To think that the Democrats have America’s best interests at heart requires the willing suspension of disbelief.

Drew on November 24, 2007 at 3:04 PM

This ‘willing suspension of disbelief’ meme needs to become a campaign slogan to be hammered every single chance we get.

They own Surrender/a>! They paid for it, they were a consensus on it, and now they owe an apology before anyone should let them off of the hook. They can begin by funding our Heros with no strings attached then apologize to General Praeteus. Finally, how about apologizing to our commander-in-chief?

FishFearMe on November 24, 2007 at 6:42 PM

Glad you liked the article I linked to.

I think of it as a right side version of KO’s Worst that would require a group picture to do it justice.

I don’t link often but when I do it is usually on topic and on point.

When I put recommends behind it , you will learn it is high octane stuff that really should be read.

If the Republican nominee doesn’t push this in the face of the Democrat nominee, he deserves to lose. Every Democrat candidate is an easy target.

Likewise the Republican should refrain from using this same offense against Ron Paul, defeating Ron Paul will be easier than shooting fish in a barrel with a machine gun.

Immigration, War on Terror, the economy, and sleazy politics make the Democrats the easiest targets since Walter Mondale.

Rather than an escalation of US troops, which will not contribute to fundamentally changing the conditions on the ground, we should put pressure on the Iraqi government in a way that they will understand there are consequences to their empty promises and their continued inaction.

From the NYT article:

“Our troops are the best in the world; if you increase their numbers they are going to make a difference,” Mrs. Clinton said in a statement after her aides were asked about her views on the ebbing violence in Baghdad.

The matter-of-factness of her second statement collides with her first like a matter-antimatter reaction. There are a million of these. So many that people just get used to it all and think of them as normal …

Sanchez is this war’s McClellen.

Either his heart wasn’t in the job when he was in charge, or he’s trying to protect his reputation now in light of Petraeus’ success using different tactics.

georgej on November 24, 2007 at 4:09 PM

I think he’s trying to cover his a$$. He seemed OK as long as there was little progress and he was in charge maintaining the status quo.

Bureaucrat.

Along comes Petreaus who knows how to fight insurgent warfare with progress made very fast compared to Sanchez, and suddenly Sanchez is feeling inadequate.

From the transcript:

In that capacity, I saw firsthand the consequences of the administration’s failure to devise a strategy for victory in Iraq that employed, in a coordinated manner, the political, economic, diplomatic and military power of the United States.

So what were you doing General? sitting around knitting? What suggestions did you offer?

That failure continues today.

Way to slam those still serving there buddy.

The rest of his speech is just so many defeatocrat talking points, or positions the party he is speaking on behalf of doesn’t believe in anyway.

Did you believe these things while serving General or did you have an epiphany?

If you believed them while serving, why didn’t you speak up then?

Valiant on November 24, 2007 at 3:49 PM

Um, we, I, our party, I, we, Nancy, were for, against, for, against, it, the war, redeployment, the surge, more funding, bringing the troops home, finishing the job, before we were against, for, against, for it.

Got that!

Geeze you need a playbook to figure out what they want.

Outstanding link. I have bookmarked it so I can, over and over, show what the defeatocrats are all about. And I am gonna do it with their OWN words. I hope these words come back to bite them in the a$$. But, then again, X marks the spot, because those traitors are ALL a$$.

“If a CEO of a fortune 500 company were to retire, would anyone seriously consider his wife to be an adequate replacement simply because she was married to him when he ran the company?”

- Columnist John Hawkins

Shine the spotlight on the cowards!

I’d like to see some links to that kind of talk being made some time back, CI. It would flesh out the point quite nicely.

I haven’t heard any lefties claiming meaningful gains. Some of them have acknowledged gains — including Hillary, per the link in this post — but the prevailing anti-war CW is that (a) U.S. troops/Bush’s strategy had little to do with it and (b) to the extent that there have been gains, they’re fragile and unlikely to last in the absence of political reconciliation. What I’m talking about down the road in this post is the left acknowledging that yes, Iraq has improved, and yes, those improvements are likely to be abiding. They won’t acknowledge that a moment before they absolutely have to.

I’ve been hearing that for weeks, where have you been? It’s not too hard predicting the future when the future has been occuring for some time.

You’ve been hearing that these gains are “meaningful”? I’ve been hearing that they’re evanescent.

Nice of you to show up and deliver your regular snottiness, though, CI.

lorien1973 on November 24, 2007 at 3:04 PM

El Guapo on November 24, 2007 at 3:09 PM

Yes, like the Dems under Jimmah ignored the fall of South Vietnam, the rise of the Khmer Rouge, etc.

If suddenly the genocide in Darfur were to become politically relevant to US foreign policy (thus warranting a military response stronger than a UN “humanitarian presence”, where the troops actually, you know, engage the enemy and fight), how much you want to bet that the leftist Hollyweenies like Clooney and Jolie will shut their traps immediately and act like it never existed?

Either his heart wasn’t in the job when he was in charge, or he’s trying to protect his reputation now in light of Petraeus’ success using different tactics.