Iraq: Dems Have Boxed Themselves In

davidlimbaugh.com ^ | 12/08/05 | david limbaugh

[njgarbageman]

At the core of the Democrats' incessant carping about the war in Iraq is their oft-stated belief that our attack on Iraq and our continued presence there are fueling the terrorist movement. But when you hear them arguing the point, you can't help coming away with the sense that it is not the terrorists' moral outrage over Iraq they are concerned with, but their own. They just don't dare go so far as to admit it.

You've heard them say our presence in Iraq is inciting otherwise peaceful Muslims to don their suicide bomber belts, and, "The Iraqi people view us as occupiers, not liberators." And how about their enthusiasm for the highly dubious (and patently absurd) poll that 80 percent of Iraqis want us out?

Surely they know that Islamofascist terrorists, who declared war on us years before they attacked us without provocation on 9/11, don't need any prompting to hate us infidels, capitalists and cultural decadents.

But if we were to turn tail and run out of Iraq, they would hate us even more, because their hatred would be compounded by a profound disrespect for our weakness and cowardice. If you truly want to incite further terrorist action against America, adopt the Democrats' Neville Chamberlainesque approach to aggressive and brutal enemies, or emulate Bill Clinton's precedent in Mogadishu.

[atomicpossum]

Why else would they deliberately overlook America's accomplishments in Iraq and the historic progress of Iraqis toward constitutional self-rule?

Dems are only for freedom if it's easy and granted by Judges.

[chaos_5]

"80 percent of Iraqis want us out?"

I think this number is accurate, consider this. The President has always maintained that we will leave when Iraq is ready to stand on its own two feet (to para-phase a bit). Well, I think the Iraqis probably know that, and would want us to leave, because that would mean success for them.

I just get the feeling this piece of context is getting ignored.

[Viking2002]

Here's to hoping that box is six feet long and made of pine.

[goresalooza]

Right on...the rats have boxed themselves in on the war from day one. They will never side with the correct point of view on any issue and they just cannot stand that the war is justified, and will be won.

[dhs12345]

If things go well in Iraq, which they will if we stick with it, lets not let the public forget what they said.

"the war is not winnable... Bush is worse than Hitler... Bush is the world's terrorist... etc."

[speekinout]

"80 percent of Iraqis want us out?"

And it's probably true that at least 80% of Americans also want us out. I know I do.
But ask "when?", and most Iraqis and Americans would say "on the day when the Iraqis can defend their country".

Exactly what President Bush has been saying.

[Judith Anne]

I think I have to disagree that dems even want freedom, unless it's freedom to tell other people what to do. They certainly don't want businesses to have any freedom--no freedom to drill in ANWR, no freedom from onerous regulations--the only freedoms they seem to want are sexual, and then only the most offensive ones. They want the freedom to sexualize children, the freedom to kill unborn infants, the freedom to marry same sex, the freedom to exempt homosexuals from public health screening of any kind.

They want the freedom to never hear the word "God" mentioned on the currency, on the pledge of allegiance, in Christmas observations by stores, they want the freedom to desecrate Christianity in any way they can devise, and they want the freedom from hearing Christians protest those actions.

They want the freedom from having to account for their misdeeds, while holding the purported misdeed of conservatives up to microscopic scrutiny. They want the freedom to call vicious names, and the freedom to limit the names others can call in return. They want free OOPS! as in "Nigger" Ennis on MSNBC, and cross-hairs over the President on late night television, but they want to be free of "...rats" showing over their heads even when it's part of a word in a photo.

I despise them and all their so-called freedoms. I used to have a live and let live attitude, but they've gotten on my last nerve. I no longer have any tolerance for any of them, particularly the freedom they claim to criticize and publicize every aspect of a war they disagree with--even if it jeopardizes American citizens fighting that war. They want the freedom to defend Saddam, but demand that the troops they vilify protect them from angry Iraqis.

I despise the "freedom" of the press that enables them to undercut their country, humiliate the country that GAVE THEM THEIR FREEDOM to the entire world.

Sheesh! I've gotten myself into a rant. Time for a nap.

[FreeRep]

Democratic Party officially has be hijacked by liberal extremists.

Churchill said: We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender!

Today Democrats say: We have reached the end. We will not fight on in Iraq, we will not fight on in the Middle East, we lack confidence in the strength of our military to win this fictitious war. We will defend America, as long as the costs are not too high, we shall not fight them in an unpopular war, we shall not fight them if Europe disagrees, we shall not fight them until they attack us first, we shall only fight them for a set amount of time after which we will surrender. Even if the only fight them for a set amount of time after which we will surrender.

[Billthedrill]

They could hardly fail to be boxed in inasmuch as their positions have been purely reactionary from day one and amazingly still are. It didn't have to be this way. Kerry's candidacy offered an opportunity to provide an alternative plan, any plan at all, and be guaranteed of 24-hour media coverage. And 47% of the country did end up voting for him, after all. So what happened?

Nobody planned. Dem strategists were fascinated with four years of negative Bush press and thought it would be enough by itself - and it wasn't. And when that became obvious their answer was more of the same, and it still is, and it's killing them.

[Cicero]

My liberal friends here in Vermont are well to the left of Howard Dean. So the Democrats are in a bit of a pickle. If they want to satisfy their base, which apparently consists of those roughly 30% of Americans who would vote for bill clinton if he raped a 12-year-old on prime time TV, then they have to get even further to the left. But if they want to persuade normal, ordinary people that they are not coward, fools, and traitors, then they have to move right.

Popcorn time.

[sgtbono2002]

How can we make them remember these statements

the war is not winnable... Bush is worse than Hitler... Bush is the world's terrorist... etc.

When they have already forgotten these.

Iraq has WMD, Saddam needs to be removed, Saddam is a danger to the entire world.

[Jumper]

The 80 percent figure depends on the context it is used in.... Heck, 50 percent of Americans want the unAmerican Democrats out of politics:) Think they would get a clue, but then clues and polling numbers are subjective... aren't they?

[goresalooza]

Exactly right! The rats will have to eat major crow for years, even decades, as democracy and freedom set into the middle east.

[syriacus]

The Dems want us out of Iraq.
They'll give (but won't take any) flak.
Those tough-talking pipsqueaks
Jump high when a door creaks.
Empty tents are the thing they'd attack.

[Cobra64]

Nice summation, and a nice rant.

You should see if you can put this in a letter and send it to the letters to the editors of the NY Times, LA Times, Sacremento Bee, Boston Globe, Time Magazine, and Newsweek.

Then again, you'd have a better chance of catching polio than getting these liberal rags to print a Conservative point of view.

Cheers!

[Cobra64]

How can we make them remember these statements the war is not winnable... Bush is worse than Hitler... Bush is the world's terrorist... etc. When they have already forgotten these. Iraq has WMD, Saddam needs to be removed, Saddam is a danger to the entire world.

This will never happen. The Sheeple has a memory of a gnat.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

... or emulate Bill Clinton's precedent in Mogadishu.

Slick bemoaned the fact that 9/11 didn't happen on his watch so that he would have had a war to fight for legacy purposes. What would have happened if he had not pulled out of Somalia but had instead fought the Muslim warlords and fed those starving people? He would have certainly had the world on his side in that scenario.

At the time, wasn't bin Laden still in Yemen or the Sudan, right there in the neighborhood. Wasn't our pull out an incentive to bin Laden to attack knowing we wouldn't fight? What if Clinton had fought and backed the troops then? Maybe no 9/11. Maybe a better legacy for Slick.

That adds even more substance to my belief that Clinton did everything he could to appease the terrorists in hopes of getting an agreement on Israel so that he too could get a Nobel Peace Prize. (It turned out that Arafat was a bigger liar than Slick. Ah, sweet justice.) His war in Kosovo and Bosnia was to help the Muslims, covered by the smoke screen of "genocide".

Had he just done the right thing at the time and supported our troops in Somalia, he could have helped himself and the world in a big way. Instead, as always, he was scheming for an easier way out.

[dhs12345]

It is our job to remind others and ourselves (must not forget) and thank you FR for providing a forum for us to do this.