Tim Russert featured a head-to-head debate on Iraq between Senators John McCain and John Forbes Kerry. McCain immediately framed the terms of victory in Iraq as the defeat of Al Qaeda (and presumably its affiliates) in Iraq, reversal of Iranian influence in Iraq and the achievement or progress toward a functioning government that upholds aits own sovereign military security.
Russert responded with a list of casualties as the reason for withdrawal. McCain showed mature leadership in admitting that casualties, however mournful their occurrence, are the cost of success. McCain then described the consequences of defeat as genocide, Iranian expansion and possibly a major Saudi-Iranian war in Iraq.
The Kerry doublespeak then began with intonation of the words civil war and then drifted off that into a strange argument that the American presence lacks sufficient troops to secure every neighborhood in Iraq. The attack then meandered into a list of Iraqi political failures during the last several months.
Kerry then blamed every problem in the Middle East on the Iraq campaign. Russert then asked JFK (Light) for the Democrat Iraq policy. Kerry said the US would exit Iraq in a year. The statement was impregnated with questions of consequence. JFK (Light), just how in hell would that diminish Iran’s influence in the region? Why would Al Qaeda leave just because the US left? Serious questions that the mindless liberal critique leaves unanswered.
McCain discussed the very serious national security implications of setting a date for withdrawal. McCain moved hard into the Saudi, Iranian, and Syrian response to American withdrawal. Every problem in the region would worsen, McCain argued.
JFK (Light) then said Democrats they were not talking about abandoning Iraq-just withdrawing combat troops from combat with someone, presumably not Al Qaeda. Aside from having said that the Democrat plan was to remove all troops from Iraq in a year only five minutes previously, how could the theater become more secure with fewer US combat troops if the number already there is insufficient for victory? McCain treated JFK (Light) like the Washington Generals on this one.
McCain pointed out the utter impossibility of drawing battlefield distinctions between Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia and local militias. Do we stop and ask the enemies’ affiliation before we target them? Of course, Al Qaeda operatives could be expected to truthfully answer such a query before detonating the nearby roadside bomb. McCain describes the only choice for the United States in Iraq, victory or defeat. The Democrats blather about some third conclusion to the campaign simply exposes both their moral weakness and the mindlessness of their opposition to the Iraq campaign.
Kerry returned to the theme of a need for more diplomacy. A new liberal tag line appeared “surge diplomacy right now”. With whom JFK (Light), with whom do we negotiate? The Iranians? They want us out as fast as possible. Perhaps the Syrians, who also want the US out in less time than it takes Chuck Schumer to find a television camera. With Al Qaeda, who already have risked global war with the United States to achieve their goals? Diplomacy always sounds nice ‘cause war is hell but sometimes politics simply must be continued by that other means so that both sides recognize a winner and a loser.
In his pursuit of defeat at any price Kerry then shifted to one of the appeasers truly big lies, that there was no Al Qaeda presence in Iraq before US invasion. JFK (Light) has apparently forgotten Musab al Zarqawi, who really was cutting off heads in a manner reminiscent of Genghis Kahn. The canard is both untrue and, as McCain promptly responded, irrelevant. The die is cast; we are at war in Iraq (not with Iraq) and it no longer matter because Al Qaeda is in Iraq now.
Russert then abandoned all pretense of impartiality on the Iraq issue (if any was left) and raised the infantile tag line of no victory without a political solution. McCain advanced the proposition that if the US gets out, Iraq will accommodate itself to the neighborhood, which means as Iran's puppet. Think of the damage Iran can do with Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hammas in Palestine and then add the assets of the Iraqi state to the Iranian power base. McCain left the conclusion unstated; there can be no political solution without military security.
Kerry sounded even less lucid this morning than he did during the last Presidential campaign. He read a letter from some infantry privates refuting the Petraeus/ Crocker report. Did I not just hear Juan W just say on Fox that we should not politicize the soldiers? Kerry ended with more blather about conferences and bi-partisanship.
McCain then laid out Al Qaeda’s many statements that they will obtain victory in Iraq because we retreated in Mogadishu, Beirut and the USS Cole. Kerry responded with the tag line that Al Qaeda loves fighting us in Iraq. Great, better there than here. Moreover, why does Al Qaeda promise the global Jihad victory in Iraq? Why do the Iranians want the US out of Iraq? Why don’t the liberals ever answer these fundamental questions?
The liberals leave the questions unanswered because, for a variety or reasons, they fear war more than anything else on Earth. Liberals cannot admit such weakness for political reasons so they resort to the shallow, disjointed and silly reasoning that JFK (Light) displayed this morning.
Russert responded with a list of casualties as the reason for withdrawal. McCain showed mature leadership in admitting that casualties, however mournful their occurrence, are the cost of success. McCain then described the consequences of defeat as genocide, Iranian expansion and possibly a major Saudi-Iranian war in Iraq.
The Kerry doublespeak then began with intonation of the words civil war and then drifted off that into a strange argument that the American presence lacks sufficient troops to secure every neighborhood in Iraq. The attack then meandered into a list of Iraqi political failures during the last several months.
Kerry then blamed every problem in the Middle East on the Iraq campaign. Russert then asked JFK (Light) for the Democrat Iraq policy. Kerry said the US would exit Iraq in a year. The statement was impregnated with questions of consequence. JFK (Light), just how in hell would that diminish Iran’s influence in the region? Why would Al Qaeda leave just because the US left? Serious questions that the mindless liberal critique leaves unanswered.
McCain discussed the very serious national security implications of setting a date for withdrawal. McCain moved hard into the Saudi, Iranian, and Syrian response to American withdrawal. Every problem in the region would worsen, McCain argued.
JFK (Light) then said Democrats they were not talking about abandoning Iraq-just withdrawing combat troops from combat with someone, presumably not Al Qaeda. Aside from having said that the Democrat plan was to remove all troops from Iraq in a year only five minutes previously, how could the theater become more secure with fewer US combat troops if the number already there is insufficient for victory? McCain treated JFK (Light) like the Washington Generals on this one.
McCain pointed out the utter impossibility of drawing battlefield distinctions between Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia and local militias. Do we stop and ask the enemies’ affiliation before we target them? Of course, Al Qaeda operatives could be expected to truthfully answer such a query before detonating the nearby roadside bomb. McCain describes the only choice for the United States in Iraq, victory or defeat. The Democrats blather about some third conclusion to the campaign simply exposes both their moral weakness and the mindlessness of their opposition to the Iraq campaign.
Kerry returned to the theme of a need for more diplomacy. A new liberal tag line appeared “surge diplomacy right now”. With whom JFK (Light), with whom do we negotiate? The Iranians? They want us out as fast as possible. Perhaps the Syrians, who also want the US out in less time than it takes Chuck Schumer to find a television camera. With Al Qaeda, who already have risked global war with the United States to achieve their goals? Diplomacy always sounds nice ‘cause war is hell but sometimes politics simply must be continued by that other means so that both sides recognize a winner and a loser.
In his pursuit of defeat at any price Kerry then shifted to one of the appeasers truly big lies, that there was no Al Qaeda presence in Iraq before US invasion. JFK (Light) has apparently forgotten Musab al Zarqawi, who really was cutting off heads in a manner reminiscent of Genghis Kahn. The canard is both untrue and, as McCain promptly responded, irrelevant. The die is cast; we are at war in Iraq (not with Iraq) and it no longer matter because Al Qaeda is in Iraq now.
Russert then abandoned all pretense of impartiality on the Iraq issue (if any was left) and raised the infantile tag line of no victory without a political solution. McCain advanced the proposition that if the US gets out, Iraq will accommodate itself to the neighborhood, which means as Iran's puppet. Think of the damage Iran can do with Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hammas in Palestine and then add the assets of the Iraqi state to the Iranian power base. McCain left the conclusion unstated; there can be no political solution without military security.
Kerry sounded even less lucid this morning than he did during the last Presidential campaign. He read a letter from some infantry privates refuting the Petraeus/ Crocker report. Did I not just hear Juan W just say on Fox that we should not politicize the soldiers? Kerry ended with more blather about conferences and bi-partisanship.
McCain then laid out Al Qaeda’s many statements that they will obtain victory in Iraq because we retreated in Mogadishu, Beirut and the USS Cole. Kerry responded with the tag line that Al Qaeda loves fighting us in Iraq. Great, better there than here. Moreover, why does Al Qaeda promise the global Jihad victory in Iraq? Why do the Iranians want the US out of Iraq? Why don’t the liberals ever answer these fundamental questions?
The liberals leave the questions unanswered because, for a variety or reasons, they fear war more than anything else on Earth. Liberals cannot admit such weakness for political reasons so they resort to the shallow, disjointed and silly reasoning that JFK (Light) displayed this morning.
7 comments:
Bringing to mind Lloyd Benton demolishing Dan Quale Kerry is no light or heavy JFK. Time plus JFK's image makers transformed him from a high octane, albeit not too bright, hawk into a peacenik.
Was in the army during most of JFK years. He started the Viet Nam War predicated on that hoary American policy foreign chestnut falling domino theory. Thought he could win on the cheap with a new special forces battlefield doctrine in part modeled after the British success in Malaya and in Kenya against the Mau Maus. JFK conveniently ignored critical failures like Palestine where ragtag forces routed the British Army. Akin to the US in Iraq today, the Israel pre-state poorly armed Hagana, Irgun and Stern Gang forces by 1947 had more than a 1/3 of entire British Army combat ready forces tied down in Palestine.
The Soviets getting his number pronto then abandoned their very restrained policies vis-a-vis Eisenhower to go full bore against JFK in Cuba and Berlin. Not only was JFK bold beyond his capacities, not was not well. I suspect the Russians thought JFK would cave in debilitated by Addisons Disease requiring high dose daily steroids and his likely addiction to pain killers for his bad back.
That tactic backfired because the cooler Soviets realized steroids and narcotics could make JFK screwy enough (e.g., steroid rage, narcotic induced poor judgement, impulsivity, etc)to push the button.
The liberals fear war? maybe because only the liberals kids fight the war. The he men in the GOP don't fear war because cowards never fight. The GOPers are too busy getting their diapers changed ( SEN Vitter) or have other priorities like trolling men's bathrooms in public places( too many closets to count)
Well why do the GOP men hate Clinton? Because he is a hetero sexual? Not good enough? Oh wait, he doesn't have to pay for sex.
I hear that the Neighborhood Watch on East 9th street are warning the residents of the perverts and felons at the old mortuary.
But but but Clinton!
Liberal kids like John Kerry, Bob Kerry or conservative kids like Bush, Cheney Rush Rove Lott?
Look proud uninformed anonymous hick, The GOP started personal attacks as a means of political discourse. It is the hypocrisy ,not the sexual act. Clinton a pussy, liar and cheat? Why those are the three traits needed to be a GOP leader.
They need troops in Iraq for the next ten years do you need the address of the recruitment office? or do you you just need a diaper changed Sen Vitter!
I'll see you gary Stubbs and raise you these fine GOP guysStars of the Grand Old Perverts include Dan Crane, Larry Dale Floyd, Mark Pazuhanich, Bobby Stumbo, John Collins, Mark Seidensticker, Philip Giordano, John Gosek, David Swartz, Edison Misla Aldarondo, John R. Curtain, Howard Scott Heldreth, Dennis L. Rader, Nicholas Morency, Tom Shortridge, Strom Thurmond, Mike Hintz, Peter Dibble, Carey Lee Cramer, Lawrence E. King, Jr, Craig J. Spence, Donald "Buz" Lukens, Richard A. Delgaudio, Mark A. Grethen, Randal David Ankeney, Beverly Russell, Ronald C. Kline, Robert Bauman, Jeffrey Patti, Marty Glickman, Howard L. Brooks, John Hathaway, Stephen White, Jon Matthews, Earl "Butch" Kimmerling, Kevin Coan, Andrew Buhr, Keith Westmoreland, John Allen Burt, Keola Childs, John Butler, Richard Gardner, Jack W. Gardner, Merrill Robert Barter, Clarence Thomas, Fred C. Smeltzer, Jr., Parker J. Bena, , Larry Jack Schwarz, Robin Vanderwall, Jon Grunseth, Nicholas Elizondo. Russell Harding, Ted Bundy, Matthew Glavin, Sam Walls, Edward Schrock, Jim Baker, Jimmy Swaggart, Bob Livingston, Henry Hyde, Paul Ingram, and Richard A. Dasen, Sr
The list just gos on and on!
Wow. ghost has some personal issues. he doth protest too much about whatever he is protesting about.
MSNBC "journalist" Keith Olbermann admitting that MSNBC has a liberal agenda. Where was the liberal dem that has an issue with FOX?????
"I don't want to be diverted by talking about commercials in the middle of the show but, Rachel, why on earth did he (John Edwards) buy that commercial? I don't think I'm saying anything unknown to the audience, I don't think he would have gotten a hard time from this particular network. Why on earth did we do it that way?"
A mental hospital Ghost. Maybe something you ought to think about?
Fred D. Thompson
Why does your G(reedy)OP pit bull, "be very afraid" seem like the same scare tactics used throughout the ages. You don't know the outcome of the situation any better than anyone does. It's all smoke and mirrors. remimiscent of the communist threat.
Yes there are terrorists, however the current military, cheney's premptive iraq war is not the solution to anything except building the coffers of KBR, contract workers, and investors. Do you fall into this category?
Post a Comment