Blogs 4 Brownback

May 29, 2007

Excellent Analysis

Red State feels the Democrats will now support America in Iraq, and we will now begin to win the war in the mainstream media. I now quote it in its entirety, due to the brevity of this optimistic report.

When the Democrats sent President Bush a war funding bill with no timetable for withdrawal, they did not cave. They simply realized that they did not get elected to pull the troops out of Iraq immediately, and that to do so would be political suicide. Sure, the nutroots are ballistic, including Mother Sheehan, but where are they going to go? Green Party? An independent Lamont candidacy for President? Does anyone care?

Realizing that it takes more than a few thousand fanatics to continue to hold onto power, the Dems found themselves in an untenable situation. Since they had the opportunity to stop the war in its tracks, and failed to do so, they are now in extremely uncomfortable and unfamiliar territory.

They need victory. They have gambled on victory. Now, in order for them to have any chance in 2008, we have to win the war in Iraq.

That’s right. They were put in a political box, and blinked. If the war goes badly, they will be blamed for not stopping it when they had the chance. If the war was built on lies, unwinnable and bad for America, they passed on their chance to shut it down. So it MUST go well from here on out.

The MSM will realize this too, and the coverage will shift in order to protect their own. We’ll hear more about the success of the surge, Iraqis working with the coalition, brave soldiers and evil enemy. All of a sudden, the war will be winnable, and we will be winning. Because Democrats are now, because of political necessity, where they should have been all along – behind the troops, and behind the mission.

So congratulations to the brave men and women in our armed forces. Tomorrow morning, it just so happens that the tide will turn. Instead of being ruthless killers and sadistic agents of the Bush torture machine, you will be brave and determined – and winning.

And to elected Democrats, welcome to the side of the good guys. We missed you.

I hope that they’re right. It would be nice if we only had to fight the terrorists, instead of their enablers in the media and the anti-war movement as well. We shall see. For now, I remain cautiously optimistic. Having backed themselves into a corner on Iraq, the Democrats now have nowhere to turn but toward America. They’ve flipped themselves out of flops, so the only way to remain a viable political party is to support their country and shut their mouths.

43 Comments »

  1. The bible says:
    “For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.” – (Matthew 6:14-15)
    So why do you support the fighting of terrorists? Shouldn’t you just ‘turn the other cheek’?

    Comment by Matt J — May 29, 2007 @ 8:09 am | Reply

  2. I certainly hope so. But if there’s one thing I have learned about the Democrats over the years, it’s that they never pass on an opportunity to stick a knife into America’s back.

    Comment by Marcia P. — May 29, 2007 @ 8:22 am | Reply

  3. Wow, Red State is satire too? I’ve been fooled for so long…

    Comment by rob — May 29, 2007 @ 8:27 am | Reply

  4. Absolutely! The only way that the Demoncrats have any chance for victory in 2008 is to have the war over and won. If we’re still in Iraq in November 2008 there is no way anybody’s going to vote for them.

    It’s just that plain and simple.

    Comment by Carey Meiers — May 29, 2007 @ 8:45 am | Reply

  5. we must invade iran and syria now while we still have them on our side.

    Comment by JasonC — May 29, 2007 @ 9:08 am | Reply

  6. This is why Brownback is going to win. The Democrats haven’t taken a clear position on America winning in Iraq. The American people are fed up with that kind of cowardice. During a war, you can’t afford to be led by cowards.

    Comment by Marcia P. — May 29, 2007 @ 9:13 am | Reply

  7. The liberals and their allies in the MSM will never see the light on Iraq. They have too much emotional investment in hoping for American defeat. Bush outmanuevered them, plain and simple, and we’ll reap the rewards in 2008 when Americans realize just how hypocritical the Left is.

    Comment by Donatello — May 29, 2007 @ 10:04 am | Reply

  8. After we win in Iraq, we should definitely take Iran on. Syria can wait; I think Israel and Lebanon might do the job for us.

    If the Democrats aren’t with us on this one, they’re guilty of high treason.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 29, 2007 @ 10:07 am | Reply

  9. And then … on to China. SweetJeeeeeeeeeeeezus, let’s take it all.

    Comment by R.L.Page — May 29, 2007 @ 10:52 am | Reply

  10. The best thing the Democrats can do is to get out of the way. We don’t need them standing around wetting their pants and surrendering to everything that moves. I would be proud to fight at Senator Lieberman’s side, but the other Democrats should take this opportunity to disengage from war policy, and instead gossip about boys and practice applying their lipstick.

    Comment by DPS — May 29, 2007 @ 11:27 am | Reply

  11. The Democrats are very good at that kind of thing, DPS. Especially John Edwards. I can’t stand him! He’s a phony.

    Comment by Marcia P. — May 29, 2007 @ 12:42 pm | Reply

  12. “I would be proud to fight at Senator Lieberman’s side”

    Ah, so you’ve both enlisted, then?

    “Bush outmanuevered[sic] them, plain and simple”

    Consider this: Republicans held the White House, Supreme Court, and Congress, and yet abortion is still legal, gays can get married in a few states, corporations are making greater profits by hiring illegal aliens, prayer is still allowed in schools (as it always has been) but cannot be lead by administrators, and Democrats can walk around freely without papers or armbands. Doesn’t this point to the fact that your legislators are completely and utterly incompetent?

    Comment by rob — May 29, 2007 @ 1:17 pm | Reply

  13. Oh, Sissypuss, you little devil. Deleting comments now, are we ?

    Comment by R.L.Page — May 29, 2007 @ 2:05 pm | Reply

  14. I think it’s rather rude of you to not reply to comment #1.

    Comment by Curiouser and Curiouser — May 29, 2007 @ 2:19 pm | Reply

  15. Maybe Sissypuss is just ‘turning the other cheek’ to comment #1.

    Comment by R.L.Page — May 29, 2007 @ 2:43 pm | Reply

  16. Well, I’m not Sisyphus, but here is my answer:

    Terrorists will kill you. If you turn the other cheek to them, they cut that one off, too.

    Comment by Marcia P. — May 29, 2007 @ 2:49 pm | Reply

  17. i don’t know about you, Marcia P., but i have enough faith that JESUS will protect me from these evil doers. look at the apostles—they faced evil dangers and opponents who wanted to (and in most cases, eventually did) kill them. but their reward is in heaven, isn’t it?

    shouldn’t their deportment be a model for ours? they didn’t kill or attack people with differing viewpoints, even in the face of death. why are you so quick to engage in fisticuffs?

    jesus’ followers practiced great pacifism—that’s not a sign of apathy or weakness, but a true example of a healthy life strategy. why don’t today’s followers of jesus do the same?

    but i guess i’m just another “atheist” since i’m asking an honest question.

    Comment by honkey magoo — May 29, 2007 @ 3:11 pm | Reply

  18. “So why do you support the fighting of terrorists? Shouldn’t you just ‘turn the other cheek’?”

    Jesus didn’t bring us peace. He brought us the sword. I, for one, would rather use it than lose it. If you need my reasonings, you can check out Marcia’s answer.

    “shouldn’t their deportment be a model for ours? they didn’t kill or attack people with differing viewpoints, even in the face of death. why are you so quick to engage in fisticuffs?”

    Do some research on “The Crusades.” Then, get back to us on this one.

    “why don’t today’s followers of jesus do the same?”

    Sometimes, violence is for the good of the person one is being violent toward. An example is a surgeon who beats a man up to knock him out, so that he can amputate his leg and save his life. If the surgeon weren’t violent, the man would die. It’s the same way with Christianity. If we aren’t violent toward these Islamists, their co-religionists will be at risk of Hellfire for not converting to our faith.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 29, 2007 @ 3:20 pm | Reply

  19. Yes, but Jesus’ message seemed pretty absolute. Unless you forgive your sins, you will burn. Is that not the case?

    Comment by Matt J — May 29, 2007 @ 3:26 pm | Reply

  20. Sorry, that should have read ‘forgive their sins’.

    Comment by Matt J — May 29, 2007 @ 3:26 pm | Reply

  21. “Sorry, that should have read ‘forgive their sins’.”

    Thanks, that was confusing.

    “Is that not the case?”

    We can forgive their sins. But sometimes, to help a man’s family out, you have to kill him. You kill him, and perhaps he goes to Hell; on the other hand, his family is converted to Christianity, and they escape perdition. One man is lost, but his descendents are saved unto the last. Isn’t that a reasonable trade?

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 29, 2007 @ 3:36 pm | Reply

  22. Who cares what the DemonRats do? They will never support the troops. They will never love America, because they take their orders directly from their socialist leader, Osama bin Laden.

    They have no power and are going to lose big in ’08. The only reason they got in last year was because the Republicans abandonned the principals of Conservatism and America sent a clear message that they would not keep the measely Moderates of the Republican Party in office.

    I wager Brownback will win the Republican Primary Big Time; and the Brownback/Tancredo ticket will take ’08 in a landslide.

    Comment by Red Blooded American — May 29, 2007 @ 4:57 pm | Reply

  23. “But sometimes, to help a man’s family out, you have to kill him.”

    I agree wholehatedly Sissyboy, and sometimes to free a whole country you have to keep bombing it until it becomes one big parking lot with lots of free parking and none of that pansyass andycapp parking either. Why should fans of that old comic strip get special privileges anyways? There aren’t very many of them which is why all of the best parking is not used but if one of us non andy capp loving Americans decides to park there we face a stiff fines from the andycapp police.

    That is just my two cents. Didn’t mean to get on my high horse. Didn’t even know my horse was high. It’s not the horse’s fault either. Grass and barley is easily confused, especially by a horse.

    Comment by ec1009 — May 29, 2007 @ 5:05 pm | Reply

  24. “they take their orders directly from their socialist leader, Osama bin Laden.”

    Wrong. They take their orders INDIRECTLY from Osama bin Laden. As in all socialist systems, al Quiada has a high degree of red tape. You try getting your orders certified in triplicate and if you don’t have a form UB9114 its off with your head. That is why I quit being a liberal and now support Sam Brownback.

    Comment by ec1009 — May 29, 2007 @ 5:21 pm | Reply

  25. Sorry, that should have been a UBL4911. Stupid mistake.

    Comment by ec1009 — May 29, 2007 @ 5:26 pm | Reply

  26. Even stupider mistake, UB4911. How could have I not remembered that!?! I could have googled it but since google has a well known liberal bias, I was afraid.

    Comment by ec1009 — May 29, 2007 @ 6:09 pm | Reply

  27. “That is why I quit being a liberal and now support Sam Brownback.”

    Good to hear it, assuming you’re serious. Welcome aboard!

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 29, 2007 @ 6:16 pm | Reply

  28. “Do some research on “The Crusades.” Then, get back to us on this one.”

    i’m sorry, but the only research book i have is the bible, and that says nothing about these crusades. being that liberals write the history books, i’m not sure where a good, non-biased source can be found.

    “Sometimes, violence is for the good of the person one is being violent toward.”

    i can’t seem to find this in the bible either. all i’ve found are references of jesus saying “love each other.” i can’t even find one instance of him being violent to anyone, even if it were beneficial for that person.

    Comment by honkey magoo — May 29, 2007 @ 6:48 pm | Reply

  29. In response to comment number one, As evidenced by what? References please.

    Comment by Colin C. — May 29, 2007 @ 6:59 pm | Reply

  30. i can’t seem to find this in the bible either. all i’ve found are references of jesus saying “love each other.” i can’t even find one instance of him being violent to anyone, even if it were beneficial for that person.”

    He drove the moneylenders out of the temple.

    You might also want to give Matthew 10:34 a look-see.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 29, 2007 @ 6:59 pm | Reply

  31. “He drove the moneylenders out of the temple.” Yeah, then Jesus proceeded to kill thousands of innocent people. Jesus was just as violent as the people on this blog. Im a Gandhi man myself.

    Comment by Colin C. — May 29, 2007 @ 7:05 pm | Reply

  32. We will never win the war on terror until we stop funding Pakistan and buying oil from Saudi Arabia. That continuous crime has been committed by both democratic and republican presidents.

    Comment by Steve Savage — May 29, 2007 @ 7:07 pm | Reply

  33. Colin C. @ 31:

    ‘“He drove the moneylenders out of the temple.” Yeah, then Jesus proceeded to kill thousands of innocent people. Jesus was just as violent as the people on this blog. Im a Gandhi man myself.’

    Of course he didn’t proceed to kill thousands of people. Please consult the Gospels on this question. However, he would have if it had been necessary to do so in order to get them out of the Temple. All he had to do was frighten them and throw some tables around and do a little scourging, though, so that’s all he did. If we could take care of the Islamofascists by throwing tables, I’d be in favor of that.

    So, how much furniture do you think we need to throw in order to defeat al Qaeda? The U.S. Marine Corps is eagerly awaiting your answer.

    Honestly. Leave it to a liberal to suggest that the best way to fight terrorism is by bold interior decorating.

    Comment by DPS — May 29, 2007 @ 7:31 pm | Reply

  34. ahhh, yes. matthew 10:34. now, i’m not going to argue with you about whether or not this was a real sword (probably not), but i am going to direct you to a verse a few pages later:

    matthew 26:52. not to be taken out of context, this is when jesus is being arrested and one of jesus’ companions pulls out a sword to try to defend him. jesus rebukes him:
    “put your sword back in place. for all how draw the sword will die by the sword.” and this time, there’s no question as to whether it’s an allegorical sword or a metal one.

    so which version of jesus are we to believe? i guess it’s whatever supports your current agenda.

    Comment by honkey magoo — May 29, 2007 @ 7:38 pm | Reply

  35. honkey magoo @ 33:

    “matthew 26:52. not to be taken out of context, this is when jesus is being arrested and one of jesus’ companions pulls out a sword to try to defend him. jesus rebukes him:
    “put your sword back in place. for all how draw the sword will die by the sword.” and this time, there’s no question as to whether it’s an allegorical sword or a metal one.”

    1). Yes, it is a metal sword. Jesus said what he said because they were clearly outnumbered. That’s just good practice. If there had been a chance of winning, Jesus would have said “Hack away, my brothers! Those you attack will die by your swords!”

    2). Even if you want to make this a general prohibition on swords (which I think is crazy) I would feel remiss if I did not point out that we don’t use swords very much in the Global War on Terror. It’s mainly guns and bombs and things like that, and so a prohibition on swords would be irrelevant.

    Comment by DPS — May 29, 2007 @ 8:05 pm | Reply

  36. MATT J:

    THE BIBLE IS NOT A SUICIDE PACT! Here’s what Jesus REALLY SAID:

    “Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.” — Matthew 25:41

    Comment by b4bnc — May 30, 2007 @ 12:42 pm | Reply

  37. A lot of people on this blog really have it in for Jesus. It’s shameful, absolutely shameful. Jesus supports the United States, and He supports our troops. Our nation is a Christian nation, and God loves us. What is there to discuss?

    Comment by Marcia P. — May 30, 2007 @ 12:50 pm | Reply

  38. Sisyphus, and Marcia.

    You both seem hell-bent on killing people because they BELIEVE something different than you. So please tell me how that makes their wanting you dead for not believing what THEY believe?

    Have any of these people, these specific people, killed or harmed yourself physically (or your immediate family or friends)?

    Do you know their names? Families? Histories? How are they different from you? you advocate murder to further your beliefs, who’s most important tennants are to love your neighbour and to not kill. You both are walking oxymorons. By supporting random killing (read murder), you are both throwing the book you so cherrish as the Truth (capital T) to the wayside and ignoring it’s message in order to spread it’s message. It’s like the father beating the son to teach him not to hit people.

    if Bob hurts you, you hurt Bob. You don’t hurt Bob’s family. You don’t blow up Bob’s city. Because the second you hurt anyone but Bob, they have the same right to hurt you back.

    Comment by Curiouser and Curiouser — May 30, 2007 @ 3:16 pm | Reply

  39. Curiouser and Curiouser @ 38:

    Who is Bob and what are you talking about?

    Comment by DPS — May 30, 2007 @ 5:06 pm | Reply

  40. I think Bob was an old boyfreind DPS.

    Comment by ec1009 — May 30, 2007 @ 8:05 pm | Reply

  41. Curiouser and Curiouser:

    This is not an appropriate venue for airing your personal problems, young lady. Perhaps you should seek the guidance of your pastor.

    Comment by DPS — May 30, 2007 @ 10:31 pm | Reply

  42. I want to know who this Bob person is, and what he did that I should want to kill his family. What are you two getting at here, Curious and Curiouser?

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 31, 2007 @ 2:44 pm | Reply

  43. “Jesus supports the United States, and He supports our troops.”

    Proof, please!

    Show me the Bible verse that supports this!

    @DPS & Sysi

    Don’t be this f*cking stupid, you both know “Bob” is just a metaphor used to name any person you would like to kill:

    Bob = a certain Iranian leader or a scientist or a homosexual or a certain Democrat politician, or… damn, there’s a lot of people on your death-list!
    (Did you know that there’s not a single name on my death-list, and I’m a “morally corrupt” lib’rul!)

    “Yes, it is a metal sword. Jesus said what he said because they were clearly outnumbered. That’s just good practice. If there had been a chance of winning, Jesus would have said “Hack away, my brothers! Those you attack will die by your swords!”

    No, that’s Muhammed, honestly, your ideas match those of Jihadists in every aspect.

    Comment by Skeptic — June 10, 2007 @ 5:47 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:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: