{^_^}

WALLACE: But you don’t think that Barack Obama has a profound respect for our soldiers and the families that are giving the sacrifice?

RUSH: Chris, throughout the Iraq war, it was Barack Obama and the Democrat Party which actively sought the defeat of the U.S. military. They convened hearings and accused General Petraeus of lying. They said the surge would not work.

Harry Reid stands up, waves the white flag — this war is lost. Jack Murtha is out saying our Marines at Haditha are guilty of rape. John Kerry is accusing our Marines of committing terrorism acts by going into the homes of Iraqis at midnight in the dark terrorizing, looking for Al Qaida or whoever was there.

Yeah. I mean, look. I hate to be honest with you here, but I do question their commitment to national security. I question their commitment to the U.S. military. They’ll put their political survival and their political power being gained over anything else. They’ll use anybody and throw anybody away in order to achieve it.

As usual Rush nailed it.

MaiDee on November 1, 2009 at 8:17 PM

Can I call her Babs the Bigot ?

NO !

Why?

Oh yeah she is a Dummycrat !

Would you mine calling me SENATOR.

I worked HARD for that.

Barbie, you’re a ditz. You’ve been nothing but a ditz since you bought your office in your first election, and you continue to flabbergast the intelligence of the rest of the country outside of CA with your flighty idiocy.

I understand and agree with you my friend. As a Vietnam-era vet, I’ve “up-close-and-personal” experience with the lying, defeatist, traitors.
Rod on November 1, 2009 at 6:27 PM

Thank you for your service.

I can only hope that enough Americans will have learned the lessons of politicizing a war and demeaning the service of Brave Soldiers such as yourself, like was done in Vietnam and Iraq, that we will hold the democrats accountable for their lies and backstabbing of this war effort.

Now they are saying that they will defeat the Taliban within six weeks.
MB4 on November 1, 2009 at 6:36 PM

Does anyone really believe that the Pakistanis will “defeat” the Taliban.
They have simply made deals with certain tribes that “promise” not to attack their government (but are dedicated to attacking in Afghanistan)if the Pakistani Army takes out their competition.
Another game played to keep money coming in from the west while they make faux peace agreements that will come back to bite them in the a$$ later:

Right at the Edge
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/07/magazine/07pakistan-t.html?_r=2&ref=world&pagewanted=print

By DEXTER FILKINS

“The army agreed to compensate the locals for collateral damage,” the official said. “Where do you think that money went? It went to the Taliban. Who do you think paid the bill? The Americans. This is the way the game works. The Taliban is attacked, but it is never destroyed.

“It’s a game,” the official said, wrapping up our conversation. “The U.S. is being taken for a ride.”

The Pakistan government has a long history of making deals with the tribes to give the impression they are taking the jihadist seriously so that they can continue to get money from the US.

Pakistan’s ISI has a long history of working with the Taliban:

Afghan Strikes by Taliban Get Pakistan Help, U.S. Aides Say

By MARK MAZZETTI and ERIC SCHMITT
NYTimes
March 26, 2009

The American officials said proof of the ties between the Taliban and Pakistani spies came from electronic surveillance and trusted informants. The Pakistani officials interviewed said that they had firsthand knowledge of the connections, though they denied that the ties were strengthening the insurgency.

American officials have complained for more than a year about the ISI’s support to groups like the Taliban. But the new details reveal that the spy agency is aiding a broader array of militant networks with more diverse types of support than was previously known — even months after Pakistani officials said that the days of the ISI’s playing a “double game” had ended.

…not only intelligence help and cover, but also funding

Diverse Sources Fund Insurgency In Afghanistan
Restricting Cash Flow Difficult, U.S. Says
By Craig Whitlock
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, September 27, 2009

U.S. officials said there is no evidence today that the Saudi, UAE or other Gulf governments are giving official aid to the Taliban. They said they suspect that Pakistani military and intelligence operatives are continuing to fund the Afghan insurgency, although the Islamabad government denies this.

I know that sometimes we have to work with demons to try and defeat the devil but the democrats complained about this for years and now that they are in charge, they are pretty much doing the same thing.
What happened to “hope and change”?

Even now the deals the Pakistani government is cutting with the tribes helps certain tribes gain more power and does nothing to stop their main objective of taking over Afghanistan:

Pakistan Cuts Deals With Anti-American Militants
Monday , October 19, 2009

DERA ISMAIL KHAN, Pakistan

Both allow their lands to be used by fighters who cross into Afghanistan and are loyal to the Mullah Omar, the head of the Afghan Taliban. Omar is believed to be living in Pakistan.

As the region’s British colonial rulers did decades ago, the army is exploiting tribal rivalries to try to gain control in the region. Nazir is an old-time opponent of the Mehsud tribe, while Bahadur is reportedly angry over the appointment of Hakimullah as Taliban chief.

The Long War Journal: Pakistan carefully advances in South Waziristan

Written by Bill Roggio on October 20, 2009 12:46 AM to The Long War Journal

Both Bahadar and Nazir sponsor al Qaeda, the Afghan Taliban, and Pakistani jihadi groups and host training camps for these Islamist terror groups.Powerful elements withing Pakistan’s military establishment view Nazir, Bahadar, the Haqqani family, and other groups as ‘good’ Taliban as they do not attack the state but focus their efforts on jihad in Afghanistan.

Terrible ROE that exposes our Soldiers to extreme and sometimes unnecessary dangers combined with to much emphasis on “winning hearts” is giving the jihadist and their supporters to much room to manipulate and adjust.

The best way to gain their respect and “win their heats” is to destroy there ability to train and carry out their attacks.
We have to kill as many of the enemy as possible and destroy their ability to regroup.
Show the populace that the way of the jihadist is certain death.
We have almost totally stopped bombing raids on camps and known terrorist hideouts(drone attacks are not full on bombing raids to destroy whole areas of enemy encampments).
How do you not utilize the most superior air force in the world when we are at war??
It is insane to tie our hands behind our backs and then say “lets go get them guys”.

We have a superior Army and Armament.
Use it.

How in Gods name did this women ever get elected? Have you heard her speak?

royzer on November 1, 2009 at 7:13 PM

She “Borked” Bruce Hirschenson, who was and is a Good Man, and won in a very close election. After that, name recognition and corruption ( think ACORN )

Yes, but this time they really, really mean it!

We don’t win by destroying the Wehrmacht. We don’t win by body count. We don’t win by the number of successful military raids or attacks, we win when the [German] people decide we win.

Pre-occupied with protection of our own forces, we have operated in a manner that distances us — physically and psychologically — from the [German] people we seek to protect.

How’s that “smart power” working out.

Baxter Greene on November 1, 2009 at 5:14 PM

I understand and agree with you my friend. As a Vietnam-era vet, I’ve “up-close-and-personal” experience with the lying, defeatist, traitors.

I’m sickened and heart-broken that, within such a relatively short time-frame, our “leaders” are again on the cusp of repeating the same un-forgivable sin of withholding the resources our soldiers have asked for and desperately need to win a war.

They are advancing the goals of our enemy – they are traitors – and they should be treated as such.

We don’t win by destroying the Taliban. We don’t win by body count. We don’t win by the number of successful military raids or attacks, we win when the [Afghan] people decide we win.
- General McChrystal (in London some time ago)

Nor does he seem to put a very high value on the lives and limbs of his own troops.

Pre-occupied with protection of our own forces, we have operated in a manner that distances us — physically and psychologically — from the people we seek to protect.
- General McChrystal (from his COMISAF assessment of the war in Afghanistan)

Imagine, just imagine if John Kerry or Jack Murtha or Code Pink or Jane Fonda had said we were “Pre-occupied with protection of our own forces”!!!

There are many reasons to fire Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, and all of them are contained within his 66-page “assessment” of the war in Afghanistan.

That a general could write so disparagingly of the means to preserve his soldiers at least to fight another day is despicable. But this is what zealots do. They serve theories, not men; they see visions, not reality. And that theory, that vision is akin to the familiar Marxist notion, likely imbibed during PC school days, that denies that identity, religion and culture matter. In the resulting tunnel vision, the so-called hearts-and-minds strategy looks like a winner.

Dark-Star on November 1, 2009 at 2:51 PM

scary insult from a scary nic.

Dave Rywall on November 1, 2009 at 2:17 PM

the second line says it all, “Dave”

She was really cute when she was younger, like, two.

Akzed on November 1, 2009 at 1:50 PM

Then why did her parents tie a pork chop around her neck to get the dog to play with her?

NavyMustang on November 1, 2009 at 5:37 PM

Sorry. Missed a word.