Funny. God bless this guy, and good luck to him in trying to persuade his liberal friends. I can't help but suspect that a few years from now, he won't be a liberal Democrat anymore.
No, you missed the part where "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." That political calculus coupled with an overdose of Bush Derangement Syndrome is allowing the Left to view Al Qaeda as their "little brown brothers" in the struggle for liberation, just as they have viewed the Viet Cong, Che Guevara, the Weathermen, the Black Panthers, Bader Meinhof, Shining Path, the Sandinistas, the Palestinians, and other terrorist revolutionaries in the past.
Wow. Another liberal having a grasp of the War on Terror.
He can join the other few jewish anti-surrender liberals like Lieberman and Ed Koch.
Democrats For Victory - Muslims For Peace
right....
Somebody should'a told Marc that being Dhimmicrat doesn't entitle you to a line-item veto...
--- "Did I miss the part where it was progressive not to fight medieval religious fascists?" ---
That was right after the part where it's progressive to be disarmed and work toward taking away the rights of law-abiding gun owners. That all comes under the heading of it's progressive to deny the right of free choice to everyone that might possibly make a choice different from yourself.
Good luck with that Marc. Sorry if I don't buy into it at the moment, but I've seen now the libs "support" the troops.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
I often watch the DU to see what they're saying..most of it is unintelligible dribble, followed by stupid comments..but the one thing I see over and over again at that "progressive" website is, whenever anyone, anyone DARES to defend the action in iraq and the WOT in general, they're immediately labelled a troll (FReeper) and are completely trashed and most likely tombstoned. a prime example is joe lieberman. even though they agree with 95% of his policies, simply because he supports the WOT, he's been completely disowned. It's sad, but true..you can't be progressive (liberal) and support the WOT..it's impossible..
articles like this guy have written will cause him to get trashed over there, I guarantee it..
A KEY key point. It is where GWB and his administration have failed miserably. Sure, the President's speeches have been strong and remarkably consistent. But giving a speech does not color the square and he's got it covered. You have to make sure the message is received. The MSM has also been remarkably consistent and the Bush administration still hasn't learned THAT lesson from Vietnam. Don't surrender the homefront, George!
Sorry, Saddam and his bathists were socialists and (comparatively) religious moderates. Own him. And while the lib pol is at it, he can blame his commie cohorts for staging most of the anti-war propaganda. And blame the left in Europe/the UN for keeping Saddam propped up through the sanction years with Oil for food kickbacks.
Now, I'm in despair because it seems that the defeatists have secured their own perverse form of "victory" no matter what happens in Iraq.
In the short term; if Bush vetoes the pork-for-surrender Iraq funding bill, he will be the one deemed guilty of "not supporting the troops". If he signs, then history will show it was he who signed the documents of surrender.
In the slightly longer term; if the surge works, and Iraq is pacified, the Democrats will claim credit for setting timetables and forcing the Iraqi government to get serious. If it doesn't work; they'll just continue to say that the war is an unwinnable quagmire -- and that proves that withdrawal (AKA surrender) is the only sensible option.
In the somewhat longer term; if the Iraqi government can keep a lid on things, the Democrats will again claim credit. If all-out civil war results -- the Democrats (and their defeatist, anti-American, anti-Bush supporters everwhere) will say it was all due to the invasion and ousting or Saddam.
In the longer term -- the abandonment of the nascent Iraqi government will fuel a massive resurgence of Islamist aggression against all of western civilization. The defeatists will lay this at Bush's door.
It's maddening!
ping
He's got that right. The WH, admin and GOP congress members have consistently done/said way too little way too late. They are as much to blame for the current situation as the dims and assorted traitors.
5.56mm
ping
I've been saying this for a long time, the president needs to detail to the American people the true, precise and exact reason/s for the battle of Iraq in particular, and the WOT in general. Ambiguities will not suffice anymore for the lazy, self-occupied American people. They need to be aroused in proper fear and respect for our dreaded enemy, Islam. No more lullabies that "Islam is a religion of peace". No more lies about "we fight only a tiny percentage of Muslims who are "terrorists". The fact is that Islam's front line jihadists, murderers, terrorists and pirates are supported directly by a large percentage of Muslims, and are supported morally by practically all of them. To believe otherwise is sheer folly, and it will surely lead to the defeat of the West.
I think secretly all we conservatives know that we fight against Islam, which has declared war on the West, but that the President is afraid to say this because he feels we need some Islamic allies in order to win the war, and that declaring war on Islam itself would immediately expand the war into something that we may not be able to deal with at the moment, (due to the general malaize in Europe and the weak resolve of Westerners in general). The President may have a valid point, but none-the-less, if the President, present and future, fails to explain to the American people the mortal danger that Islam poses to our very existence then we will lose more than we gain from this silence.
Islam is a serious threat to every free nation in the world, and it needs to be percieved for what it is. Islam is growing in numbers, in economic strength, in technology and in boldness. Meanwhile the West is losing its Christian faith, is basking in "easiness" and dangerously relaxed in a preceived indestructability. So we absolutely need a leader in the White House who can actually lead people instead of just "manage" things, or else we are in for a very, very difficult future. We need a President that is a natural leader, who is wise, moral and religious, for it is only through the eyes of faith and wisdom that the forboding menace of Islam can be seen in its fullness. Secularists and fools think Islam can be 'appeased', or that it can co-exist peacefully with other faiths and cultures; but those who are enlightened by faith know otherwise.
Either we face down Islam and send it back to the medieval days that it longs for, or the future will make Americans pine for the "good old days" of 2007. It's not too late, but the West had better wake up from its slumber soon or we will all be asking each other how it ever came to pass that Sharia law exists in our very midst. Just 10 - 15 years ago almost no American would have envisioned that homosexuals would be happily granted "civil union" status by the states as a means to stave off their quest for literal "marriage" status. And now we have both in some states. Evil can not only win, it is winning.
Interesting. A leftist who realizes that his 'progressive' views won't buy him a 'get out of jihad free' card.
As Rand has said, "You can evade reality, but you cannot evade the consequences of evading reality."