For some reason certain people get mad when I copy parts of articles and put them on my blog, but sometimes someone says something so well, you have to put it word for word. Ann gets paid to do this, and she is way smarter than anyone of us. So once again, enjoy. I'll only put my favorite lines...(and for those of you too stupid to know how it works, the link can always be found by clicking on the title of the post)
Fortunately for liberals, the Iraqis executed Saddam Hussein the exact same week that former President Ford died, so it didn't seem strange that Nancy Pelosi's flag was at half-staff. Also, Saddam's death made it less of a snub when Harry Reid skipped Ford's funeral.
The passing of Gerald Ford should remind Americans that Democrats are always lying in wait, ready to force a humiliating defeat on America. More troops, fewer troops, different troops, "redeployment" — all the Democrats' peculiar little talking points are just a way of sounding busy. Who are they kidding? Democrats want to cut and run as fast as possible from Iraq, betraying the Iraqis who supported us and rewarding our enemies — exactly as they did to the South Vietnamese under Ford.
Liberals spent the Vietnam War rooting for the enemy and clamoring for America's defeat, a tradition they have brought back for the Iraq war.
After a half-dozen years of Democrat presidents creating a looming disaster in Vietnam — with Kennedy ordering the assassination of our own ally in the middle of the war and Johnson ham-handedly choosing bombing targets from the Oval Office — in 1969, Nixon became president and the world was safe again.
Nixon began a phased withdrawal of American ground troops, while protecting the South Vietnamese by increasing the bombings of the North, mining North Vietnamese harbors and attacking North Vietnamese military supplies in Cambodia — all actions hysterically denounced by American liberals, eager for the communists to defeat America.
Despite the massive anti-war protests staged by the Worst Generation, their takeovers of university buildings and their bombings of federal property to protest the bombing of North Vietnamese property, Nixon's Vietnam policy was apparently popular with normal Americans. In 1972, he won re-election against "peace" candidate George McGovern in a 49-state landslide.
Three months after Nixon was gone, we got the Watergate Congress and with it, the new Democratic Party. In lieu of the old Democratic Party, which lost wars out of incompetence and naivete, the new Democratic Party would lose wars on purpose.
Just one month after the Watergate Congress was elected, North Vietnam attacked the South.
Five years after that, Islamic lunatics in Iran felt no compunction about storming the embassy of what was once the greatest superpower on Earth and taking American citizens hostage for 14 months. To this day, al-Qaida boosts the flagging morale of its jihadists by reminding them of America's humiliating retreat from Vietnam.
In addition to being wrong about Ford's pardon of Nixon, liberals were wrong about a few other things from that era. Democrats haven't admitted error in rejecting Ford's pleas on behalf of South Vietnam because there are still dangerous foreigners trying to kill Americans. Nixon is safely interred in the ground, but the enemies of America continue to need the Democrats' help.
All you have to do is look at history and facts to see how dangerous liberal thought and the Democratic party are to America and the world.
They will repeat history in Iraq, and eventually the world will take a fall with the help of the Dem's.
Sunday, January 07, 2007
THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY: A VAST SLEEPER CELL
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
19 comments:
...and to use Oral Annie's crappy logic, they couldnt wait for the Pubs to take over so they could destroy WTC and Pentagon.
see, she uses actual events and logic to make her points...and you come by and show how silly and wrong liberal thought is (oh, I'm sorry, libertarian..lol)
Those "some people" tend to miss the link if it's part of the title.
There is a reason why "liberal" and "libertarian" start with the same five letters (at least when the proper spelling instead of my spelling of "lieberal" and "losertarian" aren't used)....
You post drivel by this wingnut lunatic and then you have the audacity to claim that Al Gore is "insane."
Nobody minds you quoting the work of others as long as they receive attribution. In this case you did, but as steveegg writes, it is not clear that the title is a link unless you mouse over it.
I would like to know what is not correct in Ann's writtings?
Nothing can be pointed as exactly incorrect in Oral Annies crap, cuz she only posts her opinion. Nothing is fact or even an attempt at maintaining a LOGICAL argument. There is no logic, there is no link between her pseudo events. There is only coincidence and her attempt to get the bottom feeders of the world all hyped up with her jingo or demogoguery. I read the whole thing. The structure is as empty as her readers heads.
Well first, the lunatic implies that Pelosi would have had her flag (what flag?) at half staff for Hussein. Totally inane, if not libelous.
Harry Reid did not "snub" the Ford funeral.
"The passing of Gerald Ford should remind Americans that Democrats are always lying in wait, ready to force a humiliating defeat on America. More troops, fewer troops, different troops, "redeployment" — all the Democrats' peculiar little talking points are just a way of sounding busy." Total, unsupportable bullshit.
"Liberals spent the Vietnam War rooting for the enemy and clamoring for America's defeat, a tradition they have brought back for the Iraq war." Total bullshit. Jane Fonda was a fringe radical and not "liberals."
"Democratic Party, which lost wars out of incompetence and naivete." Really? World War II? Which wars?
"In addition to being wrong about Ford's pardon of Nixon, liberals were wrong about a few other things from that era." Prove that "liberals" were wrong about Ford's pardon of Nixon. Assuming that ALL liberals agreed, how can you prove they were wrong? Total, unsupportable bullshit.
main point of the article...the actions of democrats cause us to lose wars...and that is 100% correct...
the modern liberal and democratic party started with vietnam...so is you look at history, ever since the peace loving hippie liberal started, this country has had its hands tied...
The point of the article is unprovable if not utterly false.
Democrats are NOT causing the US to lose in Iraq. Republics caused us to lose the war by starting one without having clue one about the history and politics of the country or the region. They had little chance of winning and they blew that chance by totally screwing up the occupation after overthrowing Hussein. Read any of dozens of books about the "Fiasco" to understand.
It is typical of you and Coulter's ilk to blame Democrats when Bush gets the country into an unwinnable mess. It's like Bush standing arm in arm with Pelosi, lighting them both on fire and then asking her, "What's your plan?"
No offense Jim, but that is the best post you have made in ages. Nice fucking job.
"None taken." - Cpl. Hicks, Aliens
Ummm...! Sleeper cell, uh? WOW!
Sorry - I tried my best. Couldn't read more than half of it....Ann and her logic...so amusing....smiles!!
First of all, Rhyno isn't using Ann's "crappy logic", but using his own. The 9/11 plot began during a Dem's watch and merely finished shortly into Bush's. Thus, by Rhyno-logic, they were awaiting the perfect blend of Arkansas Dem and Texas Repub to launch their plot. But all seriousness aside, Bubba had shown the level of his seriousness on many an occasion. He continued the type of behavioral pattern that Coulter's piece describes.
And therein is the asskicker. Her documenting these patterns of behavior by Dems since Watergate, and the negative consequences that resulted is accurate. So the question stands, what's inaccurate in her article? The crap about her demeanor, the cheap shots like "Oral Annie", and the diversion to Bush's handling of the war are all poor attempts to skirt the question. Answer it this way then: What have the Dems done in the time discussed that convinces YOU that they mean business? You already talk as if Bush is someone of whom we must truly be afraid. So if the Dems don't scare anybody, why would the bad guys of the world give any heed? This is the point of Coulter's article, and the point of most conservative pundits and commenters when they speak of Dems welcoming destruction. That their actions, never mind the motivations for them at this point, but their actions alone result in consequences that work against our interests.
Jim I have to ask you a question.
If the Democrats were to stand behind the president, if the media made an effort to be impartial in the reporting of this war, and if we showed the world a united country behind our president, can you honestly say you don’t believe we’d succeed in Iraq?
You wail and gnash your teeth when we accuse the Democrats of defeatism, then you make a comment about Republicans not knowing the history and politics of the region and having little chance of winning. Then you go on to label it “an unwinnable mess”.
If that’s not defeatist, if that’s not encouraging to the enemy, then I don’t know what defeatism is. That’s exactly what the Democrat leadership is striving to do, because you are parroting their words, and that’s exactly what the IslamoFascist want to hear from the lips of Americans. Thanks a lot, I hope you’re proud of yourself.
I hope you’re not one of those arrogant pinheads who believe the people of the Middle East don’t want or can’t handle freedom and democracy. Nobody claimed it would be easy, but it’s the best plan for stability, and the best plan for reducing terrorist “membership”, because a happier, educated, and more secure people are less likely to join and support hate mongering, sons and daughters sacrificing fanatics. What do you suppose the effect on the Middle East would be if you had Afghanistan, Iraq, and Lebanon as semi-stable Democracies?
Make no mistake, Iraq is a pivotal battle in the war on terror, if you can’t see that, then you need to study a little more of that “history and politics of the region”. Furthermore you people that are fostering this atmosphere of defeat, ought to be damn glad you have this shield of freedom of speech to hide behind. Think hard on what you do, it’s very possible, that one day in the near future, you’ll wish your perception hadn’t been so very narrow.
I have to admit it tickles me no end to see how much Ann is hated by the left. That’s a sure sign of her effectiveness. Ann is the queen of making excellent point in an effective yet sarcastic manner.
I’ll leave you with one more Ann Coulter quote: “Unfortunately, history always begins this morning for liberals, so they can keep flogging the same idiotic idea that has never, ever worked: Be nice to our enemies and they will reward us with good behavior.”
Informing and exposing, all with a stinging wit, what a lady!
marshall, blamin--
Bravo. I have nothing to add at the moment.
The fake news at The People's Cube has it correct.
--------
WASHINGTON, Jan. 6 - Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker Nancy Pelosi sent a letter to President Bush urging him to reject any plan that could potentially result in a military victory in Iraq. The leaders warned that a surge in troop levels might further antagonize al-Qaeda's already-overtaxed fighters, and cited the dangers of U.S. victory to the future of the Democratic Party, liberal media, and world's progress towards socialism. The two leaders called on the President to heed the will of the anti-American forces, make up with dictators in Iran and Syria, and recognize the need to abandon the silly notion that all people are born equal and desire freedom.
---------------------
Satire isn't that far from reality these days.
Blamin' said: "can you honestly say you don’t believe we’d succeed in Iraq?"
Absolutely. I didn't believe we could succeed in 2002, I didn't believe we could succeed in 2003 and I don't believe we will succeed now. I'd be extremely happy if we DID succeed in Iraq, but I beleive the success you allude to is a pipedream. I totally believe in the concept that democratic countries are less likely to go to war with one another. I totally believe that the world would be a better place if every country was democratic. But I don't believe that it is the US's mission to turn every country into a democracy, and I believe it is folly to think it can.
And of course, turning Iraq into a democracy was NEVER part of the reason, official or unofficial, for the US invading Iraq. It is only the pie-in-the-sky excuse because all of the other reasons were either totally false or "un-marketable".
A wise man once said, "You've got to know when hold 'em, know when to fold 'em." Often "folding 'em" is the wisest thing you can do to preserve what you have left and perhaps recover to play another day. Or you can still keep throwing your chips, soldiers, and billions into the pot with a losing hand because you are too vain or stupid to do the smart thing.
Your "defeatist" horsecrap is just that, horse crap.
The only reason that Iraq is a "pivotal battle in the war on terror" is that this adminstration is allowing this fiasco, this debacle to distract our attention, our power, our sons'and daughters' lives, our treasure from actually fighting terrorists in an effective way. I believe, and most Americans believe, that the vast majority of violence against Iraqis and against American soldiers and marines in Iraq is NOT perpetrated by terrorists but by the people we are supposedly trying to convert to peaceful, democracy-loving citizens, the Shiia and Sunni militias.
There is nothing smart about leaving Iraq. Nothing whatsoever. There is no doubt how the pullout will be perceived by the scumbags. They will see it as victory, and nothing will incite them as much as the perception of weakness by the US. To believe otherwise shows a lack of understanding of the enemy on YOUR part, which is a complaint you have against the administration. Public proclamations regarding "quagmires" and "unwinnable war" and other defeatest bites further embolden the creeps. If our nation was as united as stated by Blamin, there's no way in hell we'd not achieve victory. But frankly I don't hold my breath for such to come true, due to the way the left operates mentally.
You also have to remember it really isn't uncommon to try to impose a different form of government on a vanquished foe. We did so in both Germany and Japan and also in S. Korea, if I'm not mistaken. It's really the true sign of victory. And the notion of spreading liberty and democracy was supported by JFK, but maybe he was only talking about Democrats doing it.
Finally, the stakes are pretty high in this poker game. What we lose by folding is a lot more than what we gain by staying, so playing the hand agressively is the proper course of action. (thus ends my poker analogy)
The defeatist talk is hardly crap. It is an accurate description. "this fiasco, this debacle to distract our attention" is quite defeatist in tone. Continually using such adjectives in your rhetoric says we have no chance. Saying we can't win, can't spread democracy...how the hell is that not defeatist?
And it's not just the admin saying the Iraq is pivotal, the scumbags have said so as well. Particularly when you consider the above statements about enemy perceptions. We are still judged by them far more on Viet Nam and Somalia than we are on the first Gulf War(for example). For that alone we best win. We must be viewed by the enemy as out of their league and to hot to handle. You would have us confirm what they believe. How is that smart?
I find it rather humorous in a sick sorta way, that Liberals such as Jim use rhetoric like, "The only reason that Iraq is a "pivotal battle in the war on terror" is that this adminstration is allowing this fiasco, this debacle to distract our attention, our power, our sons'and daughters' lives, our treasure from actually fighting terrorists in an effective way. I believe, and most Americans believe, that the vast majority of violence against Iraqis and against American soldiers and marines in Iraq is NOT perpetrated by terrorists but by the people we are supposedly trying to convert to peaceful, democracy-loving citizens, the Shiia and Sunni militias."
I especially like it when they use phrases like, "actually fighting terrorists in an effective way"
They constantly complain that the way we are fighting is not the answer, but so far, none of them have offered a more effective solution. What is the "effective way" Jim?
And then that Violence against Iraqis and Americans is not committed by terrorists? What kind of crap is that?
Excuse me, but when someone, anyone, commits a terrorist act, it makes them a terrorist.
What he (MA) said!
Jim - How the hell would you know what the unofficial policy was or is? Are you one of those clueless types who believe we should share with the world all our plans and objectives?
What were we going to do? Go in there, dispose of Sadaam, leave, and let the contending groups of Islamofascist fight it out for control of Iraq? You’ve got to be kidding. What the hell do you think our objective was? What should our objective be? Please enlighten.
Disregard that last sentence if you’re merely going to parrot more defeatist liberals.
de.feat.ism n : acceptance of or resignation to defeat -de.feat-ist n or adj
Post a Comment