« Now SurrenderRefuses to Lose »

Not Clear on the “Lost” Concept

Would somebody please explain to these Sunni tribesmorons in Anbar that its over?  Talk about not seeing the desert for the sand. We lost. Finito. Hasta la busha.  Areva derci Baghdad!

Also not getting it, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. After demanding terms for a U.S. surrender and declaring the loss, he now says: “No one wants us to succeed in Iraq more than the Democrats.”

I sense trouble with “the electorate” on that one, Harry. The pitchfork-and-torch crowd don’t want a winner, you fool!

Topics: Iraq, pols

  Posted by Jules Crittenden at 11:46 pm on Friday, April 20, 2007

22 Responses to “Not Clear on the “Lost” Concept”

1. The_Real_JeffS Says:
   April 20th, 2007 at 11:50 pm

   Oh, no! Someone didn’t get the latest Dhimmicrat talking points! Quick, call the Associated Press!

2. Purple Avenger Says:
   April 21st, 2007 at 12:18 am

   The Nation’s choice of “fever” is certainly apt…

3. MikeH Says:
   April 21st, 2007 at 4:52 am

   ASullivan,
   “and I say this as someone who generally thinks that the U.S. hasn’t necessarily lost in Iraq; we probably have, but the outcome is still sufficiently in doubt and the stakes sufficiently high that I want to give the “surge,” however ineffectual it may prove (or may already be proving),”

   Suffering from Kerriosis is he?

4. saltydog Says:
   April 21st, 2007 at 6:57 am

   Well, the enemy has gotten the message. Iran, Al Jeez, et al, has Bloody-handed Reid’s surrender all over their news. Even Slow-Bleed Murtha is rejuvenated.

   I say throw them in the Potomac wearing concrete booties.

5. alphie Says:
   April 21st, 2007 at 7:22 am

   Blaming the refs for a loss?

   Always a sign of maturity.

6. RebeccaH Says:
   April 21st, 2007 at 7:40 am

   Harry Quisling and Nancy Chamberlaine make a pair, don’t they?

7. The_Real_JeffS Says:
   April 21st, 2007 at 9:24 am

   Indeed they do, Rebecca. A match made in heaven, no doubt about it.

8. Terrye Says:
   April 21st, 2007 at 3:14 pm

   alphie:

   The Refs? What a joke. Reid might as well put a bulls eye on those soldiers and no doubt now the same idiots on the left yammering about running from Iraq will expect us to send the 82nd Airborne into Darfur.

9. Terrye Says:
   April 21st, 2007 at 3:34 pm

   From Betsys :

   Unfortunately for Senator Reid, he earlier revealed his real interst in this entire debate and also has demonstrated his lack of political acumen by bragging publicly how opposition to the Iraq War will help Democrats in the 2008 elections so perhaps he thinks that there is some political benefit for trumpeting defeat. He and Senator Schumer were out a week ago bragging about how much defeat in Iraq was helping the Democratic Party.

   Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Thursday 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? Because “We are going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war,” the Nevada Democrat predicted at a news conference.

   Sitting next to him was the man charged with making that happen: Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman Charles E. Schumer of New York.

   “The war in Iraq is a lead weight attached to their ankle,” Schumer warned, predicting that congressional Democrats will pick up additional Republican votes for Democratic initiatives as the 2008 elections approach.

   “We will break them, because they are looking extinction in the eye,” Schumer declared, making no attempt to hide his glee.

   So, if they have this gleeful attitude towards the political benefits they’ll gain from a defeat in Iraq, is it any surprise to see Harry Reid out there proclaiming the war is lost? If defeat provides votes for his party, does Reid have any honest interest in an American victory? I guess not.

10. MikeH Says:
    April 21st, 2007 at 3:44 pm

    Heh, as Pippin said “‘Don’t encourage it’ Terrye.”

11. alphie Says:
    April 21st, 2007 at 4:14 pm

    Terrye,

    Saying people who want to pull our troops outta Iraq are somehow “painting a bullseye” on them is a stretch even for wingnut logic.

    Attacking al Sadr and his millions of supporters has to rank as one of the most boneheaded military moves in American military history.

    Outside the Kurds and a few puppets in the Green Zone, are there any Iraqis the U.S. military hasn’t managed to turn into our enemies?

12. Terrye Says:
    April 21st, 2007 at 5:45 pm

    alphie:

    You can not be that dense. I am not a wingnut, in fact I was a lifelong Democrat until people like you turned my party into something I was ashamed to be associated with.

    Attacking Sadr? Ah yes, sadr sounds like Pelois doesn’t he? timetable etc. Alphie, only a fraction of the Iraqi people support Sadr, he is considered an ass, a fool, that is why he is in Iran kissing up to the mullahs right now.

    The Americans are not the ones blowing up market places, the people Reid wants to surrender to are. And how will that help the Iraqi people, who btw do not want the Americans to abandon them.

    So far Reid’s comments have been parroted by the Iranians, the terrorists and everyone else who wants to see Iraqis suffer and die. Way to go.

    It also invites attacks on our troops and civilians because it signals a willingness, even eagerness to surrender.

    I want this thing to end as badly as anyone, but surrendering to the terrorists will not help the Iraqis or us. It might help the Democrats in the short term, especially if they can blame the subsequent genocide on the Repbulicans.

13. Terrye Says:
    April 21st, 2007 at 5:47 pm

    and blaming the military is not useful either alphie, let to people like you those Iraqis could die in the millions at the hands of the terrorists or the Baathists and you would not left a finger to help them. The American military is the only thing standing between them and chaos and here you are cheering for chaos. Disgraceful.

14. alphie Says:
    April 21st, 2007 at 5:48 pm

    Terrye,

    Not even the neocons believe al Qeada will take over Iraq when we pull out.

    The neocons fear that Shiites friendly to Iran wil take over when we leave.

    Considering the Shiites are 60% of Iraq’s population, there is nothing we can do to stop that.

15. Terrye Says:
    April 21st, 2007 at 6:26 pm

    alphie:

    As usual you don’t know what you are talking about. The {gasp!} neocons feel that Anbar province might very well fall to AlQaida, while Turkey goes into the North and your friends the mullahs take a break from beheading unwed mothers and kidnapping Brits to go inot the south.

    The truth is if the neocons or anyone else really believed that they could signal withdrawal from Iraq and the place would stabilize there is no way they would opt to stay.

    As far as the Shia are concerned, I know that you think seen one strangle little brown Muslim seen them all, but less than half the Shia feel inclined toward Iran. There are actually Shia in Iraq who are not Iran puppets like Sadr, who btw controlled about 25 seats out of 278.

    For years I listened to the left left bitch about Saddam and then they bitched about the sanctions and then they bitched about removing Saddam and now they suck up to any fascist out there who is willing to light a match to an American flag.

    Consdiering the strategic importance of Iraq it would be insane to just leave it to chaos and death. There is no way a country with those kinds of oil reserves will allowed to just sort of find its way if America runs off. Not to mention the fact that no one on the left even seems to give a passing thought to what kind of rear gaurd action those troops will be fighting once the retreat begins.

    AlQaida is killing people in Iraq. When Zarqawi went to Iraq after the Taliban fell in Afghanistan Saddam allowed him to set up shop there knowing full well that the Americans would want him. Saddam did not stop him from coming in or hold him once he got there. Obviously AlQaida will use the Iraqi people not only as cannon fodder but as a hostage population. Now you can blow that off all you want, but right now most of the deaths in Iraq are not coming from the US military or even the militia, they are coming from AlQaida and if the Iraqis can not run them off now, what chance will they have once we run away and leave them to die?

    From the Best of The Web:

    Latter-Day Copperhead

    * “I believe . . . that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week.”–Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, April 19, 2007

    * “Resolved, that this convention does explicitly declare, as the sense of the American people, that after four years of failure to restore the Union by the experiment of war, during which, under the pretence of military necessity, or war power higher than the Constitution, the Constitution itself has been disregarded in every part, and public liberty and private right alike trodden down, and the material prosperity of the country essentially impaired, justice, humanity, liberty, and the public welfare demand that immediate efforts be made for a cessation of hostilities, with a view to an ultimate convention of the States or other peaceable means, to the end that at the earliest practicable moment peace may be restored on the basis of the federal Union of the States.”–1864 Democratic platform

16. alphie Says:
    April 21st, 2007 at 6:30 pm

    Terrye,

    Leaving aside your casual racism, are you honestly saying U.S. troops are in Iraq to defend it against another NATO country (Turkey)?

17. Terrye Says:
    April 21st, 2007 at 6:43 pm

    alphie:

    I am not a racist. I don’t think that all Iraqis are like Sadr or AlQaida. I think many of them are decent people who deserve a chance at a decent life. No, I leave that whole “sucking up to the barbarians” schtick to the progressives.

    I am saying that if the United States just runs out on our commitments then the entire region could be drawn into a larger war. The Turks have threatened for years that they will not tolerate an independent Kurdish state in the north. That is only one of the possibilities. But we do know that if we run, we leave AlQaida there to kill people. That is for sure. How long then before we run from Afghanistan? After all we have been there even longer, shouldn’t we surrender to the Taliban and make it official?

    I realize that you could care less if the Iraqi people are trying to create a representative government after decades of suffering under a brutal dictatorship. The circular logic of the left usually goes something like this: That Saddam was bad, but taking him out was worse. Better to leave so we can bitch about him but never do anything about him. The thing to do was to allow him to kill and maim who ever he wanted and then let Eason Jordan lie about it all so that we woud feel better. Kind of like Duranty lying about that whole silly Ukrainian famine thing back when the left’s hero was Joe Stalin. Duranty got a Pulitzer, Stalin got a pass and the Ukrainians got dead.

    No, I am saying the U. S. needs to stay there to keep our word and do the right thing.

    Now Mike is right, I have fed you enough.

18. alphie Says:
    April 21st, 2007 at 6:49 pm

    al Sadr’s people hold 30 of the 275 seats in the Potemkin Parliament we set up, Terrye.

    We don’t like ‘em, let’s kill ‘em?

19. SoldiersDad Says:
    April 21st, 2007 at 7:24 pm

    The war started over 2,000 years ago…when Abraham sent his bastard son Ismael(born to a slave girl) to live among the desert people. Ever since there has beena divide among the sons of Isaac, Abrahams legitamate son, and sons of Ismael, Abrahams bastard son.

    Iraq is only a battle…….

    Some people believe that the only way to end the 2,000+ year old conflict is if the sons of Ismael are freed from tyranny and oppresion.

    Others believe that the sons of Ismael must first subjugate the sons of Isaac.

    Folks really should read more Jihadi Tmes…AlQueada and every other whacko Muslim group blather on endlessly about how they crusaders and the jews (The sons of Isaac) subjugated them at some point in history.

    If freeing the sons of ismael from the chains of oppression dooes’t work…the remaining options pretty much involve a war of annihilation.

20. OldManTyme Says:
    April 22nd, 2007 at 12:22 am

    Terrye,

    It turns out that alphie is not even from the US. He doesn’t get much if anything about how it works here.

21. Dave Surls Says:
    April 22nd, 2007 at 3:09 am

    “Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Thursday 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? Because “We are going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war,” the Nevada Democrat predicted at a news conference.”

    Democrat = Scumbag.

22. Purple Avenger Says:
    April 22nd, 2007 at 6:39 am

    Consdiering the strategic importance of Iraq it would be insane to just leave it to chaos and death.

    That’s where the Democrats come in. With the Killing fields and Rwanda as warmups, they’re ready to stage a show the whole world will remember for centuries.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.