Betraying Your Country WIth Impunity

The Democrats are falling all over themselves trying to one-up each other for the best idea to bring about concrete defeat in Iraq and to do it under the guise of being the one party that's really concerned about the welfare of the troops. Henry Waxman even used the word "defeat," and he did it in the past tense, i.e., not just that it's a foregone conclusion, but that it's already happened.

These are the same people who wished General Petreaus Godspeed on his new mission, and who have refrained from removing money where their mouth is. By not withholding funds to fight the war they claim is lost, It's tantamount to saying, "We lost, but don't quit dying yet because we still support that."

Of course, Obama said what he meant when he told a crowd that our soldiers' lives have been wasted, but here's something to consider when you think about that and everything else these traitors are saying and doing:

They all now have a vested interest in bringing about that for which they've gone on  the record. B.O., for example, needs now to always be able to show that lives have been wasted, for if by some miracle, we did something over there that the public might construe as success, where would that leave Barack-O?

The same goes for the rest of this miserable bunch. Where would a turnaround leave any Democrat but Lieberman? So instead of them being in prison, they will continue to tout more creative ways to insure that defeat is irreversible, and to guarantee that America is not just humiliated, but that it's its future dealings with friend and foe.

Oh, and let's never forget those Republicans who are now working toward similar ends, even if they'd never have done it had the Jackasses not provided the cover..

Now I hate to end on an even more negative note, but let's also not forget that George Bush left the door ajar to all of this. Had he communicated with us regularly an properly, and continually impressed upon us the seriousness of the mission and our progress, had he fought the war as it should have been fought, had he immediately fired anyone who kept us from achieving our goals, and had he confronted the Dems head-on and forcefully, he… well… he probably would never have had to do the latter if he'd done all of the former.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend


About tedwest

A longtime veteran of comedy and political forums, I decided that I needed a more restful venue because... well... I finally hate everybody. Except my wife that is... and my ex-wife.. and... no, that's about it. I lead about as simple a life as one can, preferring activities that include anything that doesn't involve going out and seeing YOU! And I particularly enjoy what I call "Get the Bitch" movies on Lifetime. You know the ones where the intended victim finally does something so incredibly stupid that she forfeits her right to live, and from that moment on you're rooting for the stalker. Of course, it rarely works out the way you want, but when it does, the feeling you get is... well, there's nothing else like it, other than, maybe, eating chocolate chip cookies. Oh, and I'm proudly anti-wildlife, both foreign and domestic, and anti-environment - especially foreign environments. I think Howard Stern put it best when he said, "If fifty percent of the population died tomorrow, I can live with that." And I feel the same about the other fifty percent, so together, we've pretty much got it all covered.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Betraying Your Country WIth Impunity

  1. X says:

    Betrayal? You have got to be kidding me.I can understand your anger here. But that is all you are delivering in your post. Not once do you show how exactly the Democrats are working to bring about defeat in Iraq. Incidentally you also open the door wide for further criticism of the current administration's handling of the war from the beginning. Tacitly I would say this also indicts all of those who went along with the president in lock step before the troops were even committed.The way I look at it, you are taking the easy way out – blind anger. It is as if you are saying that when a situation is this bad, it can not hurt to just shoot at random, because you are likely to hit some of those responsible.The issue I have with that is that it does not solve the problem. All those a-hole's in Washington may be making mistakes left and right, but if the public – meaning us – merely dissolves into fits of anger within our respective political camps where will we be then?Now is the time for rational voices that propose solutions. If you have got one, let us hear it so that we can talk about it.

  2. TedWest says:

    When I ran a forum, I used to say, "I only write it, I can't control how you read it," but I will try to clarify.
    How the Democrats are undermining our effort is obvious. Anyone who can't figure that out on his own is either a Democrat himself or otherwise incapable of doing so.
    As for inviting criticism of "the current administration," all the criticism available isn't nearly enough. When the Dems express regret for supporting the war, they have to claim they were misled, because they can't say that they supported overwhelming force and less concern for collateral damage. They didn't, and that would never had played with their base if they did.
    To be sure, had Bush waged the war as it should have been fought, it would have generated other, probably even louder, criticism. but we'd have either broken the back of the enemy, or we'd have been out by now, because no one expected that, four years later, we'd be losing our finest in dribs and drabs, the same way again and again, with no visible progress and no communication as to less apparent advances. It's "the current administration" that's responsible for that – not the Democrats.
    Now, regarding solutions, there are only three – pull out, stay the course (includes the surge), or wage war as it should be waged, and that's not me saying the latter, it's people like Col. Ralph Peters, Col. Jack Jacobs, and Col. David Hunt.
    Another Colonel, David Hackworth, was right from the start about this, and I was one who was initially shocked and angered by his position (not unlike you seem here toward me, btw). Time has vindicated Col. Hackworth.
    Had we lost 3000 men in the first weeks of combat, people would have understood, but no one should accept this, and blame goes to one man. The fact that so-called conservatives don't want to face that doesn't change the truth.

  3. c-breeze says:

    Have you read Tom Rick's Book "Fiasco". If not, its worth a look. While the author clearly has a political bias, its loaded with quotable facts from a lot of military and civilian leaders. Both conservatives and liberals should look at this book. He cites memos, speeches, interviews and conversations from Generals, to advisers, to Cabinet members about how the war was conducted, how personalities clashed and in general, how the whole thing was carried out. Rick's doesn't just put forth his own opinions, he puts words and the actions of those involved in carrying out the war for all to see. You can't just hold Bush accountable here for not running the war properly. The blame falls on the shoulders of a great many people, both inside and outside of the military. While you may have an opinion on how the war should have been run, it probably never would have happened the way you wanted it to because the military is not a monolithic organization. Every field commander ran his unit differently. There was no consistency. The enemy was completely underestimated and continues to be underestimated. Our military was never trained to fight this kind of war. We are totally unprepared to engage an enemy who doesn't wear a uniform and hides himself in among the general population. We haven't been prepared to engage an enemy who has no compunction about blowing himself up in a crowded market and killing even more of his own countrymen than he does U.S. soldiers. According to Rick's, there aren't just Sunni's and Shiites fighting over there, there are 27 different factions, all jockeying for a piece of the pie. In addition, Al Queda is recruiting new members to sneak over the border on a daily basis. Iran and Syria are smuggling weapons in to support insurgents, both Sunni and Shiite, to create chaos and the attacks on our soldiers continue. We are losing guys on a daily basis and I want to know what we are buying for those lives?What is victory? Define it!

  4. TedWest says:

    I see. Am I to believe that unlike in Harry Truman's day, nowadays the buck never stops?
    Let me give you a timeline: In the early weeks of the war, I said, "I don't like it, they aren't killing enough Iraqis," and I took a lot of heat for that. Then came the looting, the disbanding of the Iraqi army, the failure to attack a mosque, Fallujah, "take and leave," and for the past few years, "stay the course."
    All of which, Bush is responsible for. Jack Kelly wrote me when I complained that he wasn't holding Bush responsible, saying that he listened to his generals. NO, I told Mr. Kelly, that's the problem: after the listening comes the telling of what he wants done and the ordering of them to get it done. Then comes more listening as to how to accomplish it – then the firing when it doesn't happen.
    After the additional troops were announced, Don Imus greeted Colonel Jack Jacobs with, "Good morning Col. Jacobs, what's happening in Baghdad?"
    Col Jacobs: "Nothing good."
    He went on to say that this surge was nothing meaningful, that people would just "lay low" until it subsided and they regrouped.
    Instead of reading books like that, you should be reading Col. Peters columns. They are virtually irrefutable.
    One man – the fault stops there.

  5. Oh my, war is hell isn't it? We should have done it differently, we shouldn't have done it at all, They were all for it, now, they are all against it. They support the troops, they are back-stabbing the troops. We are going to prevail, we are going to suffer defeat.I find it very interesting that for 3 plus years, we have heard the Liberals denounce Bush for not forming a coalition, except for his water boy, Blair. Now, the Liberals are tauting the (same non-existent), coalition as falling apart, with Blair decreasing his number of troops, along with Denmark, and we will be left alone in Iraq. We, the American public have been subjected to this kind of rhetoric for the entire war. Unlike our politicians, and the Media, we have to work to pay their salaries and fund their ear marks, so we do not have the time to research the integrity/truth contained in their remarks. The twists and spins put on everything by the Media cannot be trusted. One thing we know from History and has been repeated many times of late is this: The Arab countries have been at war with the world and each other since time began. If that is truly the case, then we can conclude the Arabs have been a negative, violent, murderous, and many other hideous descriptives as any group of people to have walked the earth. They have stated they want to change the world into an Islam World and will use any means to reach that goal. If you want to live as an Islamic person, please move to an Arab country.

  6. X says:

    I have heard much of late on the incomparable irrationality of liberals. But nothing I have seen from the liberal point of view compares with this tripe:One thing we know from History and has been repeated many times of late
    is this: The Arab countries have been at war with the world and each
    other since time began. If that is truly the case, then we can conclude
    the Arabs have been a negative, violent, murderous, and many other
    hideous descriptives as any group of people to have walked the earth. They
    have stated they want to change the world into an Islam World and will
    use any means to reach that goal. If you want to live as an Islamic
    person, please move to an Arab country. With hatefilled rhetoric you have shown in yourself the worst of the conservative stereotypes. Offensive does not begin to describe it.You've also shown abject ignorance of the situation and of history.- The US attacked Iraq without provocation.- The war between Iran and Iraq was promulgated by the US in the 80's.- The US special ops through the CIA's "secret war" against the USSR in Afghanistan armed and trained the mujehedin in terrorist and guerilla tactics. They became our enemies when we abandoned them. We are fighting them to this day as international terrorists.- Palestians were a peaceful people until their villages were bulldozed to make room for European Jews post Holocaust.- Iraq as we knew it under Saddam was a result of British colonization. And could only be united and stable under an iron fist as it is not a natural country, but an artificially defined territory spanning numerous religions, factions and ethnicities.All of this can be traced back to the way the west treated the Ottoman Empire as it declined. Prior to World War I the western nations were hungry for a piece of the Middle East, and did whatever they could to carve out zones of influence. This was called the great game. In fact Rudyard Kipling wrote a novel of the same name about Kitchener. You also might be familiar with Lawrence of Arabia. Keep in mind that this just scratches the surface of the history. It'll take a lot of reading to speak on this subject with any kind of authority.I have travelled in the Arab world, and also read widely about it as I find the culture fascinating. I've also grown up amidst Iranians, Saudi's, Egyptians, and Palestians. Its a benefit from growing up in a diverse and open cultural environment. Despite all this I would never attempt to generalize about arab cultures or the middle east. Its much too complex a subject to approach in this way without devoting your life to it.Your racism exposes how very little you know on the subject.

  7. TedWest says:

    You may agree or disagree with Mad's comment, but there was nothing racist in it except in the mind of a PC saturated wacko.
    And if that weren't bad enough, you reinforce that image at the very beginning with that bit of liberal nonsense.
    I like rational debate, but I don't suffer idiots well, so when you say we attacked without provocation, you've disqualified yourself from real debate.
    And your travel in the Middle East appears to have made you more of an Arab apologist than an the authority on Arab culture you fancy yourself.
    Now, how many conflicts in the world today have no Muslim involvement?

  8. Thank you Mr West for your remarks. I did not mean to sound racist. I am only judging by all the terror attacks that have taken place in just the past few years and the words the Arab leaders are saying openly to the rest of the world. I confess my personal knowledge is limited by comparison to Mr. H. but he has made himself known to be impressed with the Arab culture and I would hope he can rummage the money to buy a one-way ticket back. I bet he tape records everything he writes, as he sounds like an arrogant windbag, in love with himself. If he has never seen anything from a Liberal that compares to my tripe; I would advise Mr. H. to open his eyes, so he doesn't get hit by a bus crossing the street. If you think I am the worst of the conservative stereotype; you haven't met my brother, A Big Bad Ass Marine putting his life on the line for this country. You call me a racist when you made an inflammatory remark about the Jews. You are a true Liberal hypocrite and I think you are a poor excuse for an American. Why don't you change your citizenship and go preach your liberalism in some Arab country. Good luck with that move.

  9. TedWest says:

    You know, Maddy, I don't care how I sound anymore, and there are no bigger racists and anti-Semites than liberals.
    And anyone who defends Muslims has to overlook the incredible amount of evil things they've done and are doing (Slavery and Darfur for example).
    With respect to Israel, I won't countenance anyone who does not recognize its right to exist and accords them moral superiority, both as a people and for their political system, if for no other reason than the most free Arabs in the world live in Israel, and the killing between the Israelis and the "Palestinians" stops when the latter stops killing.
    The trouble is, you won't be able to discuss any of this with someone who writes this on his blog:
    To me it is an affirmation that despite how conservative the media has become under the Bush administration with regards to reporting on the occupation of Iraq and the so called War on Terror…
    Such a distorted view cannot stand the light of reason, much less participate in it.

  10. X says:

    Well, perhaps I'll try again. I don't like to write people off as hopeless, because anyone can learn.Madmouser's comment, which I quoted in my first comment, is by definition racist. It has nothing to do with PC language. It is a negative generalization of an entire race based on the actions of a few as perceived by someone who has little if any interaction with them.Its an open shut case. If you can present something other than hyperbole to defend yourself, I'd be happy to hear it.I have hardly disqualified myself from rational debate by stating that we attacked Iraq without provocation. Bush himself called the action in Iraq a preemptive action. He took us to war against a country that did not launch a military strike against us. Incidentally, you probably do not remember this, but Clinton went down a similar path as Bush in trying to put Saddam into a corner so as to justify going to war in Iraq. Its the reason why the UN Weapons Inspectors were thrown out of the country in the first place. Again no WMD's were found then either. And the same guy, a Republican by the way, who was furious at Clinton for attempting to use the UN Inspectors to incite war with Iraq, spoke clearly to the Bush administration explaining that there were no WMD's. Team Bush ignored him, called him crazy, censored him and moved on with their plan.How many conflicts have no Arab involvement? How about all of the conflicts without Arab involvement. Your question is specious, and improperly frames one view of war in the first place, as it depends upon the assumption of an inflamatory stereotype. Race is almost never the primary reason for going to war. It is merely a tool that the elite uses to foment support for their call to war. Wars are issues over power – fighting for territory, resources, change of state etc…It is a real shame that when someone recites unembroidered history of the Middle East that he is called an Arab Appologist. Do you have any idea why we are in Iraq? If you do not know this history, then your words on the subject are meaningless. I will admit that I do not have a complete grasp on the entire subject either, but at least I am able to recite relevant facts in the situation's history to explain why I think the way I do. If you have evidence to back up your suppositions, please show and tell.I'll give you a hint. Perle, and Wolfowitz wrote some of the reasons for this war down back in the 90's. Despite Clinton's clandestine maneuverings in the Gulf the plans were shelved.Also, Madmouser, how exactly is stating what happened in Palestine post WW2 racist or inflamatory? Do you not know this history either? Did I say that all Jews kill Arabs on site? Did I generalize about Jews at all? Not once. I merely stated what happened when the Allied powers decided to seize Palestine to make room for a new Israel. How is stating a fact inflamatory? Furthermore to my knowledge, I am not aware whether the relocated Jews did any of the bulldozing, and if you read that into my comment, I deeply appologize, for I did not mean it in that way at all. I do not know who drove the dozers, but it is a matter of historical record that many Palestinian settlements were bulldozed, and the Palestinians living within those settlements were relocated to refugee camps.Mouser, I don't know what you are trying to say by comparing your brother to the worst kind of conservative just because he is a marine. If your brother is a conservative, I'd say he is the best sort for he has actually put his life behind his convictions. I may not agree with his convictions (although without knowing him I have no idea what they are), but I definitely respect anyone with that level of integrity. Likewise, I've known plenty of liberal minded folks that volunteered to enter the conflict as well, both as combatants as well as medical personel. Their reasons may have been different, maybe the same, but it remains the same they joined the military – and not all came back.Incidentally about the Marines: I have heard it said that the Marines were very effective in Baghdad because they were well trained for the operation and disciplined. This might be a good topic for future conversation about the occupation in Iraq and the type of troops and/or training programs that are better suited for the operation.And lastly, West, you certainly can discuss any of this with me if you have the courage to. If you would prefer just to shut down the lines of communication when someone with different ideas challenges you, well … thats up to you.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s