+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 16 of 78

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    112

    That "D" next to a candidate's name stands for "defeat."

    November 04, 2006
    "D" Stands for "Defeat"
    By Robert Tracinski

    The War on Terrorism is a strange war that has been moved forward, directly and immediately, not by breakthroughs on faraway battlefields, but by the results of our own elections here at home.

    The pattern is persistent: a period of action moves America forward, followed by a frustrating period of inaction before an election, followed by another burst of action. We saw the overthrow of the Taliban in 2001, followed by months of diplomatic lip-flapping in 2002, followed by an election--and then the invasion of Iraq in 2003. We suffered through another period of inaction in the face of the Sunni uprising in Fallujah in 2004, followed by an election--and then the destruction of the Sunni insurgency as a significant military force in late 2004 and 2005, with all of the dividends that this paid in Iraq and Lebanon. For the last six months to a year, we've been stuck in another period of inaction in the face of sectarian violence by Shiite militias. The result has been the loss of all of America's momentum in Iraq and Lebanon. But President Bush is once again making the election a referendum on the war.

    Perhaps this is the lesson President Bush took from the Vietnam War: that a war requires the support of the American people. But he has funny way of going about it. Bush would be much better off asking the American people to support the war while the bombs are dropping and the enemy is on the defensive. Instead, he asks us to approve a vigorous war policy just at the point that he is offering us the opposite.

    This is a great frustration to those of us who support Bush and the Republicans, and it might be tempting to wash our hands of the whole process--if the Democrats didn't insist on offering a far worse alternative.

    The Democrats are consistently campaigning on policies that would lead to a disastrous defeat, not just in Iraq, but in the entire War on Terrorism, from Lebanon to Afghanistan.

    That's true whether or not the Democratic candidate in your own particular district advocates withdrawal from Iraq. With control of both houses of Congress at stake, a vote for any Democratic candidate is a vote for a Democratic leadership in Congress, with the power to set the legislative agenda, hold hearings, issue subpoenas, and, crucially, control the Pentagon's purse strings.

    This last is particularly crucial. If the Democrats gain control of the House, for example, the new head of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee will be Jack Murtha. The man who writes the Pentagon's budget will be an advocate of immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. The House Ways and Means Committee, which has the most power over the federal budget, would be chaired by Harlem Democrat Charlie Rangel--who has already warned, "You've got to be able to pay for the war, don't you?"

    To be sure, Democrats are divided on how they would prefer to lose the war. Some want an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, while others want a phased withdrawal. Even worse, many Democrats have climbed aboard a campaign advocating negotiations with Iran and Syria--the two main sponsors of the insurgency in Iraq--over what these dictatorships would do to "stabilize" Iraq after we leave.

    This, then, is the Democrats' strategy in Iraq: declare defeat, and negotiate with Iran over the terms of our surrender.

    If you imagine that this disaster will be limited to Iraq, think again. Ask yourself: what would happen if the jihadis achieved a victory over the American infidel in Iraq? Flush with confidence and confirmed in the assumption that the Americans, for all of their technological superiority, don't have the moral fortitude to fight a war, where would they go next?

    A lot of them would go to Pakistan and Afghanistan and launch an even bigger war against us there, which they would be confident of winning. And what would the Democrats do then? They would throw up their hands and declared that Afghanistan was a mistake, too. Indeed, some on the left have already reached this point. Then the jihadis would set their sights on Pakistan, whose government is already in a stalemate with pro-al-Qaeda tribes in its mountainous provinces.

    But don't worry. Maybe Pakistan's new Islamist rulers wouldn't go after us first. Maybe they would start a nuclear war with India, instead.

    And a retreat from Iraq would be a green light to Iran to develop nuclear weapons--or to buy them from the North Koreans. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would achieve his goal of making Iran into a miniature superpower at the center of an Islamist Axis that stretches from the Mediterranean to the Himalayas.

    As bad as things are now, a Democratic victory is likely to make things much, much worse very soon. The Democratic plan, if it is enacted, would deliver America into a period of retreat, humiliation, and uncertainty that we haven't seen since the end of the Vietnam War--while giving our enemies a glorious victory that would be seen as a historical vindication of the Islamist cause.

    And after such a victory, how long will it be before the Islamists decide that the time has come to strike an even harder blow against America, attacking us again on our own soil?

    This is what is at stake next Tuesday.

    I cannot promise that a Republican election victory will lead to a glorious success. But with a Republican Congress, the Islamists will at least be denied an American defeat that vindicates their cause, and there will at least be a chance for another post-election American offensive, both in Iraq, and possibly against Iran.

    It is not certain that, with a Republican majority, Bush will take vigorous action in Iraq and against Iran--but it is possible, and it is far more likely to happen if Republicans win next Tuesday's election. Nor is it certain that a Democratic congressional majority would actually have the nerve or the ability to de-fund the war. It is not completely certain that they will cause us to retreat from Iraq, surrender to Iran, lose Afghanistan, and abandon Pakistan to the Islamists--but it is probable, and it is far more likely to happen if Democrats win the election.

    So remember when you enter the polls on Tuesday: that "D" next to a candidate's name stands for "defeat."

    Let's make sure that on Wednesday morning, we can say instead that it is the advocates of defeat who have been defeated.

    Robert Tracinski writes daily commentary at TIADaily.com. He is the editor of The Intellectual Activist and TIADaily.com.

  2. #2
    dchristie's Avatar
    dchristie is offline Challenge Authority User Rank
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    14,663

    Re: That "D" next to a candidate's name stands for "defeat."






  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,221

    Re: That "D" next to a candidate's name stands for "defeat."


  4. #4
    dchristie's Avatar
    dchristie is offline Challenge Authority User Rank
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    14,663

    Re: That "D" next to a candidate's name stands for "defeat."


  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    5,803

    Re: That "D" next to a candidate's name stands for "defeat."

    That "R" next to a candidate's name really stands for "robbery"
    franKg - "Since God was ok with Moses, Joshua and David burning cities to the ground and killing all the civilians I think he would be ok with us splashing a little water on some terrorists."

    Dr poormouth - "Exackly;
    It's not "waterboarding", it's "extraordinary baptism""

    Quote Originally Posted by carlbenator
    As discussed in a previous thread, this IRRATIONAL HATRED for the Jews and their RIGHT to SURVIVE is one of the many PROOFS of a God, AND a Devil.

  6. #6
    sojustask's Avatar
    sojustask is offline The Late, Great Lady Mod - Retired User Rank
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    12,866

    Re: That "D" next to a candidate's name stands for "defeat."

    Defeat? I don't think so. The Republicans are depressed because it's a good bet that they are going to lose a whole bunch of seats in the House and Senate and they are in real danger of losing control.

    To paraphrase them: It's worse than Watergate.

    Lady Mod

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    137

    Re: That "D" next to a candidate's name stands for "defeat."

    Quote Originally Posted by ME3
    November 04, 2006
    "D" Stands for "Defeat"
    By Robert Tracinski

    The War on Terrorism is a strange war that has been moved forward, directly and immediately, not by breakthroughs on faraway battlefields, but by the results of our own elections here at home.

    The pattern is persistent: a period of action moves America forward, followed by a frustrating period of inaction before an election, followed by another burst of action. We saw the overthrow of the Taliban in 2001, followed by months of diplomatic lip-flapping in 2002, followed by an election--and then the invasion of Iraq in 2003. We suffered through another period of inaction in the face of the Sunni uprising in Fallujah in 2004, followed by an election--and then the destruction of the Sunni insurgency as a significant military force in late 2004 and 2005, with all of the dividends that this paid in Iraq and Lebanon. For the last six months to a year, we've been stuck in another period of inaction in the face of sectarian violence by Shiite militias. The result has been the loss of all of America's momentum in Iraq and Lebanon. But President Bush is once again making the election a referendum on the war.

    Perhaps this is the lesson President Bush took from the Vietnam War: that a war requires the support of the American people. But he has funny way of going about it. Bush would be much better off asking the American people to support the war while the bombs are dropping and the enemy is on the defensive. Instead, he asks us to approve a vigorous war policy just at the point that he is offering us the opposite.

    This is a great frustration to those of us who support Bush and the Republicans, and it might be tempting to wash our hands of the whole process--if the Democrats didn't insist on offering a far worse alternative.

    The Democrats are consistently campaigning on policies that would lead to a disastrous defeat, not just in Iraq, but in the entire War on Terrorism, from Lebanon to Afghanistan.

    That's true whether or not the Democratic candidate in your own particular district advocates withdrawal from Iraq. With control of both houses of Congress at stake, a vote for any Democratic candidate is a vote for a Democratic leadership in Congress, with the power to set the legislative agenda, hold hearings, issue subpoenas, and, crucially, control the Pentagon's purse strings.

    This last is particularly crucial. If the Democrats gain control of the House, for example, the new head of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee will be Jack Murtha. The man who writes the Pentagon's budget will be an advocate of immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. The House Ways and Means Committee, which has the most power over the federal budget, would be chaired by Harlem Democrat Charlie Rangel--who has already warned, "You've got to be able to pay for the war, don't you?"

    To be sure, Democrats are divided on how they would prefer to lose the war. Some want an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, while others want a phased withdrawal. Even worse, many Democrats have climbed aboard a campaign advocating negotiations with Iran and Syria--the two main sponsors of the insurgency in Iraq--over what these dictatorships would do to "stabilize" Iraq after we leave.

    This, then, is the Democrats' strategy in Iraq: declare defeat, and negotiate with Iran over the terms of our surrender.

    If you imagine that this disaster will be limited to Iraq, think again. Ask yourself: what would happen if the jihadis achieved a victory over the American infidel in Iraq? Flush with confidence and confirmed in the assumption that the Americans, for all of their technological superiority, don't have the moral fortitude to fight a war, where would they go next?

    A lot of them would go to Pakistan and Afghanistan and launch an even bigger war against us there, which they would be confident of winning. And what would the Democrats do then? They would throw up their hands and declared that Afghanistan was a mistake, too. Indeed, some on the left have already reached this point. Then the jihadis would set their sights on Pakistan, whose government is already in a stalemate with pro-al-Qaeda tribes in its mountainous provinces.

    But don't worry. Maybe Pakistan's new Islamist rulers wouldn't go after us first. Maybe they would start a nuclear war with India, instead.

    And a retreat from Iraq would be a green light to Iran to develop nuclear weapons--or to buy them from the North Koreans. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would achieve his goal of making Iran into a miniature superpower at the center of an Islamist Axis that stretches from the Mediterranean to the Himalayas.

    As bad as things are now, a Democratic victory is likely to make things much, much worse very soon. The Democratic plan, if it is enacted, would deliver America into a period of retreat, humiliation, and uncertainty that we haven't seen since the end of the Vietnam War--while giving our enemies a glorious victory that would be seen as a historical vindication of the Islamist cause.

    And after such a victory, how long will it be before the Islamists decide that the time has come to strike an even harder blow against America, attacking us again on our own soil?

    This is what is at stake next Tuesday.

    I cannot promise that a Republican election victory will lead to a glorious success. But with a Republican Congress, the Islamists will at least be denied an American defeat that vindicates their cause, and there will at least be a chance for another post-election American offensive, both in Iraq, and possibly against Iran.

    It is not certain that, with a Republican majority, Bush will take vigorous action in Iraq and against Iran--but it is possible, and it is far more likely to happen if Republicans win next Tuesday's election. Nor is it certain that a Democratic congressional majority would actually have the nerve or the ability to de-fund the war. It is not completely certain that they will cause us to retreat from Iraq, surrender to Iran, lose Afghanistan, and abandon Pakistan to the Islamists--but it is probable, and it is far more likely to happen if Democrats win the election.

    So remember when you enter the polls on Tuesday: that "D" next to a candidate's name stands for "defeat."

    Let's make sure that on Wednesday morning, we can say instead that it is the advocates of defeat who have been defeated.

    Robert Tracinski writes daily commentary at TIADaily.com. He is the editor of The Intellectual Activist and TIADaily.com.

    Remember this to all who read. The terrorists are already voting. They are voting in violence to elect Democrats. Osama knows Democrats will prove his belief that America is a paper tiger…that we flee when it gets tough. Democrats proved this in Vietnam and wish to prove it again. Bush says he does not question Democrats patriotism, just their judgment. This may be true but when you provide ammunition to the enemy, when you work toward Americas defeat that poor judgment turns into traitorous actions. They may not intend to be traitors but their actions show otherwise. As long as the Democrats work against this country we can not win in Iraq! I fear Democrats will prove Osama correct. The enemy within is the most dangerous enemy of all.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    5,803

    Re: That "D" next to a candidate's name stands for "defeat."

    Quote Originally Posted by Betamanmn
    Remember this to all who read. The terrorists are already voting. They are voting in violence to elect Democrats. Osama knows Democrats will prove his belief that America is a paper tiger…that we flee when it gets tough. Democrats proved this in Vietnam and wish to prove it again. Bush says he does not question Democrats patriotism, just their judgment. This may be true but when you provide ammunition to the enemy, when you work toward Americas defeat that poor judgment turns into traitorous actions. They may not intend to be traitors but their actions show otherwise. As long as the Democrats work against this country we can not win in Iraq! I fear Democrats will prove Osama correct. The enemy within is the most dangerous enemy of all.
    The enemies to America are the ones who believe all the propagandistic rubbish about "terrists". If Bin Laden is truly out to destroy America "because of our freedoms", he has already won. We have Bush to thank for that. Even if the democrats win both the House and Senate, Bush can merely veto away.

    You see...it's really amazing how much brainwashing goes on in the right-winged field of excreta. According to the righties, Bin Laden has nukes in place in America, smuggled in from Mexico. No wonder the border in the south hasn't been closed down. However, I read elsewhere that it is the CIA who has done this deed. Their whole goal being to set off a nuke or two in America to secure the deal. Fear will grip America by the throat and Martial law can be enacted, and Bush will remain in power. How convenient.

    Maybe you should take a trip over to Iraq rather than Vietnam. It's just as warm and you can do something useful with your obsequious nature. Help fight the war you so avidly support.
    franKg - "Since God was ok with Moses, Joshua and David burning cities to the ground and killing all the civilians I think he would be ok with us splashing a little water on some terrorists."

    Dr poormouth - "Exackly;
    It's not "waterboarding", it's "extraordinary baptism""

    Quote Originally Posted by carlbenator
    As discussed in a previous thread, this IRRATIONAL HATRED for the Jews and their RIGHT to SURVIVE is one of the many PROOFS of a God, AND a Devil.

  9. #9
    Rusted's Avatar
    Rusted is offline Gold Scams Member User Rank
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    645

    Re: That "D" next to a candidate's name stands for "defeat."

    Ahh, the war on terror. Reminds me of the war on drugs. People still use drugs. Then there was the war on poverty. Still poor people out there. Prohibition, the war on alcohol. People still drinking.

    9/11 did happen. I still want Osama's head on a sharp stick over a gate. But the way they went at it is wrong.

    Invading Iraq just turned it into a cause celebre' for the radical islamists. Now there is a civil war going on that no one is going to stop. The original goal of the Iraqi war was to remove Saddam from power. Done. See if there were weapons of mass distruction. Nope, gone, so done. Under the original goals, the war is done, won and over. So we do NOT need to be there.

    If the current administration had any sense all, they would have declared victory and left. Just what Nixon and Kissinger did with Vietnam. It wasn't over by any means and South Vietnam did fall. But at least we got our ball and went home and so that's why there 's only 58195 names on that black stone wall.

    I'm voting tuesday. The goverment is by, of and for the people. So they work for us, do not let them forget that.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    The beautiful south!
    Posts
    3,046

    Re: That "D" next to a candidate's name stands for "defeat."

    Well, Im voting too and for the lesser of the two evils!
    They HAVE forgotten who they work for, thats the problem but we gotta
    do what we can and hope for the best. :eek:

  11. #11
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    SW United States
    Posts
    6,643

    Re: That "D" next to a candidate's name stands for "defeat."




  12. #12
    sojustask's Avatar
    sojustask is offline The Late, Great Lady Mod - Retired User Rank
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    12,866

    Re: That "D" next to a candidate's name stands for "defeat."

    LOL, Grim, you are such a propagandist. Either that or you are paranoid.

    Lady Mod

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    4,179

    Re: That "D" next to a candidate's name stands for "defeat."

    Blah - this whole post is aimed at the fact that people are still so uneducated that they party line vote. (I DESPISE party line voting.) The little letter next to their name doesn't matter nearly as much as what they intend to do with their time if they are elected. And I think that even though President Bush can veto whatever the Dem's try - a Democratic majority senate and house would also be able to restrict what Bush does - and he needs that.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    SW United States
    Posts
    6,643

    Re: That "D" next to a candidate's name stands for "defeat."

    Quote Originally Posted by sojustask
    LOL, Grim, you are such a propagandist. Either that or you are paranoid.

    Lady Mod
    Naaaa... Just having a little fun since this thread started out with a battle of images.

    .

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    171

    Re: That "D" next to a candidate's name stands for "defeat."

    Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld have big balls when it come to spilling American blood.....when it's not their own.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    26,313

    Re: That "D" next to a candidate's name stands for "defeat."

    Quote Originally Posted by Grim17
    Naaaa... Just having a little fun since this thread started out with a battle of images.

    .
    tell us all.....is it as "fun" as beatin on some gay guy on the way home from the "pub"!?ya know.....when asked!?hey mister,why you dressed like a clown!?is it mardi gra!?of course,he was not probably gay but just curious!?but when asked in the hospital what he remembered last,he replied......i heard....."CUM MEER ya liittle QUEER" i got a surprise for ya!?!?hehe!!.......just askin....
    Last edited by lexx; 11-07-2006 at 03:57 AM.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-31-2016, 10:42 PM
  2. "Death" of "Amy Winehouse" alias "Lady Gaga" was a joke
    By TruthIsNeverTooHorrible in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 12-28-2016, 08:57 AM
  3. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-03-2016, 10:43 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-12-2013, 01:27 PM
  5. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-27-2012, 07:44 AM

Tags for this Thread

Add / Edit Tags
$400, 000, 2001, ???, ????, abroad, abused, acceptance, accused, acted, action, actions, acts, address, admit, adult, advanced, advocates, age, agreed, ain, alcohol, alice, allowed, ama, ame, america, american, americans, another, approve, armageddon, ass, asy, attitude, attorney general, attributes, authority, authorized, avoid, aware, azi, baby, bad, baghdad, balance, bali, based, beat, believers, ben, beta, bigger, biggest, bin, bit, blatant, blood, bomb, bombing, booted, border, borne, break, breakfast, bring, bringing, bull, bunch, bur, bureau, burst, bush, called, calls, candidate, capital, capture, card, care, career, careful, carolina, case, cash, categories, caught, caused, censor, center, central, cer, chan, chance, che, cheney, choice, chris, christian, citizens, class, cleaning, cli, clinto, clown, coin, coming, commentary, communication, communism, complete, completely, condi, confirmed, conflicts, congressional, conservative, continue, contrast, core, correct, cost, costs, countries, country, cover, crap, credit, crew, criminals, cruel, damn, daniel, day, days, dead, dean, death, decades, decision, declared, defeat, defeated, defend, deliver, denial, department, deserve, deserving, destroyed, destruction, development, diploma, diplomatic, disaster, disease, disgusting, district, doesn, dog, domination, don, dont, door, dope, dot, double, dow, drop, dropping, due, earn, effective, elected, electio, endorsed, ends, enemy, enter, error, essential, europe, evils, expert, experts, exposes, extreme, eye, fabricate, face, facing, factual, fail, fall, falsi, fatal, father, faulty, fear mongering, federal, female, fidel, field, figures, finding, flag, flush, focus, folds, followers, fool, forces, foreign, friday, front, fund, future, gary, gay, give, gli, global, green, grim, growth, hands, harder, hasn, head, heart, hell, hey, hide, high, higher, highly, home, honor, house, html, huma, humans, humiliation, hurt, hypocrites, ial, ice, idiot, ignorant, images, imagine, important, india, individuals, influence, insurance, inter, invade, investing, involving, iraq, islamic, isn, issues, jack, jackson, jail, john, joint, jonathan, joy, kenney, kidding, kind, knock, korea, laden, land, latest, laugh, launch, lead, leaders, leading, leave, lesser, lessons, lets, liberal, liberals, liberty, lied, lincoln, line, lines, lis, lisa, listed, listen, lived, living, lol, long, long run, longer, los, loss, making, mark, marti, martial, martial law, martin, mass, mea, meaningless, members, memories, memory, mentally, mess, million, millions, mind, minorities, miserable, mistake, model, month, moral, moron, muslim, nail, nam, nation, national, national debt, nations, nature, neo, nice, nixon, nope, north, nuclear war, numbers, oath, office, officers, officially, officials, open, opinion, opportunity, opposite, ora, order, org, organization, overthrow, pakistan, pals, paper, part, passed, pays, pedophiles, pen, pentagon, persecute, person, personal, personality, pictures, planning, plans, play, policies, policy, poor, pos, positive, post, posted, posting, poverty, power, pray, predicted, prejudiced, prepared, presiden, price, principles, problem, process, productive, professional, proposal, protecting, protection, proves, public, punish, punishment, quality, question, questions, quot, raise, raped, rare, rated, real, reality, reason, reasonable, reasons, red, reform, regime, religious, republican, research, respect, respond, response, responsible, ress, results, revealing, righties, rights, rio, risk, robert, rodney, role, rotten, roy, sad, safe, salvation, scale, screw, secretary, secure, sen, senate, seniors, serve, service, sex, ship, shoe, short, shut, sign, simply, site, slaughter, small, smoke, sniper, social security, son, song, soo, sounds, source, spent, star, start, starting, stated, states, steal, stone, stop, strategy, strength, stupid, submissive, subs, successful, summer, sun, supported, supporter, supporting, supports, suspended, switch, taken, taliban, talk, taxes, teach, terror, terrorism, terrorist, terrorists, text, theives, thinks, thought, thread, times, told, tolerance, tools, top, tor, total, tough, towers, town, trac, trade, treatment, trillion, tuesday, twin, ugly, unamerican, union, unit, united, united states, url, victory, view, violence, virtue, wanted, war, warming, wars, wash, watching, ways, wednesday, weeks, western, wide, wikipedia, win, winning, wire, witch, woma, won, wont, workers, working, worth, writes, year, years, young

View Tag Cloud

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •