Article

2007-03-28 Home Front: Politix

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by ryuge 2007-03-28 00:42|| || Front Page|| [2 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 How curious it is to see the democrats slowly back away from demanding a complete troop withdrawal. Much more so when such a thing would seem to suit their own purposes in an ideal fashion.

Far less likely would be for them to request a partial withdrawal that would allow Shiite and Sunni factions to escalate their incessant bloodletting for all to see. Even though a residual troop presence would provide immeasurable assistance in combating terrorism. Absent any American intervention, Iraq's Muslim population could begin decimating themselves without a single American finger being lifted.

While this would certainly serve the ends of a Global War on Terrorism, the democrats cannot stomach the possibility of having to admit that, regardless of our presence in Iraq, the internecine slaughter there would continue unabated.

The democratic party's embrace of Islam is so thorough and ongoing that there is no way for them to understand how important it is to let Muslims go about killing each other with grim determination so that the West can enjoy a modicum of increased security.

Increased security? Perish the thought! Not that democrats are unwilling to seek better security for America and its citizens. It's just that they simply cannot stand the idea of better security coming at any cost to precious Muslim lives, no matter how murderous those given individuals might be.

This is what shall, someday, make the democrats party to one thing alone: Namely, a party to treason.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-03-28 03:49|| 2007-03-28 03:49|| Front Page Top

#2 For several years now the Democrats' entire political strategy has consisted of deriding the Bush administration for entering into a war of choice to oust the Iraqi dictator (a course of action which the Dems originally approved).

The American people primarily empowered the Democrats out of dissatisfaction with our demonstrated inability to cripple the insurgents' capability to conduct violent attacks, but I believe the Democrats have misread the nature of whatever mandate they may have received from the election results.

Although it is reasonable for Congress to hold the president's feet to the fire in his overseeing the stabilization of Iraq within a reasonable timeframe, I have seen no evidence that the public (other than the Dems' radical antiwar base) demands an "evacuation at any cost" strategy which disregards the future condition of Iraq and the rest of the Middle East. The majority of Americans would welcome the change in counterinsurgency strategy AS IT STARTS TO SHOW PROGRESS.

Politically this spells disaster for the Democrats, who have now committed themselves to ensuring the failure which they have for so long decribed as inevitable.

Posted by Harcourt Javique3763 2007-03-28 04:56|| 2007-03-28 04:56|| Front Page Top

#3 They don't misread it. They realize the demented wing of the Democratic party is out to lunch. They are hoping they can fleece them of more money and favorable media attention while not turning off the American Public.

Expect them to go back to the nutroots saying "Oh Baby! I'm trying just as hard as I can! It's those terrible Republicans. Give me more money and we'll fix things in 2008!"

I don't know if this will work, but I'm sure if they get in the White House they'll do the same things that Bush is doing now (except that the NY Times will think it's OK).

Al

Posted by Frozen Al 2007-03-28 14:24|| 2007-03-28 14:24|| Front Page Top