Dems Scared of Meanie Moslem Jihadists: Run away! Run away!

Honestly, I have had it with Islam. I no longer entirely trust the existence of a "moderate Islam," and the wise VDH agrees. (On the other hand, there seem to be millions of Iraquis who want freedom and democracy, so I don't know.)

But my real issue today is why do the Dems keep pushing on this "Run away" theme? (Why do they always want to run away? Since they are Leftist in orientation, I can understand them wanting to bend over for the tender mercies of the glorious (ex-)Soviet Union or the charming, humane and sensitive Mao - but for these Jihadists? What do they see in them?)

I guess it's a reflex for them - but I'd hate to have them as my band of brothers at Agincourt, or Poitiers, or the Battle of the Bulge. Or, God forbid, by my side in the Israeli Army. Or Lexington and Concord - they would invite the Brits in for tea. Wizbang has the latest farce today - thank goodness for the sense of Lieberman, one of the few Dems who understands what is going on.

Why run away like a frightened bunny, when you have a chance to scoop up a few thousand Jihadists, and to create a sane, free country in the heart of the Middle East? It seems like a no-brainer to me, and it could change the world in a very positive way. Yes, they will kill some Americans as they hide behind their women and children, and they will set off bombs forever, like the Palestinians - but we will kill lots more of them. And our guys don't want to run away - they want to stand and fight.

Running from a bunch of gangs of stone-age religious-fanatic sociopaths who want to kill us and to destroy Western Civilization is just not the American way. The buffoon Murtha has been totally discredited here at Powerline, and Kerry - he still thinks he is in Vietnam and lives in a one-man time-warp.

As linked below in Dr. Sanity's exasperated post, where are the Dems when we have a chance to wipe out a major outpost of Jihad? Where is their spirit, where is their determination to protect...and what is with this scared bunny rabbit deal? All it does is to encourage them, as Somalia did when Clinton ran like a scared rabbit, and Madeleine Albright tried her "We're nice" approach (which Saddam, Osama, Kim Sung Il, Iran, Hamas, etc interpreted as weakness and fear).

Lastly, what is this solicitude about "bring our boys home"? These guys are professional soldiers, trained and paid to fight, eager to use their craft, eager to confront danger, and tough and deadly. If they kill a few civilians by mistake, that's too bad - but I forgive them. War is hell, and we could be carpet-bombing Fallujah if we wanted to: instead, we have been trying the friendly, slow, surgical approach (which no other nation on the planet would even bother with, except the Brits).

They can come home when their job is done, but all they will do is sit around their base camp bored, and take classes and practice while waiting for the next chance to use their abilities: they aren't social workers. (Well, the National Guard guys volunteered too, and seem to have their heart in their work, but I know it's not their career.) God bless 'em all, and God protect them all.

Editor's Note: It isn't like The Barrister to post such intemperate pieces, such as many other blogs do. Pure rants and tantrums, however therapeutic, are beneath the dignity of Maggie's Farm, and add little to the discussion. I modified it, but I still do not like the tone.

Posted by The Barrister in Our Essays, Politics at 14:15 | Comments (16) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

What you so caustically call the 'run away' theme is what we sane and informed people refer to as 'time to end the farce'. We've destabilized an entire region and solicited the wrath of the rest of the planet by destroying a sovereign country with hidden intentions and under fabricated reasons.

There are no clearly outlined goals, there is no plan for success. Keeping our military in harm's way for political gain is disgraceful, and drawing comparisons to other - rightfully fought - campaigns is disingenuous.

Also, I thought you'd like to take a break from your hawkish cheerleading to consider just how wrong you are:

"Lastly, what is this about "bring our boys home"? These guys are professional soldiers, trained and paid to fight, eager to use their craft, eager to confront danger..."

I wasn't aware you had the authority and intelligence to speak for those fighting in Iraq. Apparently, neither did they:

http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075

According to that poll by zogby, over 72% of our troops desire to be out of Iraq by the end of this year. They only thing they're eager to do is come home.

I guess they all switched to the Democratic Party while they were overseas?

#1 Bud on 2006-06-22 16:28 (Reply)

WELL, LET'S LOOK AT THE LE MOYNE COLLEGE (are they accredited?) and ZOGBY POLL? Released: February 28, 2006

U.S. Troops in Iraq: 72% Say End War in 2006
-- this isn't discussed below, but when we were in Vietnam, we would have been happy to end the war - but only with a victory

Le Moyne College/Zogby Poll shows just one in five troops want to heed Bush call to stay �as long as they are needed�
-- that's personal. Ask whether they think the Army should stay as long as needed.

While 58% say mission is clear, 42% say U.S. role is hazy
--I think 58% is still a majority, a big majority, no? The rest probably have been watching CNN, which is clearly "hazy" at best.

Plurality believes Iraqi insurgents are mostly homegrown
-- I think a "plurality" means less than 50%, no? In any case this refers to the homegrown Sunni kids that the foreign-funded, foreign-led jihadis convince to die for Allah while they remain safe in their safe houses.

Almost 90% think war is retaliation for Saddam�s role in 9/11, most don�t blame Iraqi public for insurgent attacks
-- Ja, so do the rest of us

Majority of troops oppose use of harsh prisoner interrogation
--The only surprised people here are libs and their MSM

Plurality of troops pleased with their armor and equipment
--"armor" Somebody is/might be shooting at me; ask my if I'd like more armor.
--"equipment" Please replace my .22 caliber toy rifle that some logistics freak in the Pentagon thought I'd like because it is lighter! Please give me a nice reliable AK-47 with its 7.62 mm Russian (.30 caliber) rounds, or the wonderful M-14 with its .308 caliber knock-out punch.

Bud, clearly you are fascinated with "authority and intelligence" and clearly you have experience with neither.

Do you have a vague dilusion that returning troops will vote for the Johns - Murtha or Kerry? Ha!

Fear the returning troops, libs - fear them. Perhaps 0.01% migh turn out like that chickenshit diaperhead Kerry, and the rest will want Democrat blood for encouraging the enemy and greatly increasing their personal danger. Fear them, Bud.

#1.1 Gywnnie on 2006-06-22 19:40 (Reply)

To reply to both you and the barrister re: the poll, I was only illustrating that barrister's own personal thoughts are not indicative of a statistical majority of the troops who are actually in combat right now. I won't comment on the methodology of the poll itself because I'm not paying for the actual executive summary (and how you can comment intelligently on what was asked of the troops Gywnnie without that is interesting to say the least) but Zogby is one of the premiere names in polling.

As for your other comments Gywnnie,

Bud, clearly you are fascinated with "authority and intelligence" and clearly you have experience with neither.
Cicero would be so proud. Whenever the argument smacks you in the face and you have no rebuttal, switch quickly to personal attacks.

Do you have a vague dilusion that returning troops will vote for the Johns - Murtha or Kerry? Ha!
Vote for them for what? Are they running for something that I'm not aware of? Murtha is up for re-election in November but I doubt the troops will be home for that. Kerry isn't up for re-election until 2009 and if you have your way, they won't be home for that one either.

Fear the returning troops...[they] will want Democrat blood for encouraging the enemy and greatly increasing their personal danger.
What Democrat was it again who ignored the generals' calls for more ground troops? Who failed to secure the country and outline clear objectives? Which one emboldened the insurgents and told them to "Bring it on"?

#1.1.1 Bud on 2006-06-22 21:04 (Reply)

Finally. A little disagreement on the blog.
1. Yes, we have destabilized tyranny. That is true. And a good thing. Tyranny is always stable, when left alone, because they simply kill the opposition.
2. "Rightfully-fought" campaigns is always debatable. The American Pacifist Left opposed our involvement in WW2 because the Germans never attacked the US.
2. I saw that Zogby, but I am skeptical of it. The guys always seem pretty gung ho to me, but if I am wrong, which I doubt - it isn't their decision anyway.

#2 the barrister on 2006-06-22 17:34 (Reply)

Also, Bud:
re the Zogby - if you ask a kid "Do you want to go home?" of course they say yes. If you ask "Do you want to finish the job and go home", they also say yes.

Also, you sound too much like Dem talking points. Partisanship may be clouding your personal view. Glad you read us, though, to get other points of view.

#3 the barrister on 2006-06-22 17:40 (Reply)

that commenter is a classic chronic surrenderist, and could have used the same arguments against any war in history - and we could still be a Brit colony! Or speaking German, or Russian, etc.

#4 Allan on 2006-06-22 18:09 (Reply)

Yes, we have destabilized tyranny.
One man's tyranny is another man's "only secular government in the Middle East". This remains to be seen whether or not this was a good move.

The American Pacifist Left opposed our involvement in WW2 because the Germans never attacked the US.
Once again, a comparison between two completely different situations. First, 'pacifists' by definition will oppose any military confrontation. Second, the Germans not only declared war on the US but after Pearl Harbor Congress issued a declaration of war. That would constitute a viable use of military force, a "rightfully fought" campaign if you will. What is happening now would not.

As for your comment about 'partisan talking points', I direct you to your "run away" theme or the "cut and run" Repub talking point that has become the new 'flip-flop' in the political arena nowadays. Like flip-flop, the label is inaccurate and used only to engender hatred towards opposition to the official Repub party line. You ask why Democrats 'always' want to run and list Clinton in Somalia, all the while ignoring Reagan cutting and running after 200+ marines lost their lives in Lebanon. That example doesn't toe the party line of course.

Perhaps one just has to realize when there's no stated non-abstract goal, then there can be no achieving that goal and the sane course of action is to get our people out of harm's way. That doesn't win elections though...

#5 Bud on 2006-06-22 21:22 (Reply)

Bud - You say the "flip-flop" label is inaccurate. May I present for your approval the following:

"In fact, I fear that in the run-up to the 2004 election, the administration is considering what is tantamount to a cut-and-run strategy. Their sudden embrace of accelerated Iraqification and American troop withdrawal dates, without adequate stability, is an invitation to failure. The hard work of rebuilding Iraq must not be dictated by the schedule of the next American election. " (John Kerry, December 3, 2003)

So. We see that Kerry was against cut-and-run -- before he was for it. Poor guy doesn't even know his own seared mind.

#6 GnuCarSmell on 2006-06-22 22:19 (Reply)

It's duck-soup easy to critique OIF--it's a war, for cryinoutloud--and as terrible a thing as that word is reserved for.

What's missing in the above is any mention of the alternate future that the war prevented. The one with a swelling, rampant Saddam and his ongoing criminalizing subversion of the UN and many major world governments. And his murderous regime, and his rejection of the international peace treaties, and his intent to follow his Stalinist model as far as it would take him (and his two lovely sons).

What's also missing from the above critique is any mention of the prize--the far better world that will result from OIF, that would otherwise have had no chance to ever come to be. At least now the world has that chance, to among other things stay with transparent, open, market allocation of that you-know-what that mishandled is the ticket to a WWII-sized conflagration.

So, Bud, those two things are missing from your critique, along with of course a third thing: any mention of the jihad that has been ongoing since the late 70s, and any mention of what the heck we were gonna do about it, in lieu of what we are doing about it.

A real counter-position would have to include those items. To focus on the costs without the benefits, and to confuse that which was elective with that which wasn't, is just to bitch.

#7 Buddy Larsen on 2006-06-23 00:10 (Reply)

So. We see that Kerry was against cut-and-run -- before he was for it. Poor guy doesn't even know his own seared mind.

I said cut-and-run was an inaccurate label akin to 'flip-flop'. The Repubs loved trotting out quotes they thought described situations where Kerry went back on his positions. Assimilating new information and adjusting policy based on reality instead of stubbornly staying the course to the detriment of the country is not 'flip-flopping'.

What is being proposed is not running away or cutting and running. Murtha has actually laid out a comprehensive plan to reduce overall in-country troops while leaving a peace keeping force to work with the Iraqis. He is not advocating cutting and running. Of course, that view all depends on whose party the person is from and whose party is in power, doesn't it?

Case in point:

�Victory means exit strategy, and it�s important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is.�
-- George W. Bush, 4/9/99

�I think it�s also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn.�
-- George W. Bush, 6/5/99

�It doesn�t make any sense to have a timetable. You know, if you give a timetable, you�re � you�re conceding too much to the enemy.�
-- George W. Bush, 6/24/05

So. We see that Bush was for "cut-and-run" -- before he was against it. Poor guy doesn't even know his own seared mind.

What's missing in the above is any mention of the alternate future that the war prevented...to focus on the costs without the benefits, and to confuse that which was elective with that which wasn't, is just to bitch.

So...you can see the future? In fact, all possible futures? What would have happened, what will now happen, what will come to be? How are you with lottery numbers?

#8 Bud on 2006-06-23 02:37 (Reply)

> However, let it be known that our usage handbook approves only the more sensitive term "towelhead" for this particular jihadist cultural description.

What about "raghead". Is that OK? Just curious. I'm always interested in what terminology is appropriate for referring to camel jockeys.

#9 Ohbloodyhell on 2006-06-23 03:01 (Reply)

Gwynnie prefers "sheethead"

#9.1 Gwynnie on 2006-06-23 11:02 (Reply)

> Almost 90% think war is retaliation for Saddam�s role in 9/11, most don�t blame Iraqi public for insurgent attacks
-- Ja, so do the rest of us

Right, so, what, having taken out Saddam for
a) his connections to 911
b) his efforts to possess WMDs
c) his refusal to stand by UN agreements which were the only reason he stayed in power
d) his continued thumbing his nose at the USA
e) his continued abuse of his own peoples

We should then ABANDON the Iraqi people -- whom we don't blame for it at all -- to whatever strongman next stepped up to the plate? Hey, seems to work for the Dems. They're SOOOOOooooo compassionate.

#10 Ohbloodyhell on 2006-06-23 03:07 (Reply)

Right or wrong, I love what we are doing in Iraq. I appreciate Bud's entering the conversation, but I suspect that if Clinton or Kerry had done this, he would have excellent arguments in support.
It just smells partisan to me. I can tell. But, as Seinfeld would say, "not that there is anything wrong with that..."
It is always too easy in life to find fault with others.

#11 the barrister on 2006-06-23 11:41 (Reply)

Well okay, Bud, if I'm speculating one side of "what if", then you're speculating the other. Question--which of us can be wrong with the least (national) damage?

#12 Buddy Larsen on 2006-06-23 13:06 (Reply)

So, now that the White House and the top military commander in Iraq have confirmed there are "cut-and-run" options they are considering, I suppose your tune has changed?

Or would that smell partisan?

#13 Bud on 2006-06-27 03:00 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Thursday, June 22. 2006

Dems Scared of Meanie Moslem Jihadists: Run away! Run away!