Wasting Time With Alex

Thursday, January 17, 2008

They admit they lost & have a new plan to make us lose anyway?

If you need any more proof that the sycophants that have been campaigning against our involvement in Iraq were motivated by nothing but anti-Bush, and anti-American, and partisan collectivist political reasons, all you have to do is read what their new plans are now that changes of success for their campaign to make us lose this conflict has all but evaporated:

After a series of legislative defeats in 2007 that saw the year end with more U.S. troops in Iraq than when it began, a coalition of anti-war groups is backing away from its multimillion-dollar drive to cut funding for the war and force Congress to pass timelines for bringing U.S. troops home. In recognition of hard political reality, the groups instead will lower their sights and push for legislation to prevent President Bush from entering into a long-term agreement with the Iraqi government that could keep significant numbers of troops in Iraq for years to come.

The groups believe this switch in strategy can draw contrasts with Republicans that will help Democrats gain ground in November and bring the votes to pass more dramatic measures. But it is a long way from the early months of 2007, when Democrats were freshly in power and momentum for a dramatic shift in Iraq policy seemed overpowering

So these losers, motivated by their dislike for Bush, their dangerous yet childish hatred of America when they are not in charge, and their collectivist partisan political attachment to the Bolshevik democrats, now that they no longer have a chance to help force us to lose, have not chosen to support the mission, but to undermine it somewhere else? This admission that their agenda was to force us to lose a critical battle in the GWoT - and their refusal to accept or concede that Iraq is a major battlefront in that war despite the fact that the very terror organizations we are fighting constantly say so is incredibly telling - for naught but political gain and BDS, should give anyone that sees where they want to take this now a pause. Again, their strategy is not predicated on what is good for America, but on what hurts Bush and helps their collectivist agenda. And while politics are certainly cynical, one must wonder if these people that still put their ideology & quest for power ahead of the welfare of the very people they claim to represent, can be trusted with any kind of power.

Then again, I remain certain that this is all talk on their part. The proof is in the fact that after they claimed to have won in 2006 on a platform of stopping the war - a bald faced lie and inaccurate assertion considering what most people voted for was a change in the war strategy, and not a humiliating withdrawal and catastrophic loss that would energize the enemy’s cause and plunge the world into a radicalized terror war that likely would end in a global nuclear war over oil - they could not even come close to slowing it down. And that despite a well orchestrated and MSM supported campaign of shameful lies about how the Surge had already failed & Iraq was lost, before that Surge was even effectively put in play, and all during the time it was going on. And that was done while clear signs of success where percolating despite the MSM’s attempts to not let people know it was working. More likely than anything, these democrat politicians, thinking they were a shoe to win the WH in 2008, realized that they would have to deal with the mess that this defeat would cause, and then simply resorted to meaningless overtures directed at the anti-war idiot constituency’s demands while having no intention of stopping anything. I am starting to believe that as is patently obvious, these democrats oppose Iraq right now for purely political reasons. Once they are in power I am sure Iraq suddenly will become critical and they will simply make up a reason why they now can not pull out. The anti-war crowd be damned. Besides, the majority of these idiots objecting to our involvement in Iraq now would suddenly do a 180 if a democrat was in charge. Their problem with Iraq is not the policy, the way we are doing it, the lack of WMDs (a bull line if ever), claims of falsified intelligence, a Zionist conspiracy, or anything else they might put up as a reason. Their objections, despite whatever they say, are based on a ridiculous and irrational hatred of Bush, and anger that they are not in charge of the WH.

The anti-war movement also thinks it has a winning argument when it comes to the length of time Americans are willing to see U.S. forces in Iraq. Roughly half of Americans recently surveyed by CBS News want most U.S. troops out within a year, and more than half think it was a mistake to invade in the first place. Every Democratic candidate for president has promised to withdraw almost all troops from Iraq within the first year of his or her presidency.

Hah! SeeBS polls that have conclusions favoring what the collectivists want huh? Say it ain’t so! I am sure the questions were not seriously rigged - like the ones the recent pollster from SeeBS asked me before hanging up when I refused to let them play their game - and biased towards that particular answer. And how fast do you think Americans would want troops back in Iraq once the terrorists moved from attacking us there to attacking us here in the US? Or when Iran goes nuclear and holds the oil flow hostage, drives the price to $350 a barrel, and the economies of the world collapse? Or even better, when these SeeBS poll’s questions, now rigged to suddenly favor staying because we have a donkey in the WH, say people want us to stay as long as it takes? Yeah, I am saying that every one of these democrats is lying about withdrawing troops. They lie about everything else - except their intention to raise taxes on the productive (which they label as the rich while the real rich people like them have their wealth hidden and safe) to pay for the votes they are now buying - so why not about this too?

Screw these collectivists.