Half the nation are Democrats? Not hardly. No more than about a third of the voters are Democrats, registered or otherwise. Another third are Republicans, and the rest are independents. Within 3 or 4 percentage points either way, varying from election to election.

If the Democratic base (the numerical base, not the base that scream their hatred of Bush the loudest) wants their party to take a different road than Harry Reid/Nancy Pelosi’s cut and run and surrender to Al Qaeda, then they had best speak up now. If they remain silent, then THEIR party will be known as the the modern day Copperheads; the party that cut and run in Iraq.

Just as their party attempted to undercut Lincoln and surrender to the other side during that other unpopular war, the Civil War, and where the term “copperhead” was coined.

Just as their party DID surrender South Vietnam to the North.

The part of the party that is directing it today is the hard left. The part of the part that I once belonged to (4 decades ago), the “conservative” branch, if it still exists that is, had better start speaking up now. They had better reign in Reid and Pelosi. They had better tell their leadership to STOP listening to the nutroots and start listening to them, before they betray the Iraqi people the way they betrayed the South Vietnamese and almost betrayed the Union.

The 2006 election was NOT A MANDATE TO SURRENDER TO AL QAEDA IN IRAQ. They have no sweeping majority. They have a majority of *ONE* vote, that’s all, in the Senate. They have only a small majority in the House. They cannot even override a Bush veto without Republican assistance.

The Democratic Party drove Lieberman, the only sensible liberal out there, out of the party. They made Zell Miller, a conservative, throw up his hand in disgust and retire. Wilson, FDR, Truman, and JFK would not recognize their party today as their leadership cares little about the welfare of this country, and only cares about increasing their political power. Or a former Democrat Bob Just put it: “das party uber alles.”

The plain fact is, the same people who were responsible for the genocide in Cambodia — and generation of liberals that followed them — are poised to abandon the people of Iraq to the tender mercies of Al Qaeda, Sadr (and Iran), and the remaining Ba’athists. That is what they intend to do.

The last poll I saw (which was several months ago, true) still showed that even the majority of Democrats (53%) wanted America to prevail in Iraq. Among Republicans, it was almost 80%. So it isn’t REPUBLICANS or the President that isn’t listening to the people.

Iraq is a country of about 25 million people. And if liberal Democrats get their way, you can count on multiple millions of them being murdered in what will happen afterward.

Tuna Talon says that the title of monster will be hung on George W. Bush over Iraq. Well, the MSM and the Democrats will no-doubt try to lie and spin their way into doing just that, just as the liberal Democrats tried to spin their way out of accepting responsibility for the genocide in Cambodia. And, Tuna, you’re right; we bail from Iraq and NONE of our allies will ever trust us again. In fact, we won’t have any, because nobody respects a backstabber.

Isn’t it ironic how the Bush-haters prattle on about how Bush has cost us international respect, and fail to see that an America that can’t be trusted to keep its word, no matter what, will have even less respect?

Are the Iraqis responsible for their fate? Yep. fogw, you hit it right on the head. 1400 years stuck in the mindset of 7th Century nomads lends itself to sect-driven warfare, murder, and power grabs on the part of some. But Iraq is a nation where the majority of people do not really care if the followers of Hussein prevail or not. Their own polls show that. They want a prosperous, peaceful Iraq. They’ve intermarried. Their neighborhoods were once integrated (and are now being religiously segregated by the death squads). They prized modern ways and were educated, despite of having to suffer under a murder like Saddam.

These sectarian killers are the MINORITY in Iraq. Really. At least right now. Until Al Qaeda started blowing up their holy places, the Shia weren’t interested in “death squads” and attrocities. Al Sistani, their leading Ayatollah specifically told them to not fight other Iraqis (or us Americans, as well). The fact that the Sunni tribes in Anbar, who were in opposition to the newly elected government and largely sat out the elections, are now working with the government to rid themselves of Al Qaeda is a sea-change difference. Can’t the liberal Democrats see this?

In the last 6 months, the worst province has been pacified because the Iraqis living there no longer want war.

In the last 6 months, the Iraq government has taken complete control of several other provinces and is in the lead on most of the others.

3/4 of the people of Iraq are not fighting, not us, not each other. John Burns said the other night that 90% of the “sectarian” violence is coming from Al Qaeda now, more than half of whom, we are told, are FOREIGN fighters, not even native Iraqis.

And, here we are, right on the cusp of victory, the LIBERAL DEMOCRATS want to toss it all away.

Why?

Why in God’s name do they want to pull out RIGHT NOW and not wait until September like Reid and Pelosi promised?

Why do they want to force us to lose the war AND cause the genocide of millions of Iraqis, especially now, when time is on OUR side; when momentum is on OUR side?

Why do their allies in the MSM deliberately lie and overstate the bad news and ignore the good? Why does the MSM ignore Michael Yon’s story? Or that of Steve Miska?

Why?

I say it is because they are the same kind of people they were in 1975. They are the same hypocrites and haters of America now that they were then. They have the same lack of humanity now they had then.

They are the same monsters NOW as they were THEN.

America, I give you the liberal Democrat!

U.S. intelligence analysts, however, have a somewhat different view of al-Qaeda’s presence in Iraq, noting that the local branch takes its inspiration but not its orders from bin Laden. Its enemies — the overwhelming majority of whom are Iraqis — reside in Baghdad and Shiite-majority areas of Iraq, not in Saudi Arabia or the United States. While intelligence officials have described the Sunni insurgent group calling itself al-Qaeda in Iraq as an “accelerant” for violence, they have cited domestic sectarian divisions as the main impediment to peace.

This is fundamentally wrong and tells you all you need to know about our “intelligence analysts”.

BAGHDAD (AP) — The U.S. command announced on Wednesday the arrest of an al-Qaeda leader it said served as the link between the organization’s command in Iraq and Osama bin Laden’s inner circle, enabling it to wield considerable influence over the Iraqi group.

Bergner told reporters that al-Mashhadani carried messages from bin Laden, and his deputy Ayman al-Zawahri, to the Egyptian-born head of al-Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Ayyub al-Masri.
“There is a clear connection between al-Qaeda in Iraq and al-Qaeda senior leadership outside Iraq,” Bergner said.

After all this time, after clear examples of what took place in Afghanistan and is now happening in Pakistan, neither our “intelligence agencies” nor the majority of people in DC have a clue about the threat we are fighting. The don’t understand or refuse to admit the jihad threat.

Depressing.

That’s the Senate, alrighty.

The question is how many would die on each side before the sectarian populations were finally settled into their new mini-states.

That depends, are you talking about body counts in the next few years or the next millenium?

The Dark Age mentality and religious driven culture of the Middle East was there before we came, has persisted while we are there and will be prevalent long after we’re gone. The death-obssessed mentality of radical Islam has gone far beyond being an incurable desease, it has transitioned into a genetic deformity passed on in the bloodlines and nurtured by the brainwashing of generation after generation of the terrorists of tomorrow.

Other than Israel building a nuclear arsenal, what other accord, agreement, peace negotiation, diplomatic solution or foreign intervention has had any effect on the bloodthirsty nature of the barbaric jihadists or positively altered the volatile landscape of the Middle East?

Nukes have kept the enemy at the gates of Israel, but the rest of the Middle East is still boiling over with Arabs who want to kill one another, and will, in great numbers, as they have for thousands of years – all in the name of Allah.

The Senators who want to leave the mess say that we should go back to working with out Allies. The Iraqi exit question is, after we abandon our allies in Iraq where will we find some other county to trust us?

The tag “monster” will be hung around the neck of President Bush because he will be assigned the fault. Here’s a clue. When first tuning into a hearing on C-Span I can quickly tell the party of the Pol by the question. If the question is about the past to find fault the Pol has a “D” by their name. If the question is about what to do next to make it better the Pol has a “R” by their name.

Regardless of what Mr. Iraqi Ambassador says, the Iraqi’s lost this war.

Georgej, I don’t believe that all Democrats follow what their party members say or do, just as not all Republicans do. If you have to damn half of the nation, start your own blog.

Yep. They are the monsters among us. How else would you quantify their behavior? You have to be an IDIOT to not know that millions of people are going to die in the violent collapse of Iraq if we pull out now. Even the New York Times admits it. And yet, they either deny it, or don’t care. They want Bush defeated and to hell with the consequences.

Some of these “people” are the very same people STOOD BY and watched Pol Pot murder 2.25 million Cambodians. First they pretended that it never happened; that it was overblown rhetoric from the right. Then they started to JUSTIFY it as being necessary to achieve social justice. Then, when the scale of it reached genocidal levels, they blamed Nixon, and (believe it or not), some even try to apply moral equivalence to blame Ronald Reagan.

Boston Globe columnist, Jeff Jacoby wrote:

“In the name of a radical utopia,” The New York Times recalled in its long obituary, “the Khmer Rouge regime had turned most of the people into slaves. . . . Dictatorial village leaders and soldiers told the people whom to marry and how to live, and those who disobeyed were killed. [Those] who did not bend to the political mania were buried alive, or tossed into the air and speared on bayonets. Some were fed to crocodiles.” Nearby was a photograph of human skulls — emblem of the dreadful “killing fields” in which the communists butchered a quarter of Cambodia’s people.

But nowhere in the Times story was there a reminder that the Khmer Rouge was able to seize power only after the US Congress in 1975 cut off all aid to the embattled pro-American government of Lon Nol — and that it did so despite frantic warnings of the bloodbath that would ensue. President Ford warned of “horror and tragedy” if Cambodia was abandoned to the Khmer Rouge and pleaded with Congress to supply Lon Nol’s army with the tools it needed to defend itself.

To no avail. US troops had come home two years earlier, but American antiwar activists were still intent on effecting the “liberation” of Southeast Asia. Radicals like Jane Fonda, David Dellinger, and Tom Hayden stormed the country, denouncing anyone who opposed communist victory in Cambodia and Vietnam. On the campuses, in the media, and in Congress, it was taken on faith that a Khmer Rouge victory would bring peace and enlightened leadership to Cambodia.

“The growing hysteria of the administration’s posture on Cambodia,” declared Senator George McGovern, “seems to me to reflect a determined refusal to consider what the fall of the existing government in Phnom Penh would actually mean. . . . We should be able to see that the kind of government which would succeed Lon Nol’s forces would most likely be a government . . . run by some of the best-educated, most able intellectuals in Cambodia.”

Liberal Democrats caused the fall of Cambodia and Vietnam. That’s history. Liberal Democrats pretended that the genocide wasn’t happening. That’s history, too. Liberal Democrats stuck their fingers in their ears and went “LA-LA-LA-LA-LA” when people tried to tell them what was really happening in Cambodia. Just like they are trying to do today.

The New Republic told its readers that the ouster of Lon Nol should be of no concern, since “the Cambodian people will finally be rescued from the horrors of a war that never really had any meaning.”…

…On April 13, 1975, [Sydney] Schanberg’s dispatch from Phnom Penh was headlined, “Indochina without Americans: for most, a better life.”…

…On the op-ed page, Anthony Lewis was calling “the whole bloodbath debate unreal. What future could possibly be more terrible,” he demanded, “than the reality of what is happening to Cambodia now?”

As the death marches out of Phnom Penh proceeded, Lewis went on making excuses for the Khmer Rouge. He mused that it was “the only way to start on their vision of a new society.” Americans who objected were guilty of “cultural arrogance, an imperial assumption, that . . . our way of life” would be better….

…The “scholars” were the worst. Gareth Porter and G.C. Hildebrand of the Indochina Resource Center insisted that Pol Pot’s horrendous cruelties “saved the lives of tens of thousands of people…. Twenty-three years ago, American leftists cheered, justified, and denied as the communists plunged Cambodia into a nightmare of atrocity.”

And you dare to complain that I label them for what they are? They were monsters then, and NOTHING’S CHANGED! They are going to repeat their performance in Iraq!

They’re older and grayer now, but their ranks are swelled by a new generation of USEFUL IDIOTS who intend to turn a blind eye to the murder of millions of Iraqis. Just because they hate George W. Bush.

If a group of people not only stand by, but advocate the very actions which will bring about genocide, then you cannot call them anything but monsters. Because that is what they are.

And if the people of DKOS are upset because I dared to tell them that they ‘wear no clothes,’ then f*ckem. They ARE what I say they are. And they will wear that label forever.

In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king.

…traitor party … … Liberal Democrats are the monsters among us. They’re cold, murdering bast*rds … …

My God, you are talking about roughly a third of Americans. Probably another third to some degree. If someone at kos or moveon finds your comment, and has nothing better to do, they will have a field day. They will think that they have died and gone to heaven.

And now, they’re about to screw the Iraqis.

They are too late. The Iraqis beat them to it.

Cyprus was partitioned in the late 50’s or early 60’s, and in 1974 Greece invaded and tried to take over the Island (both Greece and Turkey claimed it as being theirs). War between two NATO allies resulted. And Cyprus is STILL partitioned, today, except that Turkey’s slice is bigger.

Korea is partitioned. We’re still stationed along the DMZ and the North still hasn’t given up its designs on the south. Unless the regime in the north falls, we will, no doubt go to war there, again.

Vietnam was partitioned. And we all know how that ended up. The North invaded and tried to overthrow the south. After 56,000 US KIA, we pulled out and the Democrats made sure that the next time the north invaded after that, that the Vietnames would lose and that is exactly what happened.

Partitioning Iraq will not settle anything. Shiiteland would want revenge against the Sunnis. Sunniland want’s the oil that the Kurds have. Kurdland wants their own state that would include parts of Turkey and Iran as well.

But who cares?

Obama and the rest of the traitor party don’t give a crap about any Iraqi genocide. And this includes Biden. Just like they didn’t give a crap about Cambodia’s Pol Pot and the millions he murdered or the 800,000 Vietnamese executed by the Communists and the hundreds of thousands of tribesmen in Laos who fought with us.

Liberal Democrats are the monsters among us.

They’re cold, murdering bast*rds just like their old Soviet masters were. The death of human beings doesn’t faze them — that’s why they adore abortion and “mercy killing” of the lame and elderly.

Oh, they’re willing to spend US blood and treasure on places that don’t matter to America, where we have no interests at all. So they can feel good and tingly self righteous. Places like SOMALIA, KOSOVO, BOSNIA, where they can’t really fight back. Or course, Clinton let Rawanda happen (Tutsis don’t vote Democratic anyway, so WTF and to hell with them!) in 1994. Cigarman was still smarting from the beating Osama bin Laden gave him in Somalia. Because in Mogodishu, the enemy DID fight back and Clinton, like all liberal Democrats doesn’t have the stomache (spelled COURAGE) to fight our enemies.

They’re great on “sending messages,” like blowing up asprin factories and murdering donkeys in empty terrorist camps in Afghanistan. But when it comes to actually engaging the enemy, those that don’t commit treason in helping them, run away like the little girly-men they are.

But other than “sending messages,” DEMOCRATS REFUSE to defend American national security interests. Period.

They screwed the Vietnamese and the Cambodians. They screwed the Somalians, too. And now, they’re about to screw the Iraqis. And they fully turn the sacrifice of American blood into worthless mud. God Damn Them.

There is a brutal man in control of the apartment house down the street from you. Most of the residents of the apartment house are very afraid of him, he has even beat up people in the apartment house, and would like someone to get rid of him.

You go over grab his a$$ and bring him to the law and he never comes back to the apartment house.

Now the people in the apartment house blame you because the toilets are stopped up and the roof leaks and some of the apartment house residents are fighting each other.

They say you can’t leave until everything is OK fine and you are a bad person if you do.

You have already been there for more than four years trying to help. A pesky neighbor has started to tell you that you should just go home, but he has not done anything to make you do that.

What do you say to them?

Iraqi ambassador can’t believe U.S. would walk away from the mess it’s made

The Iraqi Ambassador must not have studied much modern history, must not understand Democrats at all.
For the last 40 years they make a mess of EVERYTHING they get involved in, and always walk run away from the mess.

Then they leave it to the Republicans to try to fix. Then they rewrite history to blame their screwups on the Republicans who at least tried to prevent or at least fix the situation in the first place.

The two beliefs seem incompatible to me.

Keep in mind that there are not enough “al-Qaeda in Iraq”, aka “al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia”, aka “AQI”, aka “faux al-Qaeda”, or real al-Qaeda for that matter in Iraq, to do that anything like by themselves.

I’ve got to remember that one.

I’ve wargamed the Battle of Britain, and the Germans won…

I’ve wargamed Waterloo, Borodino, and about 100 other Napoleonic battles, and had very mixed results…

Wargames are nothing more than a guess… based on rules set up by umpires to TRY to come out with a reasonable conclusion based on moves by different commanders… and cannot really potray how a population will react…

But is the fighting going to be mostly inside Iraq? Or will it engulf the region and (eventually) reach America? How soon after the bloodshed begins in earnest will the Dems be crying for us to open up for the Middle-Eastern refugees?
Or, even if they don’t, how long before some “refugees” enter America via the open borders?

Consequently, we’d probably still be on the verge of an immoral, indefensible, short-sighted and foolishly reckless retreat.

How did we get here? Good Christ, how did we get here? Don’t they know what harm they’re going to do, not only to this country but the rest of the world, too?

They should all be run out of office. Every last one of these bastards without a spine.

I was gonna say too, doesn’t Obama’s rejecting staying in Iraq because of genocide basically mean he wouldn’t pursue the Darfur crisis for the same reason? Sounds like it.

That was the conclusion reached in recent “war games” exercises conducted for the U.S. military by retired Marine Col. Gary Anderson

Then he went to the WA Post with the results? Taken at face value, I would say, knowing nothing else, that maybe, just maybe he left out al-Qaeda in the equation. Where is al-Qaeda in his report? Is al-Qaeda just sitting around letting eveyone push them out of Iraq? Wouldn’t they cause a lot of devistation and try to regain ground in al-Anbar and Baqubah where they were successful in the past? And with us gone, why not? Who would prevent them? The tribes are fine when they have US backup and air support, but they have proven ineffectual on their own.