Thursday, May 01, 2008

How can you take these guys seriously?

It’s hard to find the most disingenuous argument that Democrats urge on the body politic. The choices are so vast.

The dumbest and most misleading has to be “there is no military solution” in Iraq.
Hillary Clinton’s interview with O’Reilly just demonstrated why Democrats simply make no sense. When O’Reilly confronted Hillary with the specters of Iranian dominance of Iraq followed by war with Saudi Arabia she quite had no response but reiteration of the tired, trite and absurd “there is no military solution”.

For the love of God, woman-this isn’t the Wellesley debate team here. This is the real world. What the hell does Evita think will happen if the United States withdraws from Iraq before the Iraqi military can secure their own internal and external security without significant US assistance?

For example, how would Iraq defend against Iraqi incursions without US air power? I want the liberals who howl at us here at TRS to answer that question. No liberal can or even tries. The response is just either a tag line (e.g. “there is no military solution” or “the world hates us”) or attack the person who poses the question. Sometimes it’s both. Either way, you never get an answer.

No one, no one should ever take the Democrats seriously until one of them can describe the day after they take office in the REAL WORLD.


Anonymous said...

I suppose there was a military solution in Vietnam too?

vlad the impaler said...


Your war on poverty is a hopeless quagmire. What is your exit strategy?

Better yet...we still have troops in Okinawa, and Germany. Go dig up FDR's stinking, rotting corpse and ask him what our exit strategy was from WW2.

vlad the impaler said...

Senator John McCain wants to be the figure-head of Conservatism. Okay, lets think that out...

John McCain becomes President. He's still the same old John McCain.

The RNC backs his liberal policies to maintain a position of power.

The Republicans in Congress back his polices to maintain access to the White House.

Republican candidates for Congressional seats move to the left, since John McCain proved that moving to the left assures RNC support and votes.

The Republican party leadership at the state level moves left as McCain and the RNC demand it
Republican candidates at the state level move to the left, since John McCain proved that moving to the left assures Republican support and votes
Republican Conservative office holders across the nation will be silenced.

Apologists on Conservative forums across this nation defend McCain against the few Conservatives who are left, and attack them there (forums move left).

Last but not least, the Democrats move even farther left to differentiate themselves from McCain.

Who writes Conservative bills and rams them through state or federal government after that?

Who talks about Conservatism from a position of power? Who takes the chance to disagree with McCain on anything?

Under a John McCain Presidency, Conservatism ceases to become a movement, and becomes a theory. It will no longer be practiced by enough politicians to be viable.

Under leftist McCain, there is no functional opposition. Promoting leftist policy, it all passes without opposition, nobody objects to the liberal policies.

Under leftist Hillary or Barack, there is not only a functional opposition, it grows by leaps and bounds in objection to their policies.

We saw what a one party system did to Arkansas under Clinton. It was terrible. Now we want to install that in our federal government, leftists one and all.

Anonymous said...

This is an excerpt from an article by Betsy Reed "Race to the Bottom" discussing Obama's campaign.

Congratulations to Iowa for having this profound impact as seen by others. There is a reason we are 1st in the nation. We are fair and balanced in our approach to candidate selection, on both sides of the aisle.

"Melissa Harris-Lacewell, a professor of politics and African-American studies at Princeton and an Obama volunteer, recalls that for black Americans "Iowa was an astonishing moment--watching Barack win the caucus felt like Reconstruction.

There was something powerful about feeling as though you were a full citizen."

In democracy, Harris-Lacewell explains, "the ruled and rulers are supposed to be the same people.

The idea that black folks could be engaged in the process of being rulers over not just black folks but over the nation as a whole struck me as very powerful."

Soon enough, however, that powerful idea came under attack.

"More than any single thing, that moment with Bill Clinton in South Carolina represents the rupture that was coming," says Harris-Lacewell."

Racism had it's fouding in the democrat party and it continues to be nurtured to this very day. And to think blacks called Bill, the biggest racist, "the first black president".

Yawn said...

Nobody caes about this topic. The real discussion is taking place on the thread below. The party's silence as to why the Iowa GOP is broke and who is to blame is deafening.

Anonymous said...

I keep recalling all the things Vilsack did before he left office. He made a deal with the devil clinton to become vice president.

He actively sought to have Iowa lose their first in the nation status because that benefited clinton.

He signed an executive order to restore voting privileges to felons because that benefited clinton.

He instructed the registrars to ignore the citizenship question on their voting applications because that benefited clinton.

He ran for president, knowing full well he had no shot, to make it easy for clinton to explain her loss in Iowa - just like Bill got to do when Harkin ran for Pres.

He was supportive of giving drivers licenses to illegal aliens - like Spitzer was - because that would benefit clinton.

Thank god for the supreme courts decision this week to allow states to stop the election fraud that democrats so love to use as a strategy for winning - see above.

Anonymous said...

yawn - where do you get your polling numbers as to what EVERYONE cares about.

Double yawn back at'cha for your laziness. How about you just comment on what you want to comment about. Did you? I didn't see it. Where may I find your riveting comments?

Art A Layman said...


Exactly what is the conservative's answer. You, as most of your brethren, spend all your time denouncing the Dems rather than taking actions or proposing solutions that move the Iraq debacle toward some kind of resolution. Your rants against Dems beg all the same questions that you accuse the Dems of begging.

What is the answer oh great and powerful Wizard of Oz? Continue to "stay the course" and see the daily death notices of American troops, to say nothing of Iraqi citizens?

The success(?) of the surge was due more to al Sadr holding back his militias and some Sunni tribal leaders realizing that time may be running out and deciding to take a degree of control over their dominions and milk the golden goose a little more (how do you milk a goose?). We can already see the seams of the surge successes beginning to fray.

We made so damn many mistakes in this fiasco that it's hard to determine which ones were worse. To me, our rush to establish a government; a Constitution; and then turning over authority to them was one of the worst. Granted it would have clearly set us up as occupiers but as occupiers we would have been in control. There would have still been deaths, maybe even more deaths, but at least we would not have added the burden of coordinating everything we do with the Iraqi government and having to abstain if they are not in agreement.

Given that our ineptness created the current stalemate, we have little choice but to live with our failings and make the best of it. Joe Biden, and others, had the best solution, best in the sense of lesser of, to divide the country along sectarian lines and let them establish an administrative central government via the republic model. I fear that our bungling to date has all but eliminated that as a possible solution. That scenario would not have been Valhallic but it would have allowed for dealing with specific hotspots rather than our current hodgepodge approach.

We have created a conglomeration of competing battles. We still have an al Queida threat; a Shite militia threat; a criminal threat and worst of all a political war with not only sectarian posturing but Shite versus Shite power struggles. Al Sadr is simply biding time waiting for our footprint to diminish before resurrecting his desire for total control. Given the nature of insurgencies even a very strong Iraqi military cannot take complete control of the country when you have numerous armed militias running around.

There is no good answer, most all of the intelligent players from our side admit this. Our options are limited other than just punting and getting the hell out which is not viable either. Withdrawal timetables were and are a feasible tactic to get the Iraq government to move. We don't have to effect them if things are not right which does mean that it's a bluff, likely with a one shot opportunity, but it's something. It's something more than just sitting idly by, while our soldiers lives and our dollars keep going down an endless hole.

You, again while offering no solutions of your own, rail about the Dems and their "there is no military solution" rhetoric. The same words have been exhaustively expressed by all your vaunted leaders, including General Petraeus. Admittedly this is not an answer or a solution but we are in a political season and telling the absolute truth does little to secure votes. You conservatives are well schooled in that fact.

Now is the time to intensify the regional talks. I know talking is anathema to you (could that be why you practice divorce law and not Constitutional law?). Short of going to war with the whole region or walking out of Iraq, there is little left to effect resolution.

Many point out our long history of troops stationed in Germany and Japan but we were not being killed and in harm's way everday after WWII in those venues. We were occupiers and we controlled the scene while working with governments to establish order, primarily as defined by us. The Iraq situation is not comparable.

An Iranian invasion is a very slim possibility. Likely that would rile the world and allow us to go back in with a "real" coalition. Because Iran has money there may be "friendly" dealings between Iraq and Iran in the near term but the Arab/Persian hatred, a centuries old phenomenon, will not afford a unified Iraniqi country.

There exists a constant flow of resources into Iraq from both our Middle Eastern allies and enemies. Most of this inflow is happening because we are there. Were we not there, or there only in a small, isolated training role the neighboring countries might be more inclined to help solve the problem instead of aggravating it.

All in all it is a complex situation with no good or clear solutions. Just biding time in the status quo is the least of those solutions.

You conservatives are so fond of telling the American people that they know best how to spend their money so why not let them decide whether they want to keep spending their money and the lives of their sons and daughters in Iraq? You know what the polls say. Does it not follow logically that if a Dem is elected in November that the majority of the American populace is done with Iraq?

Art A Layman said...


I hope you guys kept somebody in reserve. The campaign has even started yet and everytime McCain opens his mouth he puts his and Dumbya's foot in it.


Amazon Bookstore