Blogs 4 Brownback

April 26, 2007

Michelle Malkin Shakes the Democrats Up

Filed under: Blogging,Democratic Idiocy,Media,Snark,YouTube — Sisyphus @ 7:46 am

The lovely Michelle Malkin cheerleads the Defeatocrats into their proper role. Losers, the lot of them.

UPDATE: Sheer idiocy.

UPDATE II: Even more idiocy. The comments are not for the weak of stomach.


  1. You’re serious, aren’t you. Well, it certainly helps explain your political choices.

    Comment by les — April 26, 2007 @ 12:58 pm | Reply

  2. Michelle Malkin is smart, talented and gorgeous, les. Brownback is a dedicated, sincere, patriotic American who will make a fine President. What’s your point?

    Comment by Sisyphus — April 26, 2007 @ 3:31 pm | Reply

  3. Smart? Not well evidenced by her writing, but I’ll go along. Talented? Not at anything attempted in the video. Gorgeous–eye of the beholder. The video? It combines the production values and dance/cheering talents of an 11 year olds’ slumber party; the woman is supposed to be an adult and a Serious Commentator? The underlying premise is equally juvenile–please, defeatocrat? are we fifth graders? It addresses nothing of substance; typically avoids defining success, victory, or a plan; ignores the fact that the overwhelming majority of top military leaders who comment agree that military victory is not possible; ignores that Petraeus agrees that without regional diplomacy and political change (which your Decider finds beneath him), military victory is not possible. It’s childish, without substance, immature–how many ways can I say it? And it’s embarrassingly without talent, grace, athleticism, etc. And, as I said, helps explain your fascination with Brownback.

    Comment by les — April 26, 2007 @ 3:52 pm | Reply

  4. The Democrats want us to lose the War in Iraq. Michelle Malkin correctly identifies this defeatism as the mentality of perennial losers. The video is a tongue-in-cheek presentation of this perspective. If anything, it’s a favor to the Democrats, by challenging their perceptions and urging them to become less defeatist in their outlook. You should be thanking Michelle Malkin for critiquing your Democrat leaders, not criticizing her performance or levelling ad hominems at Senator Brownback, or at me. How does that help address the defeatism of the Democrats?

    Comment by Sisyphus — April 27, 2007 @ 8:33 am | Reply

  5. Look, you guys really need to rejoin the real world if you expect to effect politics. This isn’t rocket science. Let’s ignore the fact that all of the reasons offered for attacking Iraq were wrong, and just look at where we are.

    We had war. It lasted a few weeks, and not surprisingly the world’s superpower kicked the ass of a tinpot dictator weakened by years of international sanctions and the fact that none of his neighbors liked, trusted or supported him. He was a bad guy, he ran away, we “won.” Pat yourself on the back.

    For the last 4 years, we’ve been conducting a massively mismanaged occupation. We’re fighting the Shia, the Sunnis, a tiny Al Qaeda splinter (5 to 8% of the combatants in Iraq, per U.S. military) that didn’t exist there before we won the war, various tribal and religious splinter groups and who knows who else. We’re supporting a “government” that doesn’t control anything outside the Green Zone, that can’t or won’t govern and that has no intention of becoming a U.S. supporter, much less our Mideast puppet. We’ve lost over three thousand troops killed, spend hundreds of billions of dollars, contributed to the destruction of Iraq’s infrastructure, abetted the killing of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, helped create over 4 million Iraqi refugees–of which over 2 million have fled the country, many of whom are the professional and middle class that are desperately needed if Iraq is to survive–and watched the provision of food, gas, electricity, water and all needs for life degrade compared to the situation before we won the war. Every identifiable group except the Kurds (whom we have probably set up to be smashed by the Turks) wants us to leave on the grounds that our continued presence does not contribute to security and is destabilizing at best. We have removed the only regional power counterbalancing Iran and Syria, and have created a situation that could destabilize an already dangerous area of the world. Our continuing presence is the greatest recruiting tool terrorists in general and Al Qaeda in particular could have asked for. Oh, I forgot–the other guy who wants us to stay in Iraq–Osama bin Laden; remember him? The guy who actually masterminded the attack on us? Thanks to our misbegotten and hopelessly mismanaged Iraq adventure, he’s still out there and our efforts in Afghanistan have been hamstrung. Our military is in markedly worse shape than when we started.

    Now, how about you define “victory” for me–I won’t ask you to tell me how to accomplish it. And tell me how the concept of “surrender” fits in here–who do you think (and I use the term loosely) the “defeatocrats” (ooh, snap! Sure got me there!) could even surrender to.

    Now, if you want to hang on with the rest of the 30%ers, you’re certainly entitled to. But if you think that you and Ms. Malkin are part of something relevant, you’re going to have to do better than naive, juvenile snark. If your contribution is limited to questioning and maligning the intentions, patriotism and abilities of the majority party in the U.S. legislature and the 70% of the American people who agree with their position on Iraq, while offering no more than brainless “stay the course” and childish taunting, you will well deserve the utterly marginalized and ineffective position you will occupy in American politics for the foreseeable future.

    And by the way, my 8 and 14 year old daughters have produced far superior videos in the back yard–so you agree with Malkin’s profoundly unAmerican and defeatist politics, fine, but if you really think that was effective or well-done theater, your deluded.

    Comment by les — April 27, 2007 @ 9:18 am | Reply

  6. Democrats want us to lose the war. This is a bad position for them to take, and a bad position for America. It’s really as simple as that.

    Comment by Sisyphus — April 30, 2007 @ 7:10 am | Reply

  7. Thanks for not addressing anything of substance. One day, when the world becomes simple, perhaps you will be relevant.

    Comment by les — April 30, 2007 @ 9:24 am | Reply

  8. The war is lost, there’s no point in denying that, a good general knows when it’s time to cut his losses!
    But apparently some politicians don’t.

    Comment by Skeptic — May 21, 2007 @ 2:12 pm | Reply

  9. This war isn’t lost unless we cut and run.

    Cowards retreat at the moment of victory, Skeptic.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 21, 2007 @ 3:16 pm | Reply

  10. Victory? We’ve been hearing that for 4 years, and things have only gotten worse, and Les is right: the majority of the generals believe victory is impossible here.

    Al Quieda and other groups will continue to recruit people to fight in Iraq, no matter how long American troops stay in Iraq, there’s always gonna be a fresh wave of Jihadist recruits, waiting to join the action.

    Comment by Skeptic — May 21, 2007 @ 5:06 pm | Reply

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

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

%d bloggers like this: