If things keep looking up in Iraq, Larry Flynt may have to reverse his constant onslaught of “we lost the war” articles.
Leftwingnut blogs are amping up attacks on anyone who dares doubt the received radical left wisdom that the War for Iraqi Independence is lost and President Bush is a failed leader.
The latest blasphemy has come from the NYT, hard-core critic of all things Dubya, and still a force in the MSM, even though its “Paper of Record” era is long over.
Lefty blogs are speaking as one, viciously denigrating the authors and cherry picking facts to try to refute the undeniable progress in Iraq. Everyone from Olby to Murtha is on TeeVee sputtering and spitting mad that the tide might be turning, and the LameStreamMedia© is jumping onboard so they don’t look like idiots when the progress is too evident to bury any longer.
Tone-deaf far-lefties like House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) openly admit that
“I think there would be enough support in that group to want to stay the course and if the Republicans were to stay united as they have been, then it would be a problem for us,” Clyburn said. “We, by and large, would be wise to wait on the report.”
So the U.S. winning in Iraq is a problem for the opposition party. Is it ok to stop calling them the loyal opposition?
So what is up with American citizens and politicians wishing ill on U.S. troops and the country’s interests in general? Its as clear as Hilary’s cleavage:
Anything and everything the President does or stands for causes a knee-jerk reaction from Dems and especially from the loony left. If the U.S. does well over-seas, in any endeavour, then this reflects positively on George W. Bush, and that causes apoplexy among the tinfoil faithful.
Sub-categorically, leftists want the Republicans damaged by the war so that they can gain seats in Congress and hopefully the presidency as well in ’08. Notwithstanding Dem and LSM cheerleading and crowing about how tough it will be for the Republicans to retain the White House, Guiliani, McCain and Thompson (Fred, not Tommy) are all very viable candidates who would draw independant votes, and even significant Dem support depending on who the Dems end up nominating.
Hilary! is well-hated; Obambi is a naif; Edwards is, well, he’s Edwards and that’s enough. It really stretches the imagination to cook up a scenario where any of them beats Guiliani, who will pick up some Kerry-blue states if he is the nominee. Neither Thompson or McCain will lose any states Bush won, and even Romney could pull out a win, in the long-shot chance he is nominated.
So the leftwingnutroots and their Dem pol allies’ numero uno reason to hope U.S. servicemen are killed in great numbers and Iraq descends into a civil war hell-hole is for political gain by the Dems in ’08 and beyond.
The radical left wants the U.S. defeated and humiliated because they do not see America as a force for good in the world. They do not see the U.S. as the “last, best hope” of the free world. Instead, they don’t want U.S. military might used anywhere, and seeing America retreat ignominiously would warm their little pink hearts. They barely bother to hide their disdain for the gung-ho, highly motivated soldiers who revel in “fuck(ing) them up” when they go out to kill baddies.
The hard left sees no reason for the U.S. to ever extend its military might to protect American interests. “No Blood for Anything”, even to prevent genocide, according to Obambi, even as he advocates attacking a sovereign nation (Pakistan) that is cooperating in the WOT, potentially destabilizing that country and installing a hard-core Islamist government so we can catch a few ineffective figure-heads who are too pursued and harried to do any real planning and executing of terror. In reality, Obambi probably wouldn’t unleash the Marines even if North Korea bombed Pearl Harbor. He’d opt for diplomacy.
UPDATE: Hah! Pakistan responds: Pakistan slams ‘ignorant’ Obama attack warning
ISLAMABAD (AFP) – Pakistan accused Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama of “sheer ignorance” for threatening to launch US military strikes against Al-Qaeda on Pakistani soil.
Obama warned Wednesday that if he is elected president, he would order US forces to hit extremist targets on Pakistan’s frontier with Afghanistan if embattled military ruler President Pervez Musharraf failed to act.
“Such statements are being made out of sheer ignorance,” Pakistan’s Minister of State for Information, Tariq Azeem, told AFP. “They are not fully apprised about the ground realities and not aware of the efforts by Pakistan.”
That’s part deux of why the left wants the U.S. to lose in Iraq.
The amount of crow that the left would have to eat if President Bush and Gen. Patraeus prevail is going to be a prodigious mass, more even than Oprah’s ass, Hilary’s thighs and Whoopie’s gut put together. Trillions of pixels and miles of video tape have been expended with lefties expounding about Bush’s failure and the impossibility of victory in Iraq. How they will spin a win by America into a loss will be a contortion worthy of Nora Novovsamboo.
The spin has already begun, with Murtha trotting out old favorites like “a million Iraqis killed” and the “trillions wasted on the war”. These people would have been a godsend for Hitler had they been in office during the ’40’s when the U.S. was taking a pounding and heavy casualties.
So the left is going to try to stand on the shaky pillar of “ok, we won but it wasn’t worth it”. The majority of American citizens, regardless of LSM common wisdom, doesn’t like to lose wars. And they understand a victory in Iraq is necessary and vital to our future and the future of real peace in the Middle East. The Dems are basically cementing their rep as not being worthy, able nor willing to protect America in increasingly dangerous times. And they may pay by having to deal with a new Republican president to derange over in ’08 and beyond.
And Cal Thomas thinks like I do:
Most Democrats seem so invested in defeat in Iraq that they apparently have no “Plan B,” which would be success.
Like the character Billy Bigelow in the musical “Carousel,” who is dumbstruck when he realizes he has not thought about the possibility that his pregnant wife might actually deliver a girl, instead of the son he wants, Democrats appear unable to conceive of victory, or at least stability in Iraq.
So cynical have our politics become that a spokesman for Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Democratic leaders are “not willing to concede there are positive things to point to” in Iraq. And House Majority Whip James E. Clyburn said that a favorable report from Gen. Petraeus could lead 47 moderate to conservative “Blue Dog” Democrats to oppose a withdrawal timetable, making it virtually impossible for the liberal leadership to pass withdrawal legislation. “(It would be) a real problem for us,” said Clyburn.
Is that what the Iraq war has become? Instead of viewing it as a generational war that will determine the future of civilization (because, if we lose, Iraq will become a launching pad for terrorist acts around the world and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis would surely die), is it now just another tool in the Democrat’s quest for the White House? Where are the statesmen who put their country and its interests before personal and political interests? Was Harry Truman right when he observed, “A statesman is a politician who has been dead for 10 or 15 years”? Aren’t we Americans before we are Republicans or Democrats? And don’t we all lose if one political “side” wins and it costs others their freedom and puts America in greater peril?