Replies

Democratic Surrender Monkeys is an appropriate moniker for the Dems, don't you think?

Democratic Surrender Monkeys is an appropriate moniker for the Dems, don't you think?

No, I think it should be Democrat Monkey Traitors. They aren't surrendering to the islamofacists, they're collaborating with them.

I didn't know the Demonrats were from France!

Democratic Surrender Monkeys is an appropriate moniker for the Dems, don't you think?

I tried "neo-gaullist," but with little traction so far. :-(

Grampa Dave will think up a moniker than will grab the world, I bet.

Unfortunately, there's nothing new with this revelation. Carter used our enemies, the Soviets, to try and defeat Reagan; Clinton did the same with the Chinese, taking illegal campaign contributions in an attempt to defeat Dole. And now, the Democrats have allied themselves with some of the same Muslims who want to destroy us. Ann Coulter had it right: This is a treasonous party, that will undermine America's security in exchange for the throne.

Some demonrats consider MONKEY a racist term!

Go over to DU and post this article. That will start a big stink for all the whiners.

No I have always prefered the traditional Copperheard.

This just received from a good old friend...

BEHIND THE HEADLINES Latest contender for president
comes from long line of rabbis by Ron Kampeas

WASHINGTON, Sept. 17 (JTA) — Raised a Southern Baptist who later converted to Roman Catholicism, Gen. Wesley Clark knew just what
to say when he strode into a Brooklyn yeshiva in 1999, ostensibly to discuss his leadership of NATO´s victory in Yugoslavia. "I feel a
tremendous amount in common with you," the uniformed four-star general told the stunned roomful of students. "I am the oldest son, of
the oldest son, of the oldest son — at least five generations, and they were all rabbis." The incident could be a signal of how Clark, who
became the 10th contender in the Democratic run for the presidency on Wednesday, relates to the Jews and the issues dear to them.

Apparently Clark, 58, revels in his Jewish roots. He told The Jewish Week in New York, which first reported the yeshiva comment in
1999, that his ancestors were not just Jews, but members of the priestly caste of Kohens. Clark´s Jewish father, Benjamin Kanne, died
when he was 4, but he has kept in touch with his father´s family since his
20s, when he rediscovered his Jewish roots. He is close to a first cousin, Barry Kanne, who heads a pager company in Georgia.

Clark
shares more than sentimental memories with Jews. He couples liberal domestic views that appeal to much of the Jewish electorate with
a soldier´s sympathy for Israel´s struggle against terror. Appearing in June on "Meet the Press" on CBS, Clarke said he agreed with
President Bush´s assessment that Israel should show more restraint, a reference to the policy of targeting terrorist leaders for
assassination. "But the problem is," Clark continued, "when you have hard intelligence that you´re about to be struck, it´s the
responsibility of a government to take action against that intelligence and prevent the loss of lives. It´s what any society would expect
of its leadership. So there´s a limit to how much restraint can be shown." Speaking to the New Democrat Network this year, Clark said
that dismantling Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat´s Ramallah headquarters was "a legitimate military objective from their
perspective.

"For the Israelis, this is a struggle really for the existence of Israel," Clark said in remarks quoted on a support group´s
Web site. Clark is also tough on neighboring Arab states, expecting more from them in nudging the Palestinians toward peace. He has
said he would like to see Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia in a "contact group" similar to the alliance that Serb-friendly Russia joined to
force the Serbs to back down in Kosovo. He blames Saudi Arabia for allowing extremist strains of Islam to spread.

The former NATO
leader also opposes any active international role in policing the West Bank until the political situation is settled, a view that Israelis —
nervous at relinquishing control to foreign troops on their borders — would appreciate. Domestically, Clark favors many of the liberal
views popular with many Jews. He is pro-choice, and is strongly in favor of separating church from state. "In order to have freedom of
religion, you´ve got to protect the state from the church," he is quoted saying on his supporters´ Web site.

One of the leaders of the
Draft Clark campaign said Clark´s strength on foreign policy would neutralize an advantage President Bush now has with Jews, and
would bring the debate back to domestic issues, where the Bush administration is weaker with Jews. "It makes him credible and allows
him to focus on domestic policy," Brent Blackaby said in a telephone interview from Clark´s campaign headquarters in Little Rock, Ark.
Two of Clark´s top advisers are Jews who had prominent roles in the Clinton and Gore campaigns. Eli Segal was a top adviser to
President Clinton in his first term; Ron Klain helped run Vice President Al Gore´s
2000 campaign.

Enjoy your day

The writer makes a good point concerning the "vietnamization" of Iraq, and it brings to mind something that has been nagging at me for a while.

Having seen what we have done, taking down the Taliban in a few days with a few men, when the whole world was telling us it would be our graveyard, and then cutting through the Iraqi Army like knife through butter, for the second time in a decade, certain things become obvious to me.

We turned victory in Somalia into defeat. The country went from chaos to relative peace overnight, because we occupied it with some 30,000 marines. Then we pulled them out and replaced them with UN peacekeepers and a handful of rangers, and we did it prematurely, when no Somali institutions yet existed. A dramatic win was thrown away and the debacle that resulted is well known. But it was not an act of nature, unavoidable, just one of those things. The Somali disaster did not have to be. It happened because our leadership was not serious about finishing the job they inherited and they were too quick to hand it off to the UN.

The Viet Nam war similarly did not have to be the disaster it was. It was an incompetent monkey show because it was politicized from the beginning, and no one in Washington ever really believed it could be won. But I believe it very plainly could have been won, had we set about to win it.

And in fact, we abandoned it at the moment of victory. We had essentially won, and we walked away, and rendered the sacrifice of all of those lives for nothing. We walked away because we lost sight of what we were trying to do. We were never beaten on the battlefield, we were never in any danger of being beaten. We just lost heart and walked away.

This is what the same cast of characters is trying to do to us now. If we listen to them, we take the most impressive victory the world has ever seen and we throw it away. We cease in that moment to be a serious nation. If we cannot stay this course, and finish the job which we have well begun, then God help us, we are incapable of helping ourselves.

So that's what you look like!

Luv it!

Right on!

I'd put more faith in the article if it used one of the accepted transliterations of Al Qaeda, rather than the Q-u butchery seen here.

i dont know why youre exactly cheering this. President bush policy is liberation of muslim countries, not to kill off muslims.

perhaps you have the KKK and president Bush mixed up.

They not only eat cheese, they vote for the Government to subsidize it.

Good article! -- deserving of a full posting....

- ConservativeStLouisGuy

______________________________________________________

Democratic Surrender Monkeys, The Party Of Islam, And 2004

Renew America
Jon Alvarez
September 22, 2003

We've witnessed the bowing of the Democratic Party to the anti-war radicals in this country, what many Americans aren't aware of is how the Democratic Party has become the Party of Islam. As we approach the election of 2004, Muslim organizations such as CAIR and the AMC have vowed to throw their support behind any Democratic candidate in order to defeat President Bush and his war on terror. Of course, Al-Quada and every other major terrorist organization are also rooting for a Democratic victory over President Bush. Do we see a disturbing pattern here? A vote for the Democrats in 2004 is a vote for Al Quada.

Muslims in America have proven that they are not willing to be a partner in the war on terror. America is at war with radical Islam and those that support terrorism. Lines in the sand have been drawn, just as President Bush warned the world after 9/11. By choosing to oppose President Bush politically, Muslims groups in America have chosen to ally themselves with their radical brethren. This is very much a black and white issue, with no shades of gray. There are two schools of thought on how to handle terrorists: kill them or appease them. Will we soon hear Democratic candidates chanting "Allah Akbar" on the campaign trail?

The Democratic Surrender Monkeys have been making the rounds on the talk show circuits. They have made it perfectly clear that, according to them, the actions of this administration have been a "miserable failure." Seems the removal of Saddam, the democratization of Iraq, and the continued killing of terrorists in Iraq (as opposed to the streets of NYC) is just not acceptable to them. Democrats have stated that they would reverse most of the actions taken by President Bush. This would include the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. Repeated sound bites of Howard Dean promising to "bring our boys home" equates to abandoning the present mission of establishing a free and stable Iraq. Like their allies across the Atlantic, the French, it would seem that when the going gets tough, the Democrats would get running!

Just last week, Ted Kennedy attacked President Bush and Operation Iraqi Freedom as being based on a lie. No Teddy, claiming you did everything you could do to save poor Mary Jo was a lie. Just because terrorists aided by Saddam Hussein failed to attack the United States doesn't make the perceived threat any less real. Many of these same Democrats voted to allow force to be used in dealing with Saddam Hussein. They had access to the same intelligence reports President Bush had. Of course, they are now using hindsight to attack and discredit President Bush. Imagine if we had the same luxury at our disposal. Wouldn't it be nice if we could use hindsight to fight our enemies? We could have rounded up the 19 Muslim terrorists prior to 9/11. Of course, that would have resulted in cries of racial profiling and harassment. Those poor boys just wanted to learn how to fly, right? Would Democrats have been happier if the United States had been attacked with WMD provided to terrorists by Saddam Hussein?

What course of action do the Democratic Surrender Monkeys propose we take if they happen to win in 2004? Congressman John Murtha (D-PA) was on Hardball the other night, he sounded as if he was prepared to negotiate a cease-fire with Al Quada. Nancy Pelosi wants heads to roll in the Bush administration. She doesn't think it's too much to ask that President Bush be capable of predicting the future. Shame on him for not being prepared to rebuild Iraq, install a democracy, and withdraw our troops after a whole six months! Like the French, the Democrats have done virtually nothing to aid us in this great struggle. They now seek to disgrace America by proposing we surrender at what could be our greatest moment. Can you imagine if FDR had decided not to storm Normandy Beach, because it just looked too tough?

The Democratic Surrender Monkeys are attempting to create their own self-fulfilling prophecy. We have heard their repeated cries about the "Vietnamization" of Iraq. Now that we know how they would handle the current situation, it seems this WOULD be another Vietnam were they in charge. Their "exit strategy" would be to abandon the people of Iraq by pulling our troops out prematurely and allowing the corrupt and grossly inefficient UN to take control. What message would this send to the terrorists? What message would this send to our brave soldiers? This would be very similar to Vietnam were we to pull out with our tails between our legs, before our mission was accomplished. Like deja vu all over again, our military would be left with that same old feeling that it was all for nothing. Terrorists around the world would become emboldened and our country would definitely NOT be safer as a result. The Democratic Surrender Monkeys would have us repeat the same mistakes we made in Somalia. They would prove Saddam Hussein right, that Americans could not stomach another "Black Hawk Down."

The election of 2004 will clearly be a referendum on the war on terror. The policies of the Bush administration in protecting America from further attacks and taking the war to the terrorists will be the deciding issue of the election. The American public will either extend the mandate given to President Bush after September 11th or choose to take an alternate route, one offered by the Democratic Surrender Monkeys and their allies in the United Nations. This election will have dire consequences for our country, as the world will be watching intently, more so than any other election in our history. The terrorists will be watching, too.

A Democratic victory in 2004 would not only play into the hands of the terrorists but would lead to the "Vietnamization" of Iraq. We cannot wage a politically correct war on terror. There is no appeasing these terrorists and we cannot capitulate on Iraq with regards to UN control. A vote for a Democratic candidate is a vote for Al Quada. It's that simple. Our enemies both at home and abroad do not want George Bush in office. It is for these reasons that we must see to it that President Bush wins the election of 2004. We must show the world that America has the resolve, the courage, and the wherewithal to see this through. America is not to be messed with. How will you vote?