which there is only one solution, and which is laden with many opportunities for the Democrat Party and all of its Congressional leaders and presidential contenders to plunge into the abyss of political disaster by November, 2008.
 
In order to sustain the Democrats' dogma that:
(a) George W. Bush is an "illegitimate president" who "stole" the election;

 
(b) George W. Bush is dumb, stupid, incompetent;
 
(c) George W. Bush led us into an "illegal war" by false pretenses and lies ("Bush lied, people died," even if all but one of the Democrats in Congress voted for it) and;
 
(d) The Iraq War has become a "quagmire" like Vietnam (which, of course, was a "quagmire" of the Democrats' own making, only because of Democrats' refusal to do the obvious things necessary to win the war quickly and decisively) - a war that America and the Iraqi government cannot possibly win against a small cadre of insurgents with Iranian support -
 
-  THE IRAQ WAR MUST BE LOST BEFORE THE 2008 ELECTION.
 
If the Iraq War has not been either won, or lost, before the 2008 election, then whoever is elected president - Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama, John Edwards - will become a Wartime President in January, 2009, a position which (per the Kerry Axiom) none of them has the slightest qualification to hold.  
 
Worse, this catastrophe would force a Democrat president to either win, or lose, the Iraq War.  If she, or he, presided over the loss of the Iraq War, the Democrat Party would, for years or decades, be tainted, smudged, smeared and besmirched, with the loss of the Iraq war, and the loss of America's leadership and geopolitical credibility.  She, or he, would fulfill Osama bin Laden's prophecy that "America is a paper tiger."  But, if she, or he, saddled up and proceeded to preside over the winning of the Iraq War, the party would be devastated by the loss of ideological cohesiveness and financial support, and votes from its base on the Pacifist Left.  Thus, the Democrat Party cannot afford to have a Democrat either lose, or win, the Iraq War.
 
The conundrum for the leading Democrat candidates for the next presidency is that all of them, Clinton, Obama, and Edwards, are now on record as opposed to the war and demanding that America retreat, embrace defeat, and surrender.  If Bush hasn't the good grace to lose the war before any of them becomes president, then, regardless of their misqualifications, whichever of them is elected will have to either (a) reverse their policy and decide the war is worth winning, to the vengeful opprobrium of the Pacifist Left that has staked its hopes and dollars on electing an anti-war president dedicated to defeat, or (b) fulfill their campaign promises by losing the war as expeditiously as possible, which will tag the Democrat Party as the Party that Lost the War for all the foreseeable future, the party that lost Iraq, the party that lost America's leadership and geo-political credibility in the world, the party of retreat, defeat, and surrender.  The party that ushered in the end of the American Era.
 
The party is hobbled, or trapped, by its resolute determination that America must not win a war that would vindicate the illigitimate presidency of George W. Bush, and by its thrall to the moneybags and votes from the Pacifist Wing of the Democratic Party.
 
Therefore, for the Democrats to succeed, the Iraq War must be lost by George W. Bush, so they can "blame Bush," so they won't have to dirty their hands with it, nor accept any responsibility, nor any blame.
 
However, even worse than having to grapple with a war they haven't a clue what to do with, is the possibility that the Iraq War might be won, or at least be making distinct progress toward a good resolution and a free, prosperous Iraq, under the George W. Bush presidency before the next election.  This would vindicate the George W. Bush presidency, and George W. Bush the man, and shatter the Democrats' ideology of Bush's incompetence and illegitimacy.  So -
 
If by the fall of 2008 the Iraq War is still seen as a stalemate, a quagmire with no hope for success, it is most likely that a Democrat will be elected president.  Then, regardless of her (or his) misqualifications, she or he will then have to either lose the war, or win it, and either will be a political fate worse than political death.  Either will doom the Democrat Party.   If the Iraq war is still underway, and neither victory nor defeat is certain, the Democrat president elected in 2008 will be damned if she (or he) wins it, and damned if she (or he) doesn't.
 
But If by the fall of 2008 the Iraq War is won, or is making clear and conspicuous progress toward a good outcome, the Democrats' dogmas will have been gutted, disemboweled, flayed, and decapitated, by success and events, and a credible Republican candidate will be elected the next President.  Nothing succeeds like success, and nothing loses like a failed prediction of failure.
 
Worst of all, success in Iraq will be vindication for George W. Bush, as stupid, evil, mendacious and illigitimate as he is.
 
The only acceptable solution, then, for a Democrat candidate, is to have the Iraq War decisively lost, or surrendered, by George W. Bush, or during the George W. Bush presidency, so that George W. Bush can take the fall, and Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama, John Edwards, and all the rest of the gaggle who get in the ring can wash their hands of it and blame it all on Bush.
 
Fortunately, or unfortunately, depending on whether you prefer an American victory or an American defeat, and to the Democrats' obvious dismay, President Bush is refusing to cooperate.  This presents the Democrats with a truly nasty dilemma.  If George W. Bush, illegitimate and dumb, refuses to lose the Iraq War when we ask him to, what shall we do about it?
 
The solution du jour is to pass a "nonbinding resolution" condeming the war and calling on America to surrender to its enemies.
 
So, now, Al Qaeda wants America to surrender.  So do the Democrats.  Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the President of Iran who prophesies the death of Israel, England, and America, wants America to surrender.  So do the Democrats.  Hezbollah wants America to surrender.  So do the Democrats.  Osama bin Laden wants America to surrender.  So do the Democrats.  What do you do when you want what America's enemies want?  When you take the side, adopt the goals, of America's enemies?  You give political and psychological aid and comfort to America's enemies, in a time of war.  You extend to America's enemies the promise that they will win, and America will surrender.  You turn on your own country, your own history, tradition, principles, Constitution, your own citizens and constituents, your own government, your own soldiers in combat.  You commit treason.  You commit treason.  You commit treason.  You commit treason.  YOU COMMIT TREASON.
 
And this is exactly what America's "leading Democrats" in Congress are actively and publicly doing.  Committing treason.
 
The essential values and ideals of Liberal Democracy are the freedoms enshrined in our own Constitution, our Bill of Rights, and in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights.  The first among these, from which all others follow, are the rights of intellectual freedom, religious freedom, political freedom, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press.  These are the liberties that Liberals and Democrats allege they believe in - but they do not.  They propose to abandon the vast majority of the Iraqi people who are not participating in the "civil war," who are only bystanders, who are only the victims of the bombs and bullets of the tiny minority (less than 1%) that makes up the Shia and Sunni militias and the Iranian-sponsored insurgency sent to foment chaos and savagery, sent to prevent the freedoms of civilization from taking root and blossoming in Iraq.
 
The leading Democrats in Congress propose to abandon the Iraqi people to a radical Islamic Jihad that is the antithesis of Democratic values, the antithesis of Liberal values, a religious totalitarianism for which the only freedom is the freedom to be not just Muslim, but Muslim Enough, and in which all intellectual freedom, religious freedom, political freedom, freedom of speech and press, contrary to radical Islam, is prohibited.  A religious totalitarianism for which "multiculturalism and diversity" are anathema.  Just as another Democrat Congress abandoned the peoples of South Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, to communist totalitarianism thirty-two years ago.  Then, Democrats voted for retreat and defeat, and surrendered South Vietnam to its enemies, and millions of people died.  Once again, Democrats and their presidential candidates invoke the Democrats' core values of retreat, defeat, and surrender, and if they succeed, millions more will die.
 
America's Congressional Democrats en masse are betraying, rejecting, repudiating, their own ostensible dedication to the Liberal values of freedom and liberty, multiculturalism, diversity, democracy, for money, for votes.  Their half-spoken mantra is, "No war for oil, no victory for freedom."
 
We see America's Congressional Democrats becoming the American Judas, betraying America, and Iraq, for the proverbial thirty pieces of silver.  We are watching the astonishing, appalling, and unprecedented spectacle of a Democrat Party so hungry, so greedy, so blindly avaricious for political dominance that it is committing itself to the retreat, defeat, and surrender of America, of Iraq, of the Middle East, perhaps Africa, perhaps Europe after that - where, if anywhere, will the Democrats' firm resolve to retreat and surrender end?
 
This is treason.
Raymond S. Kraft is an attorney and writer in northern California.

Winning 1 Out of 4 Is'nt All That Bad ...............

Lost Korean War .......

Lost Viet-Nam ........

Won Gulf War ........

Lost Bush's War ...........

WE SHOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN IN A POSITION TO WIN OR LOSE IN IRAQ

THE WAR WAS SUPPOSEDLY AGAINST AL-QAEDA.

Bush Stated That Any State That Harbors Terrorists Are Themselves

Terrorists....... Well Mr Bush Start Attacking Pakistan, Syria, Iran

Lebanon, Egypt, Turkey, Isreal , The Sudan, American Samoa, Phillipines

Sharpen Your Bayonets..... And We Wont Be Back Til Its Over Over There

 

[nonesuche]

So Widget, not to sound or appear rude at all, but how do you live under Chavez's rule and state Bush is accountable for all the ills of the modern world?

what on earth does it say when you blame only Bush for the war? what about the democratic process, so our own Senate and Congress bear absolutely no responsibility in this? I also do not believe that all intelligence is 'secret' and privy only to our president, DC is like a screen door on a submarine in this century, if you want to know something it's not so hard for a well-placed politician to find it out.