Comments on: DEMOCRATS SAY THE DARNDEST THINGS (PART 5,197)

By: Larry

Larry — Sun, 21 Jan 2007 07:16:27 +0000

“Patriotism may be the last refuge of scoundrels. But cowardice is where the scoundrel goes first.”

Easy on the Scoundrel there…
http://lastrefugeofascoundrel.blogspot.com

By: SDN

SDN — Sun, 21 Jan 2007 05:42:39 +0000

Rick, why wouldn’t you use the term traitors? If the shoe fits….

And Michael, there is an effective antidote…. and we’ll get around to it sooner or later. The Revolutionary War was not backed by a majority.

By: MIchael Babbitt

MIchael Babbitt — Sun, 21 Jan 2007 04:12:10 +0000

This country is in serious danger when you get poll results like these. It is sickening and tragic. The Left has taken over this country enough to poison the entire political process and conversation. I hope there is an effective antidote somewhere…but I am not holding my breath. Thank God for the blogosphere.

By: Nikolay

Nikolay — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 15:20:41 +0000

Now if I were to posit a logical fallacy, I could say that since 49% of Democrats want the military to fail

The poll doesn’t say such thing. It says that 34, not 49, of Democrats don’t want the Bush plan to succeed. And, BTW, this is the case of a poll not to be taken very seriously, with all the dozens of questions. And what does it mean, “success”? A Shia theocracy, “80 percent solution”, Sunni genocide and a big “Mission Accomplishment” banner? Or a war with Iran? Given Bush’s record this is kind of success that is not unreasonable to expect — and a kind of success not to feel happy about.

By: Bill Arnold

Bill Arnold — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 05:37:18 +0000

A bare majority of Democrats (51%) want the United States military to prevail on the field of battle. Now if I were to posit a logical fallacy, I could say that since 49% of Democrats want the military to fail,
The raw numbers on this one are 51/34/15, not 51/49. And not-success does not mean failure - our president, you’ll recall, said in an interview “We’re not winning, we’re not losing,…” Regardless, as a Democrat I’m disturbed by these numbers.

By: Bill Arnold

Bill Arnold — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 05:18:53 +0000

I want them out because I think we accomplished what we set out to do (get rid of Hussein and whatever WMDs there were), because I donâ€™t want American military lives lost because the Iraqis donâ€™t like one another, because I donâ€™t think Bush has any chance of ever changing that dynamic, and because I view the proper role of our military as protecting America and not babysitting crazies halfway around the world.
Betcha there are 10s of millions of Democrats who agree with this paragraph. I do, mostly, though I didn’t agree that the original goal was a correct one. (My judgement at the time was that Saddam had no WMDs except maybe some leftover chemical weapons, and perhaps a biological weapons research program, that he didn’t get along with militant jihadists and was unlikely to share weapons with them due to probable blowback, and that a forced regime removal would result in a Shia/Sunni civil war, with Kurds in the north causing trouble with Turkey. At least the later hasn’t happened.)

The Democrats, on the other hand, could care less about our military. They donâ€™t like those who serve, they donâ€™t mourn the loss of those who serve.
This sort of statement is one reason why I distrust the political judgement of people on the right. The percentage of military haters and generally of pacifists is certainly higher among Democrats than among Republicans - Republicans reject both military hating and pacifism. As a blanket statement, it’s just incorrect IMO. (Do you have numerical evidence otherwise?)

By: steve sturm

steve sturm — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 02:42:58 +0000

I want to make cleaer that while the Democrats and I both want the troops out of Iraq now, we do so for very different reasons.

I want them out because I think we accomplished what we set out to do (get rid of Hussein and whatever WMDs there were), because I don’t want American military lives lost because the Iraqis don’t like one another, because I don’t think Bush has any chance of ever changing that dynamic, and because I view the proper role of our military as protecting America and not babysitting crazies halfway around the world.

The Democrats, on the other hand, could care less about our military. They don’t like those who serve, they don’t mourn the loss of those who serve. Given their druthers, they’d gut the military budget to free up money for their social programs. They object to what Bush is doing because (1) it is Bush and (2) it is Bush.

By: Joe Helgerson

Joe Helgerson — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 02:05:32 +0000

Its okay for Bush to leave troops in that meatgrinder? But its wrong for Democrats to exit a failed policy? It seems to me the Dems want to save American lives, and Bush wants to keep slaughtering them in a unwinnable mess.Now America, who supports the troops? Keep digging a hole neo-cons, your too stupid to face reality.

By: Tom

Tom — Fri, 19 Jan 2007 21:34:45 +0000

steve sturm Said:
4:16 pm

I donâ€™t think Bush has any chance of pulling off what he is trying to do, so the sooner he admits defeat, the fewer American troops will die pursuing the unattainable and the faster we can get our military focused and prepared to focus on doing things that protect Americans rather than Iraqis.

so does this mean Iâ€™m rooting for him to fail?

Steve is wise. Consider what he has to say, and know that he sums it up for about 70% of Americans.

By: steve sturm

steve sturm — Fri, 19 Jan 2007 21:16:18 +0000

I don’t think Bush has any chance of pulling off what he is trying to do, so the sooner he admits defeat, the fewer American troops will die pursuing the unattainable and the faster we can get our military focused and prepared to focus on doing things that protect Americans rather than Iraqis.

so does this mean I’m rooting for him to fail?