in the wrong era. Soundly refuting
liberals online since 2000.
| Heritage | 0 | |
| Reuters | 2012 Watch: Mitt Romney’s message from GOP: Step it up |
0 |
| Fox News | Hmm: Obama to give 10 states a pass on No Child Left Behind deadline |
0 |
| CBS LA | Wha? LA County OKs $1,000 Fine For Throwing Football, Frisbee On Beaches |
0 |
| Ballot Box | AZ: Aide injured in Giffords shooting will run to replace her in House |
0 |
Audacity of Truth
Gaffetastic:
Vice President Joe Biden had his “oops” moment Wednesday speaking in a 49er-crazed SF when he told a crowd at a city political fundraiser that “the Giants are on their way to the Super Bowl.” - SF Chronicle, 1-18-12
Senate Dems crafting cut and run resolution
I’m buried under this morning at the 8-5 but wanted to pass this story along to you for discussion purposes. The Senate Dems are working hard this week to undermine the mission by crafting a resolution that would ‘repeal’ the 2002 Iraq war authorization in order to begin withdrawing our troops from Iraq:
Senate Democratic leaders intend to unveil a plan next week to repeal the 2002 resolution authorizing the war in Iraq in favor of narrower authority that restricts the military’s role and begins withdrawals of combat troops.
House Democrats have pulled back from efforts to link additional funding for the war to strict troop-readiness standards after the proposal came under withering fire from Republicans and from their party’s own moderates. That strategy was championed by Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) and endorsed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).
“If you strictly limit a commander’s ability to rotate troops in and out of Iraq, that kind of inflexibility could put some missions and some troops at risk,” said Rep. Chet Edwards (D-Tex.), who personally lodged his concerns with Murtha.
In both chambers, Democratic lawmakers are eager to take up binding legislation that would impose clear limits on U.S. involvement in Iraq after nearly four years of war. But Democrats remain divided over how to proceed. Some want to avoid the funding debate altogether, fearing it would invite Republican charges that the party is not supporting the troops. Others take a more aggressive view, believing the most effective way to confront President Bush’s war policy is through a $100 billion war-spending bill that the president ultimately must sign to keep the war effort on track.
Last week, the House approved a nonbinding resolution that criticized Bush’s decision to deploy an additional 21,500 troops, but the measure was blocked in the Senate by Republicans during a rare Saturday session. It is probable that Senate Democrats will encounter the same procedural roadblock in attempting to push through another resolution, in particular one with real teeth.
“I’ve had enough of ‘nonbinding,’ ” said Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), who is helping to draft the new Democratic proposal. The 2002 war resolution, he said, is an obvious target.
“The authorization that we gave the president back in 2002 is completely, completely outdated, inappropriate to what we’re engaged in today,” he said.
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) began calling for a reauthorization of the war early last month and raised it again last week, during a gathering in the office of Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.). Participants included Kerry, Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl M. Levin (Mich.), Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.), Jack Reed (R.I.) and Russell Feingold (Wis.). Those Democratic senators have emerged as an unofficial war council representing the caucus’s wide range of views.
“We gave the president that power to destroy Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and, if necessary, to depose Saddam Hussein,” Biden said of the 2002 resolution in a speech last week before the Brookings Institution. “The WMD was not there. Saddam Hussein is no longer there. The 2002 authorization is no longer relevant to the situation in Iraq.”
The blowback from Democratic moderates came after John Murtha made the mistake of being honest about his intentions on an anti-war website. He wrote that the only purpose of his so-called readiness requirements was to cripple the President’s ability to deploy troops into and around Iraq, which started making the rounds through the blogosphere and into the mainstream media last week. Murtha’s “slow bleed” plan would have forced the Pentagon to either undersupport the troops in the field, including sending fresh replacements for exhauted units, or to surrender altogether — two options that infuriated Democrats already facing tough questions back home about the influence of the hard Left on their party.
Now the Senate wants to introduce a replacement for the existing AUMF that would limit the use of troops in a different way, but with similar results. It forces an end to the deployment of combat brigades by March 31, 2008, the date proposed by the Iraq Study Group, and afterwards restricts American operations in Iraq to training, border security, and counterterrorism. It would require the White House to certify that any offensive operation in Iraq directly targeted al-Qaeda rather than sectarian Iraqi militias or insurgencies — and would set up a potential impeachment scenario if the President failed to make the case before any operation began.
This is a textbook case of micromanaging a war. Instead of taking the one option open to Congress — defunding the war effort — they have decided to override the Constitution by setting themselves above the President in the chain of command. They understand that a defunding effort would unmask them as defeatists and retreatists while American troops face the terrorists, especially in Anbar. Even Joe Biden understands that much.
Nor are they opting for an honest method of floating this unconstitutional nonsense. The Democrats plan to attach the reworked AUMF as an amendment to a Homeland Security funding bill rather than allow an up-or-down vote on it in the Senate. They want to dare the Republicans to filibuster the spending bill or Bush to veto it if it passes with the new AUMF intact. They’re playing games with the funds necessary to secure the nation during a time of war — and they expect to be taken seriously on how to conduct one?
Well, as long as it placates their rabid anti-war base, I doubt they even care.
I’ll check back in later today when I’m not so swamped.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Trackbacks
34 Responses to “Senate Dems crafting cut and run resolution”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Island of Misfit Bloggers
Stats
I wonder how this will affect Lieberman.
In what the democrats are doing now, seems even worse than what they were trying to pull before.
Be interesting to see what his reaction is to this.
This is so typical of the childlike mentality of liberals and Democrats. Wake up and act like adults people, this is the real world, there are no do overs. Whining that “I had my fingers crossed so it doesn’t count” about a vote to go to war is both disgusting and dangerous. If anyone doubts the complete inability of the Democrats to defend this country and its interests, look no further. All they want to do is relive their “glory days” of Vietnam, regardless of the fact that those were definitely not the salad days they think they were, but a shameful performance that not only severely damaged US credibility and helped make future conflicts more likely, but resulted in the tragic death of over 3 million South East Asians. How in the world can any rational, thinking person believe that attempting to relive the ignominy, defeat, and mass murder of Vietnam by cutting the legs out from under the Commander and Chief during a war is the right thing to do?
Well my fellow Americans, wake up and smell the coffee. Your turning over the Congress to the Dems is coming home to roost. If you voted against Republicans for petty reasons, such as the fact one twisted twit in Congress texted some pages, thanks a lot for letting trivial issues and petty dislikes and shallowness throw the Congress to the party of failure and defeat, decades from now we’ll still be paying the price for your lack of seriousness.
Well calling us Democrats as having a childlike mentality is a little harsh. It obvious to almost all Americans that this conflict in Iraq has been mishandled. The most recent and obvious example of this is the surge. For years 43 said if the Military commanders needed more troops on the ground he’d authorize it. So for the time since he miracarously won re-election in nov 04 through nov 06 when the G.O.P. had control of the congress there was no real significant troop increase………. nov 06 G.O.P. loses control of congress 43 fires Rummy the day after THEN ANNOUNCES hey we don’t have enough boots on the ground,there’s no security in Baghdad or Al-Anbar I guess the Iraqi Army ain’t ready to stand up yet we gotta help them out. In other words 43 and the G.O.P. HAVE LESS CREDIBILITY ON THE WAR IN IRAQ THAN US DEMS.PERIOD. Because it is 43 who was the C-IN-C and got this nation into situation not us lefties Sev.
Lieberman has already said that if the Dems try to cut funding, he’s open to “changing his mind.”
Frankly since we all know this is where the Dems are eventually heading, he might as well change now, give the majority to the GOP and thus fully marginalize the Dems in Congress.
And “it is 43 who was the C-IN-C and got this nation into situation not us lefties”? Are you serious? When the Dems try to micromanage the war like this, guess what? They get to share the responsibility. And when the nutroots see that the Dems simply don’t have the political will to cut funding, you cannot classify the entire Democrat Party as anything other than political triangulators.
They’re more worried about their own jobs than they are the safety of the troops, and America will be very harsh on them in 2008.
Because it is 43 who was the C-IN-C and got this nation into situation not us lefties Sev.
Sorry tommy, but that in itself is a childlike attitude. It’s the “I didn’t do it so it’s not my fault and I’m not gonna play” thing you hear from kids who aren’t adult enough to realize that things have consequences outside of the narrow who is at fault. You can make all the disparaging comments you like about it being Bush and the GOP that got us into this, but refusing to acknowledge that cutting and running, however pleasant the thought might be to the “not my fault” crowd, will have ramifications that are serious and damaging is shirking responsibility. It’s as if you are sitting in a house that is being flooded by an overflowing bathtub, damaging not only your apartment upstairs but the people who live downstairs from you, and saying “heck I didn’t turn the faucet on and flood the tub, not my problem.” It’s a childlike pout, not an adult, responsible way to act.
Liberals and Democrats refuse to realize or acknowledge that the world is too complex and this problem is too central to the state of the world to just say “not my fault” and take our ball and go home. Just because you wish the house wasn’t flooding, and that you wish that not turning off the faucet won’t cause the downstairs neighbors to flood, doesn’t mean it won’t happen if you just ignore it.
This is a good defacto definition of maturity tommy.
Tommy wrote incorrectly again, “It obvious to almost all Americans that this conflict in Iraq has been mishandled.”
As Bush does not Micromanage the troops or generals making the decisions – you are saying that the conflict in Iraq has been mishandled by the greatest military on earth and by those who make up the military. The one thing people must understand is that the military does NOT choose what the enemy does nor does it choose the aid and comfort Democrats give to the enemy by giving them the feeling that they are this close “” to pulling troops out. If Democrats were united with other Americans in this war the enemy would not have this feeling.
The rest of your paragraph didn’t make sense. The events on the ground – the invigorated (by the Democrats) enemy has dictated a surge to defeat the enemy. Generals on the ground have gotten all the troops they have asked for but you Tommy write about that as if your pot filled head was smarter than those generals on the ground. Instead of uniting for victory you continue to demoralize and criticize the mission.
Just call me Severized….
Welllllllllllll I can understand the analogy Sev is trying to make with the bathtub. The fact of the matter is the conflict in Iraq has put an enormous strain on the U.S. ARMY and the USMC. It just doesn’t make a lot of sense to a guy like myself to run this nation’s military this the unbearable straining point where they currently are in terms of both men and material. Sooner or later this nation will draw down it’s military prezsence in Iraq. It doesn’t make me a defeatocrat or any other BS name it is reality. Because if and more likely when the majority of the responsibility of security starts to fall into the ISF forces hands I for one don’t think they are up to the job today or 5 years from now. Most here may believe otherwise and that’s their opinion but I just don’t think youse guys realize that the conflict in Iraq opened up the pandora’s box of a very dangerous situation which is all the secrtarian violence that’s going on and absolutely shows no signs of being resolved anytime soon. That’s what’s really going on!
Well, whether or not it’s wearing on the military, that is still just another excuse for trying to avoid doing what is required. Yes, I agree, it is hard on the military, but the solution is to beef up the military both men and material, spend the money, not use that as an excuse to withdraw. It’s like the thing I read about from the Chinese theater in WWII. The Japanese were about to overrun the Chinese, and the rest of the allied advisers wanted the Chinese to commit their two divisions of reserves, the Chinese comment was that if the committed them, they might be lost. Well Hell, what use are they if you can’t use them? It’s the same argument, yes it’s hard on the military, but the solution is to beef up the military, not surrender.
The sectarian violence was simmering in Iraq all along, it only took the removal of the “cork” that was Hussein to unleash that genie, but it would have happened regardless of how Hussein’s empire collapsed, with the bang of war or with the whimper of an internal coup. The main difference is that, because we are there, Al Quada has gotten in the middle of it to stir the pot even more, but it’s not like the pot needed that much stirring. And it still isn’t a good reason to not have done anything.
Ultimately I think our disagreement here, tommy, relates entirely to the whether or not a person believes that this is a critical battle in the long war, or a waste of time that won’t have disastrous consequences on us if we just quit. I think the conflict is critically important, but you apparently think of it as a distraction or something that won’t blow up even worse if we withdraw. Unfortunately, if we do withdraw and it blows up more, the only way, once you’ve opened a can of worms, to recan them is to use a much bigger can, and I’m not sure that we can come up with that big a can, if we can’t even come up with one for the mess at the level it is now. If we aren’t willing to address the problem now, how much more will we be willing to do it when it’s 10 times as big? I firmly believe that every one casualty we incur today by staying would turn into 5 0r 10 if we let this grow larger and run away.
Well this isn’t important considering the present but I’ll make the argument that taking out Saddam was a colossal mistake in retrospect. Because while true it is a critical battle we are fighting Al-Queda most muslims aren’t Wahhabis. So even when and again I am stating when we began to reduce our force levels they’ll just claim they drove us out. Which is BS. Also even the sunni community of Iraq do not want these lunatics around the hood’. Not to mention also the Kurdish question? They want little to do with Iraq except Kirkuk which they feel is theirs anyway which will also lead to more crisis. I’m not suggesting pulling up stakes and hauling ass to Kuwait and Kurdistan what I am saying is besides the airport and a few relatively secure bases there isn’t any reason to be involved in Iraq anymore. What I will state without a doubt is when the whole regime change conversions were taking place the 43 Admin simply didn’t listen or didn’t want to just listen to any opposing viewpoints whatsoever. They had faith they knew it all. That’s my biggest problem with that crowd.
Idiots commit political suicide news at 11:00.
John F. Do us all a favor, would you please grow a pair. When this vote takes place I want the names of each and every Republican that votes for this asinine binding resolution. This way I can send money to the Repubican that is going to run against them. – Lorica
We disagree about the value of removing Hussein, I personally believe that was a festering boil that desperately needed to be lanced for a large number of reasons. However, the aftermath was always going to be messy, rebuilding societies is always tough, particularly when the society in question has no concept of civil order or democratic rule, unless order is imposed with a gun. We had a much easier time in Germany after the WWII due to the fact they were a democracy before, and Japan was not seething with sectarian strife just below the surface, seeing as how it was a homogeneous society.
Almost all of the violence in Iraq occurs within 80 miles of Baghdad, so the impression that things are going open loop everywhere is not true, which is why a surge/reinforcements makes sense. I suppose your approach would be possible, withdraw to the stable regions, keep an eye on the country to prevent it becoming a WMD provider to terrorists or setting up huge training camps, and just let the locals murder each other to their hearts content, but I don’t think that’s a very good or moral option, but it may be practical. But that’s not what the Dems want, they want to pull out competely, redeploy to Okinawa, or such. If they actually came out and said, look, the violence around Baghdad is a local issue, our plan is to move out of that area, police and keep an eye on the rest, and train ISF forces to go into the dirty areas and clean the out, and provide intel and airpower for support, THAT I would call a plan. Not as good a plan as actually going in and fighting hard enough to squash the enemy in Baghdad, but at least an alternative plan, but surrender and withdrawal is not a plan.
The part most libs, including you tommy, stress that I can’t get my mind around is the issue that Bush 43 screwed the pooch, and it’s not our problem. I don’t think you’re as hard over on this as many, but a lot of people don’t seem to care that this approach will damage the country, they see it as Bush’s fault so it’s his problem. Whether you like or hate the guy, the simple fact is that “his” problem is now “our” problem whether we like it or not, we have to fix it.
Tommy I disagree with this contention. The Kurds are committed to the Iraq democracy. If, and only if, Iraq breaks up or turns into a real civil war, not what this media believes is a civil war. Then Yes, you might see the Kurds create an independent nation. But as far as I have read, including stuff from soldiers that were there, Kurds are committed to this new government. – Lorica
This isn’t cut-and-run; it maintains our presence and reorients it for the facts on the ground. Saddam’s out of power? Check. No WMDs? Check. What are the other objectives: attack al-Q and prevent genocide. The new AUMF mandates those objectives.
What the new AUMF will prevent is using our troops as chess pieces in Iraq’s internal politics.
Sev says:
Funny that.
Libs think this is ‘Bush’s War’
But the rest of the world says it is “America’s war”.
Just like terrorists, they don’t care about your political affiliation, they don’t care if your a republican or a democrat…they lump us all…Americans.
Too bad actual Americans can’t seem to think the same way.
When Americans who go out of country, they are considered AMERICANS, not african-americans, irish-americans, ect….just Americans.
Another one I wish people in America would get through their skulls.
Tommy wrote, “The fact of the matter is the conflict in Iraq has put an enormous strain on the U.S. ARMY and the USMC.”
WW2 put a strain on the U.S Army and Marine Corp. That isn’t reason to cancel the GWOT as the enemy won’t quit just because we quit.
Tommy wrote, “Sooner or later this nation will draw down it’s military prezsence in Iraq. It doesn’t make me a defeatocrat or any other BS name it is reality.”
Don’t take it so personally… Just talk about FINISHING the job first and yes the draw down should happen when we finish the job. Withdrawing before finished is by definition “losing”. Don’t get worked up about having a loser mentality just accept it….. or change to the winning strategy..
Tommy wrote, “but I’ll make the argument that taking out Saddam was a colossal mistake in retrospect. ”
More than half the country disagrees with you there including myself. It dried up a lot of money to suicide bombers it stopped the oil for food crap and the brutal dictator has given way to a possibility of prosperity and education for Iraq’s citizens instead of poverty and lack of education.
Depends on how you define ‘finish,’ doesn’t it? IMHO, the job is done. Saddam’s out of there, there’s an elected government, and we know there are no WMDs.
All we’re doing now is letting our resources be exploited for the internal politics of Iraq, when we should be exclusively hunting down al-Qaeda. Let the Iraqis protect the Iraqis.
In other day and age, this would have been considered a conservative position.
Well the MAIN point that Baklava is trying to make is when the U.S.A “wins” the war in Iraq what exactly does that mean anyway. Widespread violence and an oppurtanity for Islamofascists to attack our troops in Iraq. Is that what you call victory Baklava? More than half the country doesn’t support Baklava because if they did I’m pretty sure the G.O.P. would still control both Houses. News flash they don’t. Lorica just proved he is uninformed with his comment that the Kurds are loyal to the new Iraqi government. If that’s the case Lorica why is it against the law to fly the Iraqi flag in Kurdistan? And of course how could I forgfet that the Kurds were thrown out of the Kirkuk region preety brutally I might add by Sunni and shia Arabs during Saddam’s years. I don’t think there is any love lost between those different sects. Sanity makes a good point that Al-Queda hates all Infidels especially Americans and Zionists. But if we never invaded Iraq we would just kick their asses in southern Afghanistan. We wouldn’t be in our current situation in Iraq. And we would have far less strain on our armed forces. That sounds just fine by me. Bottom line is the basic fact that we opened a pandora’s box in the ME. And after this nation puts a Dem in the White House this nation is going to keep this insanity continueing. It’s pretty f——g demoralizing if you ask me. Look what you right-wingers are asking me to do support the C-IN-C………… and I thought I was high man…………….(just rolling my eyes in disbelief)
I mispoke near the end of my last comment when the Dems win back the WH maybe what’s going in Iraq will come to an end at least for the poor bastards on the 3rd and 4th tour in that sh*thole.
jpe wrote, “Depends on how you define ‘finish,’ doesn’t it? IMHO, the job is done.”
The experts disagree – the strategy/plan issued by the WH calls the job finished when Iraq can stand on it’s own and provide security on it’s own. That IS subjective. Shoot – we have violence in our own streets. It’s not a matter of whether or not there will or won’t be violence. It’s a matter of whether or not a humanitarian crisis will ensue because the terrorists will overwhelm the security forces and take over the government and cleansing Iraq of those who weren’t with them.
If you disagree and think there won’t be a humanitarian crisis than so be it. I accept that you disagree. But if you are wrong and we follow your advice (Democrats advice) they/you need to be prepared to admit pulling out was premature and irresponsible. It is a good thing we have a leader (a leader who doesn’t stick his wet finger in the wind) who consistently talks about finishing and he is trying to keep America RESPONSIBLE.
jpe wrote, “when we should be exclusively hunting down al-Qaeda. Let the Iraqis protect the Iraqis.”
I love reading uninformed liberal positions on things as bumper sticker slogans. This week the act is as if Al Qaida in Iraq all have certain color shirts with the writing “I’m in Al Qaida”. Everyone else has a shirt that says, “if you even look at me Congress will hold you responsible for going against the new AUMF – so don’t look at me – I said don’t – oh I saw you looking”.
jpe wrote, “In other day and age, this would have been considered a conservative position.”
In another day and age it was 9/10.
Being responsible is not about name calling it’s about doing the right thing like we did for Japan and Germany after WW2.
tommy while not reading the plan that he used to accuse doesn’t exist wrote, “Well the MAIN point that Baklava is trying to make is when the U.S.A “wins” the war in Iraq what exactly does that mean anyway. ”
It’s defined. Learn it so that you don’t look silly writing what you wrote…
Tommy you get so foggy – this is why you need to cut the weed because you wrote, “More than half the country doesn’t support Baklava because if they did I’m pretty sure the G.O.P. would still control both Houses. ”
The QUESTION at hand was whether or not it was of value to remove Saddam. YOU WROTE IT but didn’t follow the line of reasoning I guess. The vote for Democrats in November was NOT about whether or not it was good to remove Saddam. It was about Iraq for sure but that’s because many have been convinced that our troops shouldn’t be there anymore. Polls clearly indicate that they are glad Saddam is gone. UNfog your brain and you won’t have these lapses in logic….
As for your last comments… removing troops does not end a war if the enemy is determined to kill you wherever you are. If during WW2 we removed our troops and said we are taking too many losses – the war would not have ended. We would only take more losses and quicker.
I can only hope therefore that a Democrat does NOT win the WH. It is how Islamofacists got so powerful in the first place (during Clinton) while Bush is in office 2/3rds of the Al Qaida leadership has been captured or killed. Now we are realizing the problem of Iran’s funding and supplying Democrats are trying to hamstring us there.
Are Democrats for us or against us???
Those aren’t “experts”; they’re politicians. They’ve got their idea of what victory is, and others have different ideas. These are policy differences.
No one’s saying it’ll be that easy. The new AUMF will set a ceiling, not a floor, for action. If there’s reason to think group X is al-Qaeda, we go after them. What we won’t do, however, is play international cop. Matters of day-to-day security should be the Iraqis’ concern, not ours.
Well Baklava I don’t know how or where you came up with the statistic 2/3 of Al-Queda’s leadership is dead or captured but for arguments sake I’ll take your word on it. To which if I may respond to…. so what? Madrassas across the ME and of course Pakistan and Afghanistan are just keep churning out more Islamic fanatics which will unfortunately refilll their ranks. One more thing Baklava it is getting a little old hearing comparisions to ww2 in which my dad fought in. Back then 11% of the country wore a uniform. Not so today. At the moment the troops are doing the heavy lifting while in the office I’m working in the conversation on current events was centered around Brittney Spears acting like a dopey broad. It is easy to see why also. After all 43 told the nation to go shopping after 9/11 he didn’t ask congress to double or triple the size of the military that’s for sure. Because the nation would’ve rallied around him at that time. The war in Iraq ended that sense of patriotism in many Americans IMHO.
I sometimes am bound to wonder if folks who don’t understand what the definition of winning is w/o being told, have ever won anything.
Providing details about future plans for Iraq to people who are not involved in it’s strategy is reckless and stupid. That is precisely what our enemies want to know. We used to call that kind of info intel. Know that there is no ceiling and that this will carry on till you hear different is ALL that the uninvolved peeps need to know. ANY other strategy is simply temerarious and costs far more in lives, time and money.
That ceiling jpe is the problem.
It’s why Democrats should not be in charge of our national security – the basic lack of perspective.
Hampering our efforts with a ceiling via some legislatures/representatives is sure way to hamper a war effort. War run by committee.
It’s what I was trying to say with the wearing the shirt comments up above. What do you do – prosecute a soldier for not getting the right guy? How do you tell who is the right guy? They AREN’T wearing shirts that tell them apart.
Operationally, it has to be the DUMBEST war plan I’ve seen yet from the Democrats. For as much disunity and criticism I’ve heard from the Dem’s it’s about time they hear how awful their plan is for a change. WHY? Because they offered one finally other than “re-deployement”.
Wait a minute – we should pass a law that all rapists must wear a shirt identifying themselves. Same as murderers. Same as Democrats and Republicans. We sure would know how to interact with each other better then wouldn’t we????
I sometimes am bound to wonder if folks who don’t understand what the definition of winning is w/o being told, have ever won anything.
Good point. I think they are probably the result of the modern liberal educational system where no one ever “loses” and everyone gets a prize. They haven’t learned that there is a difference between loosing and winning, it’s all “everybody gets a cupcake!” regardless of their performance. So to them there is never a downside to losing, and they also have never learned that anything worth doing is usually difficult and hard, the modern liberal ideology is that everything should be handed to you by someone else, you shouldn’t have to work for it.
they also have never learned that anything worth doing is usually difficult and hard, the modern liberal ideology is that everything should be handed to you by someone else, you shouldn’t have to work for it.
It goes even deeper than that, Sev. They’ve also been spoon-fed the drivel that right and wrong are outmoded concepts, you shouldn’t make moral judgements, and human life really has little intrinsic value. Once you have that ingrained into your developing brain, it’s not hard to conclude that philosophies like communism weren’t evil or wrong – just different. It isn’t wrong for nations like China to enforce a one-child-only policy through mandatory abortion – just different. And it’s not necessarily evil to have concepts like honor killings – just different.
Eventually, you reach the point where they see no point in defending so-called values like freedom, because who are we to say our way is better? And a society that sees nothing in itself worth preserving is a society that will never exert the effort to defend itself. That’s pretty much where your average liberal is today.
One of the things that constantly both amazes and disgusts me about the left is the constant whining and bleating about mistakes, not being ready, not enough armor to fight, yada yada yada. They take any problem or mistake or misjudgment and turn it into a rationalization that we shouldn’t have done anything unless it was “perfect.” Well, it ain’t a perfect world, and the perfect is the enemy of the good. Patton said that a good plan aggressively executed today beats a perfect plan tomorrow. I found this quote interesting:
A man would do nothing, if he waited until he could do it so well that no one at all would find fault with what he has done. — Cardinal Newman
I think this is the biggest part of this, the libs and Dems are using this all as an excuse because they want to do nothing about the real problems and issues facing this country. Far easier to bleat “that’s a flawed approach” than actually get off their butts and do something. It’s an excuse to not have to get involved, to let problems fester, rather than tackle the task with maturity and resolve.
Nothing ever is perfect, but you keep on trying, despite setbacks and failures, if you keep adapting and moving forward, and don’t just quit, you will eventually be able to turn a mountain into dust. Sitting around whining on your butt accomplishes nothing, which is apparently the goal all along, to kneecap the US’s ability to accomplish its goals and protect its interests.
As I witness the inanities oozing from the defeatocrats like a crushed sewage main, the unchecked version of what was once called a dictionary clutches the newest definition of a winning strategy. It appears to have been replaced with delusional conquests.
I’ve been on a bit of a vacation. Stopped in the Putnam Museum in Davenport, IA, where some Democrat broke in to the trunk of my car, but I digress.
At the Putnam I saw an interesting plaque on the wall about the 1864 election. The Democrat VP candidate promised the electorate that if they win, the Union Army will be withdrawn and the war ended immediately. I guess Democrats have the practice of Cutting and Running for over 100 years.