To Win, Democrats Must Cause Defeat

April 19, 2007

As I have noted before, the current Democrat party and leftists are heavily Invested In Defeat. By their own words, deeds and actions, they have painted themselves into a corner in regards the current war we are fighting. They cannot afford for there to be a Victorious outcome for America and Iraq. They voice emotionless support for the battle in Afghanistan, but even there they have undermined the Military and President Bush’s administration.

How can we forget John ‘F’in Kerry’s (who served in Viet Nam) words during his failed bid for the White House? How many times did he repeat, “wrong war, wrong place, wrong time?” This after he voted for authorizing the war!

Hillary Clinton also voted for the war and now wants us to believe she was misled. Unfortunately, in late 2003 she told Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard, “[T]he intelligence from Bush 1 to Clinton to Bush 2 was consistent” about Saddam Hussein having Weapons of Mass Destruction. She also said at the time that she had done her own “due diligence,” including consulting national security officials from her husband’s administration whom she trusted.

Now, she states, “If we in Congress don't end this war before January 2009, as president, I will." Nowhere, however, can I find any words or plans on how to “WIN” this war, just cut and run.

Former President B.J. Clinton, in October 2005 predicted that the U.S. will lose the war in Iraq, saying "the odds are not great of our prevailing there."

Shortly before the 2004 elections, Jimmy Carter, undeniably the worst President in American history declared on MSNBC’s “Nutball,” with Chris Matthews, “there is no doubt that American troops’ presence is stimulating additional violence [in Iraq].” He added, “Obviously, the only way out of this quagmire that we have formed in Iraq now is to have some guarantee of withdrawal of American troops…”

Today, we have one of the most anti-war leftists in Congress, Dennis Kucinich, saying his party leaders have capitulated to Bush on a withdrawal date for the Troops. He says, “The Republicans don’t want any timetables and the Democrats want non-binding ones.”

Democrat Jim Moran of Virginia claims, “We’re not going to let [Troop] funding expire. The administration will play chicken with the welfare of our troops, but we will not.” Yet, Democrats, under Speaker Pelosi are stalling the war bill while our the Troops run out of cash for much needed equipment in the war.

Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, after declaring today that This War Is Lost, is also quoted that he “plans to continue an aggressive push for an early withdrawal from Iraq” and “does not particularly care that Republicans will try to paint that position as a lack of support for U.S. forces.”

Why? He answers, “We are going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war.”

Chuck Schumer echoes Reid with, “The war in Iraq is a lead weight attached to their ankle,” gleefully adding, “We will break them, because they are looking extinction in the eye.” “Them,” of course, is Republicans.

This war is nothing more than a maneuver for them to gain power, regardless of how many Troops die, as they embolden our enemies. Not once has any Democrat leader expressed any plan for Victory. Seeing Reids’ and Schumer’s words above, we now see why.

If this war is won, they are proven wrong and their quest for power is done. Win the war, they lose. Lose the war, they win, they think.

What they fail to realize, in their delusional quest, is that the Jihadists hate them as much as they do us, if not more. Even in hate, Jihadists respect those that will stand and fight them much more than those who run from them.

If the Democrats force us into a loss in this war, it won’t be like Viet Nam, the last time they forced us into a loss. The enemy won’t be content to just over run and oppress Iraq. They will be spreading out deeper into the West to bring the entire world under their domination.

Playing politics with our troops while they are in Harm’s Way is unconscionable to me. If we lose and suicide bombers start showing up at our Malls, look back to the Democrats you voted into office. Just don’t blame me, I voted Republican!

Lew

UPDATE 1: President Bush answers the Democrats in Washington D.C.. And, with a lot more class and style than they have ever afforded him;

There's a good group of people in Washington, fair, decent, honorable people -- and by the way, in this political discourse, we should never question anybody's patriotism if they don't happen to agree with the President. That's not the American way. The American way is we ought to have a honest and open dialogue. There are good people, patriotic people who didn't believe that additional troops would make that big a difference, and therefore, we should not increase, but in some cases, pull out; in some cases, pull back. Either case, having weighed the options, I didn't think it was viable, and I didn't think it would work.

A couple of points I want to make, and then I promise to stop talking and answer your questions. People often ask me, what are we seeing on TV? What's happening with the violence? Here's my best analysis: One, the spectaculars you see are al Qaeda inspired. They claim credit for a lot of the big bombings. The bombing of the parliament was al Qaeda; the bombing of the Golden Samarra was al Qaeda. These are the Sunni extremists inspired by Osama bin Laden who attacked the United States. I keep repeating that because I want you to understand what matters overseas, in my judgment, affects the security of the United States of America in this new era.

Their objective is twofold: One, shake the confidence of the average Iraqi that their government is incapable of providing security, and therefore, people will turn to militias in order to protect themselves. Their second objective is to shake our confidence. It's an interesting war, isn't it, where asymmetrical warfare is -- and that means people being able to use suicide bombers -- not only, obviously, kills a lot of innocent people, like which happened yesterday in Iraq, but also helps define whether or not we're successful.

If the definition of success in Iraq or anywhere is no suicide bombers, we'll never be successful. We will have handed al Qaeda "that's what it takes" in order to determine whether or not these young democracies, for example, can survive. Think about that: if our definition is no more suiciders, you've just basically said to the suiciders, go ahead.

UPDATE 2: Tom DeLay discusses Tom Trancredo's response to Reid's outrageous comment, Another Tom That Makes Sense