John Warner has gone traitor on us.
Sen. John Warner’s call for troop withdrawals from Iraq is likely to ratchet up pressure on President Bush substantially and lend momentum to Democratic efforts to end U.S. combat.
Warner, R-Va., former chairman of the Armed Services Committee and Navy secretary during the Vietnam War, said Bush should bring some troops home by Christmas. Doing so, he told reporters Thursday, would send a powerful message that the U.S. commitment in Iraq was not open-ended.
Sending the troops home at Christmas would indeed send a powerful message: to our enemies, it would send a message that America is now run by a bunch of cowardly, Frenchified surrender monkeys who don’t have the guts to see tough tasks through and can easily be frightened away from doing what it takes to keep this country safe, Christian and free.
We’re in a war, Senator Warner. There are only two sides in a war, and cowards who run away from the fight are no better than the evildoers shooting at our boys. Some of our enemies have already taken solace in Senator Warner’s words:
Democrats say the grim report and Warner’s conclusion bolster their position that Bush should change course and start bringing troops home this fall. Party leaders this year tried to pass legislation ordering troops home this fall, but repeatedly fell short of the 60 votes needed in the Senate to pass.
You reap what you sow, RINOs. Real patriots will not forget those who stabbed them in the back in their hour of desperation.
Blogs 4 Brownback 
Dear Brother Sisyphus,
I am so distressed right now that I just do not know what to think. All I have ever wanted is for good, Christian, conservative leadership for this country and every time I turn around I hear more tragic news from within the party. John Warner will be removed from my prayer list immediately. May God deal with this betrayal with a smite of epic proportions.
God Bless you, dear, man for remaining true to the cause.
Comment by Mrs. T.D. Gaines-Crockett — August 24, 2007 @ 5:35 am |
Way to stab our troops in the back, Verner. It’s bad enough when demoRATs like Cindy Sheehag bark at the moon, but a so-called Republican? Time to flush this senator down the John.
Way to wave the white flag for our enemies, JW.
Comment by Psycheout — August 24, 2007 @ 6:37 am |
Over 3000 losses, more money and a longer committment that WWII. And the Insurgents are still standing. You call that easily be frightened away?
I´d call that a determined, costly and really tough fight, requiring lots of effort, fighting spirit and sacrifices.
It wasn´t smart, the strategical decision were disastrous at best, but on the tactical level, you have made the point. Better to leave it be before it becomes really VIetnam II, as one has to see by now that brute force is simply inept to make any real progress against a insurgency/guerilla movement.
There are only two sides in a war, and cowards who run away from the fight are no better than the evildoers shooting at our boys.
Yeah, if it were a cowardly flight. It´s more like a strategical withdrawal. Unliked, but necessary. The only thing you can achieve with staying in Iraq is to present the insurgents more opportunities to kill american troops and use the whole occupation as a propaganda vehicle for recruiting more and more fighters.
Comment by PG — August 24, 2007 @ 7:18 am |
I never trusted Warner. He was, after all, the 7th concubine of that Jewish sorceress Elizabeth Taylor – who says Michael Jackson is her best friend.
Comment by Helen Bock — August 24, 2007 @ 7:26 am |
Vermin like Warner just want to cut and run, PG. It’s strategic withdrawal like Napoleon’s 1812 rout was- it’s the beginning of the end. Only America is a free nation, unlike Napoleon’s French eclair-guzzling despotism.
Comment by Sisyphus — August 24, 2007 @ 8:34 am |
Warner mind as well wrap a rag around his head and start praying to Mecca five times a day like a Democrat. I think Rhino is to soft of a label for Warner, traitor is what I call him and the Constitution and Jesus as very clear as to what you do with traitors.
Comment by BJ Tabor — August 24, 2007 @ 9:12 am |
Vermin like Warner just want to cut and run, PG. It’s strategic withdrawal like Napoleon’s 1812 rout was- it’s the beginning of the end. Only America is a free nation, unlike Napoleon’s French eclair-guzzling despotism.
I see that differrent. The sad truth is that the situation right now in Iraq heavily favors the insurgents and islamistic terrorism in general. And a committment of even more troops won´t change the situation. There are only 2 possibilities:
1. Stay, even though it makes US troops susceptible to attacks and helps the terrorist´s propaganda efforts.
2. Withdraw and tighten security at home, letting the terrorists stand out as immoral aggressors, thus winning back worldwide support while saving a lot of money and blood.
If I were to find a similar situation in history, Kesselrings withdrawal from the Gustav Line would be a good example. The line had held for almost half a year, Monte Cassino, it´s focal point was still held firmly by the 1st Para Division, but the free french corps had broken it southwards. Kesselring knew that he couldn´t hold the line indefinitely. And every passing second brought the risk of having his troops surrounded by Allied forces breaking through or the Allies at Anzio breaking out of their bridgehead.
He did the only sensible thing: He ordered a general withdrawal towards the Gothic Line. Together with a gross error by US General Clark, this saved the whole Army Group´s hides and prolonged the Italy Campaign well into 1945. The Allies in Italy would never reach the Austrian borders due to this.
Comment by PG — August 24, 2007 @ 9:12 am |
Kesselring has nothing to do with this situation, PG. Cutting and running from Iraq is a strategic defeat, just like trying to flee Russia was for Napoleon. We’ll lose a similar portion of our military in the process, too. You can’t have 150,000 troops jump up and run for the borders. It’d be a massacre. Anyone who suggests it is a traitor.
Comment by Sisyphus — August 24, 2007 @ 9:15 am |
Kesselring has nothing to do with this situation, PG. Cutting and running from Iraq is a strategic defeat, just like trying to flee Russia was for Napoleon. We’ll lose a similar portion of our military in the process, too. You can’t have 150,000 troops jump up and run for the borders. It’d be a massacre. Anyone who suggests it is a traitor.
Iraq will be a defeat one way or the other. The only thing that can be influenced is how long it will take and how smooth the eventual withdrawal will go. Hard and fast slow and painful? Not quite a convenient choice to make, but it has to be done. And somehow I think that most Iraqui insurgents wouldn´t try to prevent a US withdrawal. They´d be too occupied by gaining a powerbase for the almost inevitable full scale civil war.
Comment by PG — August 24, 2007 @ 10:04 am |
And somehow I think that most Iraqui insurgents wouldn´t try to prevent a US withdrawal. They´d be too occupied by gaining a powerbase for the almost inevitable full scale civil war.
PG, The insurgents will attack our retreating troops every chance they get. There true master Satan will order them too.
Comment by BJ Tabor — August 24, 2007 @ 11:21 am |
Ever the defeatist, eh PG? No wonder you guys were 0-2 in 20th century wars. You did a good job beating up the French, Austrians, and Danes before that, but those are hardly first-tier enemies. Even the British mopped the floor with you guys. (I guess you beat the Namas and Herrerros, too. Kudos!)
Comment by Sisyphus — August 24, 2007 @ 11:22 am |
Eh, Sisyphus, before you go patting yourself on the back for all your military victories – one word: Vietnam
Comment by Sam Brownback — August 24, 2007 @ 11:35 am |
Vietnam was a victory, Tyler.
Comment by Sisyphus — August 24, 2007 @ 11:52 am |
PG, The insurgents will attack our retreating troops every chance they get. There true master Satan will order them too.
Those guys have clear targets:
1. To get the USA out of their country.
2. To ensure that their politicial/ethnical/religious group gets to control the country.
Once US troops are getting out, they´ll be too busy fighting each other.
Ever the defeatist, eh PG? No wonder you guys were 0-2 in 20th century wars. You did a good job beating up the French, Austrians, and Danes before that, but those are hardly first-tier enemies. Even the British mopped the floor with you guys. (I guess you beat the Namas and Herrerros, too. Kudos!)
I guess it´s more with having whackos in command (especially WWII, although the whole situation that begun WWI showed half of europe to have incompetent morons ruling their nations) and rather suboptimal allies (Mussoline, he jumps as a Tiger and lands as a bedside carpet. 🙂 ).
We didn´t loose due to military prowess but rather due to being outnumbered and outproduced. And unlike that nutter Hitler, most Wehrmacht staff knew when a withdrawal was the smarter thing. If they´d obeyed his “hold at all costs” idiotism, the war´d have been over at least half a year sooner. There´s a differrence between being a realist and a pessimist.
And I´d say 1-2 by now, seeing that West Germany was the big winner of the Cold War. Not to mention peace keeping ops like the Balcans.
PS: The british were at that time a superpower. And they had the fight of their lives with us. Oh, and I´d be a bit cautious in your place, I can remember the brits having a barbeque party using the White House as grill.
Comment by PG — August 24, 2007 @ 12:06 pm |
Vietnam was a victory, Tyler.
How´s loosing any sense of discipline and moral in the army and having to flee the country, leaving it to the commies a victory?
Comment by PG — August 24, 2007 @ 12:07 pm |
PS: Psycheoput, we never stomped the Austrians.
Comment by PG — August 24, 2007 @ 12:08 pm |
I guess it´s more with having whackos in command (especially WWII, although the whole situation that begun WWI showed half of europe to have incompetent morons ruling their nations) and rather suboptimal allies (Mussoline, he jumps as a Tiger and lands as a bedside carpet. ).”
Mussolini was certainly a nutter, no argument here.
“We didn´t loose due to military prowess but rather due to being outnumbered and outproduced. And unlike that nutter Hitler, most Wehrmacht staff knew when a withdrawal was the smarter thing. If they´d obeyed his “hold at all costs” idiotism, the war´d have been over at least half a year sooner. There´s a differrence between being a realist and a pessimist.”
Whine, whine, whine. You lost. Admit it. I can hear anyone offering your excuses. The Aztecs: “We only lost because the Spanish had better technology.” Persia: “We only lost because the Greeks had better training and equipment.” Canaanites: “We only lost because God was helping the Hebrews.”
The German generals still lost. If they were such great generals, they would’ve defected. Instead, they fought for the evil loser. By your standards, everyone who survived any war without injury won, even if they were on the losing side.
“And I´d say 1-2 by now, seeing that West Germany was the big winner of the Cold War. Not to mention peace keeping ops like the Balcans.”
There was no fighting. It doesn’t count. Ditto the peacekeeping ops.
“How´s loosing any sense of discipline and moral in the army and having to flee the country, leaving it to the commies a victory?”
While we were there, Vietnam stayed free.
“PS: Psycheoput, we never stomped the Austrians.”
PS My name’s Sisyphus, Dunderhead. And you’re forgetting the year 1866 and the battle of Mollwitz.
Comment by Sisyphus — August 24, 2007 @ 12:26 pm |
Is that Kesselring man the same one who makes the sauerkraut?
Comment by Ann O'Maly — August 24, 2007 @ 1:13 pm |
Whine, whine, whine. You lost. Admit it. I can hear anyone offering your excuses
It was never meant as an excuse. Just as a matter of fact.
If they were such great generals, they would’ve defected.
You know, I thought you could understand what patriotism can cause. 🙂
And by the way, several did. Others tried to get rid of Hitler, too bad he was such a lucky bastard.
There was no fighting. It doesn’t count. Ditto the peacekeeping ops.
Matter of fact, there was quite some fighting on the balcans. And now in Afghanistan, too. And whether there was or not, Germany still “won” the Cold War. The reunification proves it.
While we were there, Vietnam stayed free.
Just that most Vietnamese didn´t want to “stay free”. And that it cost thousands of civilians their lives. And thousands of US soldiers. And of course, it´s the outcome that counts. And the outcome can still be seen today: Vietnam is a communist country.
Is that Kesselring man the same one who makes the sauerkraut?
Just look under http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERkesselring.htm . IT´s pretty accurate.
Comment by PG — August 24, 2007 @ 1:25 pm |
We didn´t loose due to military prowess but rather due to being outnumbered and outproduced.
This may come as surprise to you PG but the German army in Russia was almost equal in size the Soviet army threw out most of the war. The reasons there are stories of “vast Soviet hoards” was the Russians were much better at concentrating their troops at the point of attack than the German army was. The German generals were too racist to accept that Slavs could do this so they came up with this myth of vast numbers.
As for being out produced what do you expect when you declare war on the country who’se GDP is larger than the rest of the word’s combined?
Oh, and I´d be a bit cautious in your place, I can remember the brits having a barbeque party using the White House as grill.
And the troops who did were decimated by a tornado right afterwards. If that is not the Hand of God I do not know what is.
Comment by BJ Tabor — August 24, 2007 @ 3:05 pm |
Sorry, BJ, but your GPD´s not even close to 50% of the world´s total.
This may come as surprise to you PG but the German army in Russia was almost equal in size the Soviet army threw out most of the war. The reasons there are stories of “vast Soviet hoards” was the Russians were much better at concentrating their troops at the point of attack than the German army was. The German generals were too racist to accept that Slavs could do this so they came up with this myth of vast numbers.
It may be a surprise to you that, while the operational strengt of the Red Army was not that overwhelming, their reserves and ability to simply replace any losses were. AS one general said: “The russians might place a dozen infantry divisions. Those might not be close to ours in terms of training or equipment, but they exist. And if we destroy them, the russians simply raise another dozen.”
And the troops who did were decimated by a tornado right afterwards. If that is not the Hand of God I do not know what is.
And Canada´s still an independent country. Ooops.
But then, US military prowess can be hardly underestimated:
1. War of Independence – with their French allies, the US failed to land a single soldier in Britain, Britain got bored and went to fight the French properly instead. 🙂
2. War of 1812 – Yanks got their capital burned down by the British and they failed in their war aim of capturing Canada.
3. Spanish American War – Yanks fail to capture Cuba and have been whining about it ever since. (Especially after Castro stepped into the door.)
4. Mexican War – Yanks fail to save the Alamo from a bunch of Mexican bandidos.
5. WW1 – Yanks join just in time for closing ceremony and medals, failing to make a proper contribution (note WWI 1914-1918, NOT 1917-1918)
6. WW2 – Yanks again fail to join in time, bled Britain dry in war loans first (that were only finally paid off a couple of years ago) Note WW2 1939-1945, not 1941-1945
7. Korea – as part of the UN, Yanks forced to take part.
8. Vietnam – Yanks fail to defeat sandal-wearing peasant army
9. Grenada – Yanks suffer casualties in overwhelming invasion of peaceful holiday island
10. GW 1 – Yanks fail to pursue Iraqi Army, yet manage to kill more British/own soldiers than the Iraqis
11. GW 2 – Yanks failing to defeat insurgents and blaming the British/Liberals/Easter Bunny
12. Northern Ireland 1970 – 2001, Yanks finance terrorists engaged in killing British soldiers
Just for a few highlights.
Comment by PG — August 24, 2007 @ 3:17 pm |
He was always a leftist. Didn’t he marry Liz Taylor long ago?
Comment by John Galt — August 24, 2007 @ 9:45 pm |
You’re an ingrate, PG, and a fool. We should’ve let the USSR overrun the lot of you. Stalin might’ve taught you better manners. I disagree with his ideas, but America could stand to learn from some of his methods.
Comment by Sisyphus — August 25, 2007 @ 11:19 am |
Sounds like you have a lot of guys ready to stand in for Yezhov and Vyshinsky.
No shortage of talent then.
Sanity – London
Comment by Hugh — August 26, 2007 @ 12:58 pm |
“Sounds like you have a lot of guys ready to stand in for Yezhov and Vyshinsky”
They were Jewish and Latvian Communists. We’re Christians. They acted out of hate, we act out of love.
Comment by Sisyphus — August 27, 2007 @ 6:01 pm |
Thanks Sisyphus. You’re quite right. I missed that !
Comment by Hugh — August 29, 2007 @ 6:55 am |
“It’s strategic withdrawal like Napoleon’s 1812 rout was- it’s the beginning of the end.”
Thank god. I’ll be quite glad when the “American Century” is over.
Anyone want to take bets on when the US is no longer a world super-power?
I’m guessing 2030, because Global Warming, combined with the US’ total lack of innovation apropos green house gas emission reductions and multilateral climate agreements, will totally decimate the breadbasket. After that, there will be a mass exodus from Jesusland to the blue states, subsequently dropping average IQ by a whopping 30 points.
My two. Feel free to submit your own predictions!
Comment by donkspeedonkdonk — August 29, 2007 @ 12:02 pm |
The Rapture should sort all that out.
Comment by Hugh — August 29, 2007 @ 12:58 pm |
The Rapture is a euphemistic metaphor for the destruction of humanity. Unfortunately, it relies on the assumption that there is a heaven and hell. Meanwhile–in this world–the economy and environment are going to the latter in a handbasket while Christians think everything is hunky-dory, they just have to keep on livin’ like good ole clean Americans (hyuk.).
Why couldn’t a less destructive religion have become the predominant one in North America during the century I’m alive? *facepalm*
Comment by donkspeedonkdonk — August 29, 2007 @ 1:31 pm |
The Church of the Flying Spagetti Monster seems to be making an effort. Sort of Pasta Rapture. Commended by Dawkins no less.
Comment by Hugh — August 30, 2007 @ 8:16 am |