The "War on the War" > FreedomsWatch

Saturday, November 24, 2007

The "War on the War"
By Eric Livingston :: 9 Comments :: Email to a friend

In this week's Weekly Standard, Noemie Emery pens an article regarding the liberal efforts over the past year regarding Iraq. “...from attacking a plan that had not been effective to attacking one that hadn't been tried yet, to attacking one that exceeded all expectations, while in the process ignoring reality, slandering a commanding general, and denying American forces in battle due credit for what they had done.”

The article goes on to describe in more detail the left's "War on the War". From the get-go, it was determined that success was impossible, and any substantial gains were at once regarded as insignificant. General Patraeus was appointed to command the effort, and then was attacked for his efforts before being allowed due time to change the course of the war. Emery claims that currently Democrats are experiencing the same tone-deafness that haunted President Bush in 2006 and led to wide GOP losses - except they are doing it in reverse by refusing to acknowledge the incredible gains made in the situation on the ground.

To view the entire article, click here.

Comments

By bathroomboy @ Sunday, November 25, 2007 1:03 PM

“...from attacking a plan that had not been effective to attacking one that hadn't been tried yet, to attacking one that exceeded all expectations, while in the process ignoring reality, slandering a commanding general, and denying American forces in battle due credit for what they had done.”

What expectation have been exceeded? We have reduced the death rate to 2005 levels Whoopie!!!!
It is time for use to leave. The Iraqi people have their freedom and democracy. Saddam will never attack use with his WMDs again.

The American taxpayer wants a refund. Why don't all you war profiteers put your money together and fund this noble war privately.

By Demogorgon @ Thursday, November 29, 2007 1:04 PM

This Weekly Standard article by Noemie Emery does an excellent job of summing up the deceitful, hypocritical, and treacherous statements (and legislative actions) of the past 'year' by the current leaders of our Nation's Congress. The only thing I could possibly add to this story would be to remind everyone of all the deceit, hypocrisy, and treachery 'practiced' by 'these people' in previous years - when they 'served' in Congress only as the 'loyal' (actually disloyal) opposition.

However, I do contest just a few of the assertions made by the author of this article.

-- First, as to the author's opinion in this article:

"President Bush is still suffering from the aftereffects of the reality gap of 2006, when he insisted, in the face of mounds of contrary evidence, that things were improving in Iraq when it was clear they were not."

I think this pessimistic perception of last fall was far more a 'media creation' then any actual "quagmire" - deliberately contrived by the 'mainstream' media to affect the outcome of the 2006 mid-term elections. Numerous 'acts of mass murder' - i.e. terrorist bombings - do not a civil war make. Though the same-day/same-hour availability of video tape showing the aftermath of such heinous, violent acts of terrorism - all the wreckage, smoke, and blood - did make for 'effective' propaganda.

I'm sure the many decisions made by our previous Sec. of Defense, Donald H. Rumsfeld, will be debated (some day seriously) for many years to come. Who, among any of us now, has any idea of the global strategic considerations that must have been weighed when putting together the tactical plans for this 'lean but mean' military force initially committed to the invasion/occupation of Iraq?

I'm of the mind to think that Mr. Rumsfeld's original long-term ideas concerning the use of our military were seriously short-circuited as a result of the 9-11 attacks. And also ultimately as well by the reluctance of most of our first-world 'democratic' allies to seriously commit blood and treasure to this, ongoing, 'strategic' struggle against Islamic Fascism.

If Donald Rumsfeld's long-term ideas about the form/structure our military should take/has taken ultimately turn out to have been more 'folly' then 'foresight' - he certainly will not be the first Secretary of Defense to face the harsh judgments of history (i.e. Robert McNamara).

I think the, much publicized, growth of 'world' (actually Democrat) opposition to the 'battle for' Iraq; opposition which severely 'handicapped' our nation's ability to strike back at the countries supplying 'the insurgency' (and most of the insurgents) - Syria and Iran - had (and still has) a lot more to do with the eventual necessity of committing more forces... then any 'blunders' made by Secretary Rumsfeld.

In short, the "we support the troops but not the mission" mantra was the PRIMARY CAUSE of this prolonged 'insurgency' in Iraq - and the increased casualties our military (as well as the Iraqi people) have thus had to suffer.

-- Second, (but far more important though) this author's opinion from the last paragraph of this article:

"Seldom before" -- "have so many politicians fought so long and so hard to completely screw up a winning strategy" -- "Some cruelly define this as treacherous conduct, but this is imprecise and unkind."

I think all of the truly outrageous pronouncements made, both this year and in prior years, mostly by the 'leaders' of the Democrat Party (as well as their obstructionist actions concerning the funding of our troops in the field) DOES rise to the level of 'treachery' - and to the level of purposeful, willful acts of TREASON.

Numerous 'acts' of, near-criminal and criminal, insubordination have been perpetrated by countless (for the most part, faceless and nameless) career bureaucrats - in nearly all Departments and Agencies of our Federal Government (all of them, no doubt, 'politically active' Democrats). Most noteworthy of these 'willful acts of sedition' has been the 'leak' to the New York Times of the existence of the NSA Surveillance Program. Consistently misrepresented now by disloyal-Democrats (and their allies in the press) as the "warrantless wiretapping" program.

I'd like to point out (remind everyone) that 'ranking' Democrats, in the appropriate Congressional committees, were advised of (and briefed on) the existence and inner-workings of this "NSA Surveillance Program" - but didn't see a problem with it until it 'broke' as a news story.

Then there's the highly publicized 'insubordination' and subterfuge of the 'spy' who wasn't - Valerie (Plame) Wilson - and her equally deceitful (lying) husband Joe Wilson. Their diabolical plan to instigate an 'Aura of Scandal' - ultimately in concert with the truly treacherous 'Special Counsel' Patrick Fitzgerald - all for the purpose of disrupting the inner-circle of President Bush's Administration, was/is nothing less then an act of Treason.

I believe that soon after the 'invasion' of Iraq (if not before) high-ranking elected members of the Democrat Party, as well as their shadowy operatives in the DNC, conceived of a 'plan' to retake the Congress and the White House - achieving this 'goal' on a pile of BODY BAGS incurred in a LOST WAR. These 'people' have worked for 'years' now to bring about this 'vision' of catastrophic failure... actively working to embolden Islamic-Fascism, simultaneously working to cripple OUR war effort against it, and systematically demoralizing America's WILL to wage war. The intended consequences of their 'strategy' being... more American GIs killed.

Sure sounds like "treacherous" and treasonous "conduct" to me.

Keeping all this in mind:
I Accuse

- Senate Majority Leader: Harry Reid
- Speaker of the House: Nancy Pelosi
- Senators: Christopher Dodd, Richard Durbin, John Kerry, Carl Levin, James Webb, Ted Kennedy, Joseph Biden, Dianne Feinstein, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, Barbara Boxer, Russ Feingold, Pat Leahy, Chuck Hagel
- Representatives: John Murtha, Ed Markey, Rahm Emanuel, David Obey, Nancy Boyda
- As well as other, elected and/or appointed: Legislators, Federal Judges, and current/ex-employees of the Federal Government to be named later, after the completion of the appropriate investigation(s), but including: former Ambassador: Joe Wilson, former CIA employee: Valerie Plame, former Special Counsel: Patrick Fitzgerald

Of Sedition in a time of war, of being accomplices to premeditated First Degree Murder of active US Military personnel engaged in combat operations, and of HIGH TREASON against the United States of America.

Demogorgon

By bathroomboy @ Thursday, November 29, 2007 10:15 PM

"Then there's the highly publicized 'insubordination' and subterfuge of the 'spy' who wasn't - Valerie (Plame) Wilson - and her equally deceitful (lying) husband Joe Wilson. Their diabolical plan to instigate an 'Aura of Scandal' - ultimately in concert with the truly treacherous 'Special Counsel' Patrick Fitzgerald - all for the purpose of disrupting the inner-circle of President Bush's Administration, was/is nothing less then an act of Treason."

Yeah, Joe had it all wrong. We found tons of that Niger Yellow cake. We should hang anybody who disputed this wonderful war. It has all turned out so well for us. Gas prices are way down and the economy is just booming. The Dow is only 1,000 pts. lower than it was when C+ Augustus took over, and our currency is worth half as much. Arguing with that kind of success is a a capital offense.

I believe that soon after the 'invasion' of Iraq (if not before) high-ranking elected members of the Democrat Party, as well as their shadowy operatives in the DNC, conceived of a 'plan' to retake the Congress and the White House - achieving this 'goal' on a pile of BODY BAGS incurred in a LOST WAR. These 'people' have worked for 'years' now to bring about this 'vision' of catastrophic failure... actively working to embolden Islamic-Fascism, simultaneously working to cripple OUR war effort against it, and systematically demoralizing America's WILL to wage war. The intended consequences of their 'strategy' being... more American GIs killed.

Sure sounds like "treacherous" and treasonous "conduct" to me. "

Yes, shadowy DNC operatives armed the insurgents and got all our soldiers killed. Clearly, Dennis Kucinich is an al-qaeda operative. I think that he corrupted Nancy and Harry. If it hadn't been for them, Cindy Sheehan, Micheal Moore, and Code Pink none of our soldiers would have died.

I think freedomswatch.org should hire Demogorgon for their next set of TV commericals. He would tell Americans the truth, and show how brilliant and stable we war supporters are.

By Demogorgon @ Saturday, December 01, 2007 1:59 AM

For: bathroomboy

I could waste time refuting, with facts, your assertions... but life is all too short and you are obviously a lost cause. I'm sure you are quite the popular person amongst your circle of friends though, and that's probably the sole determining factor for nearly everything YOU believe.

I'm so sorry that the increase in the price of gasoline has caused you such discomfort. But then I doubt you'd think any differently even if gas only cost ten cents a gallon - and the streets in America were all paved in gold.

Intellectually speaking, it's 'easy' to oppose this, or any, war. Anyone can, without much thought, 'oppose' unpleasant things - like disease, famine, murder, rape, pedophilia, racism etc. - and 'feel' good about themselves. But 'feeling' morally superior to all those people who actually have to, somehow, deal with all the horrible realities of this world (as well as those of us who usually don't, but support those who do 'deal' with it) solves nothing.

Our current President (way back in 2001) promised nothing, in regards to this war, other then a long, hard fight - a 'war' that would probably outlast his tenure in office. The leaders of the 'other' Party, on the other hand, now endlessly promise pie-in-the-sky visions of Utopia and Peace. Promises they can't, and could never, possibly ever deliver on.

Here's a 'revelation' to consider (you can call it a prediction if you like) - a complete Democrat 'takeover' of our nation in January 2009 will NOT end this WAR. Those 'icons' of disingenuous radical hypocrisy - Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore, and I guess YOU as well - will ultimately, no matter what happens next fall, be very disappointed.

And yes, 'public' anti-war opposition - beamed around the world by the media - did (and does) contribute considerably to the deaths of American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Since the Internet is, technically speaking, a part of this 21st Century 'mass-media' too... there's now blood on your hands also.

By Demogorgon @ Wednesday, December 05, 2007 10:14 PM

bathroomboy - Tue., Dec. 04th: "I'm the most prolific poster on the blog. I look forward to somebody showing up one day with the brains to debate me on the content of my posts..."

Most sane, intelligent people are way two busy 'living' and working to waste their valuable time 'debating' an obvious 'political operative' like you. My only outward sign of stupidity is wasting my time acknowledging your existence.

However, irritating your sorry butt does amuse me to some degree.

The lack of 'debate' from anyone else speaks volumes to the relative 'value' of your arguments.

I've read all your comments - the contradictions are obvious to all.

Here's a fact for you to choke on - a quote from my comment at Freedomswatch.org's inaugural (first) blog post of Nov. 15th (you've been there - remember?)

"...if you can't muster the votes in Congress to 'de-authorize' a congressionally authorized WAR... all other attempts at ending such a war politically are Acts of sedition and collaboration - also known as: Treason."

Explain to me what in this 'opinion' of mine is, in fact, not true.

You have absolutely no sense of the deadly-serious nature of geo-political realities in this world. Like it or not, America inherited the responsibility of maintaining global stability and ensuring the security of the 'free' world after WWII. Like it or not, what happens in 'some parts' of the rest of this world does affect our Nation's future.

By jono @ Saturday, November 24, 2007 9:07 PM

Mark Sheilds has no liberal credential w the left. He is a corporate pansy that caves at the real issues. How can we win the war, no, how can we win teh occupation, the war has already been won when the Iraqi people and democratically elected Parliment wqant us to leave?

By Demogorgon @ Tuesday, December 04, 2007 3:13 AM

bathroomboy's last counter-comment - Sat., Dec. 01st: "To people like you facts are a waste of time."

At least I can tell the difference between facts and opinions. I guess people 'not like me' (that would be you) are the 'only' people on this earth who know anything, have all the 'real' facts, and possess enough intellect to express intelligent opinions - the hallmarks of 'Liberal' arrogance.

After a cursory view of all of the more recent blog posts here it is seems likely to me that you're a fake, a fraud, and a phony - probably a MoveOn[dot]Org hack. You seem to lack any real historical perspective when writing your comments here; and you have something snide to say on virtually everything (at every post) don't you.

If you actually were a 'conservative' - which I doubt seriously - you could only be one of those head-in-the-sand isolationist loons. Either way, I suppose Iraq (and Afghanistan too) is a lost cause to you because all those off-white Muslim people are just such ignorant savages... who need either a brutal, sadistic Dictator or a brutal oligarchy of bearded ninth-century Islamic (& sadistic) theologians to maintain some semblance of order.

We've lost a lot of 'exceptional' people fighting this, by historical standards, very 'humane' war - NO ONE in America is happy about this fact (except maybe Reid, Pelosi, Schumer, and the rest of their 'radical left' supporters). But the only other alternative, besides the responsibility-shirking one of doing next to nothing (i.e. BJ Clinton), is to engage in wholesale (mid-20th Century style) genocidal war.

Sure, let's just drop tons of high-explosive and incendiary bombs on every city, town, and village - indiscriminately maiming and killing tens-of-millions of civilians - until hostile Muslim governments sue for peace, are overthrown, or almost everyone is starving to death or dead. Oh I forgot - in your twisted little mind that is what we've been doing already.

It, sadly, may yet come to something approaching this. For the 'leaders' of today's Democrat Party would rather rule America in a world torn by war and chaos - then serve their country in this still 'containable' war against Islamic-Fascism.

This new 'progressive' Democrat party (of yours - I'm not fooled by you) actually admires the Chinese Communists. China 'uses' just enough 'capitalism' to pay for things... and yet still exists as a one-party Police State in complete control of everyone and everything (Hillary Clinton's 'vision' for America it would seem).

Twenty years from now, I will not have to apologize to anyone for my 'opinions' - or my facts. History will vindicate all who supported this nasty reality currently known as the "War on Terror." You, on the other hand, will have to disavow almost everything you've written here - for your embarrassment and humiliation (and collaboration with Evil-Islamic-psychopaths) will be irreversible and complete.

If you are so vehemently opposed to most, or all, of the goals and objectives of this website... why do you comment here?

There certainly are plenty of Anarchist and Socialist bloggers (at MySpace for instance) where you'd find many 'fellow travelers' to praise your profound 'intellect'.

Give me Money for nothing and my Healthcare for free - right?
Straw-Marxist!

By bathroomboy @ Saturday, December 01, 2007 10:01 PM

"I could waste time refuting, with facts, your assertions..."

To people like you facts are a waste of time.

"I'm sure you are quite the popular person amongst your circle of friends though, and that's probably the sole determining factor for nearly everything YOU believe."

Actually I have few friends. My beliefs don't come from other people. I study things from all sides and form and opinion. If facts prove my opinions wrong I change my opinions with glee. You don't know me. Don't invent a straw man and hang my name on it.

"Our current President (way back in 2001) promised nothing, in regards to this war, other then a long, hard fight - a 'war' that would probably outlast his tenure in office. The leaders of the 'other' Party, on the other hand, now endlessly promise pie-in-the-sky visions of Utopia and Peace. Promises they can't, and could never, possibly ever deliver on."

Bulls**t. The president's men/women promised many things, made many predictions and told many lies in order to sell this war to the American people.

"I''m so sorry that the increase in the price of gasoline has caused you such discomfort. But then I doubt you'd think any differently even if gas only cost ten cents a gallon - and the streets in America were all paved in gold."

No, you are absolutely wrong. If this war was doing snything for Americans I would have no problem supporting it. I supported Bush I's Gulf War. I thought it was very sensible. Bush I was surrounded by outstanding military minds, and he listened to them. He was a smart p-erson. Bush II is a retard surrounded by extremist lunatics.

"Here's a 'revelation' to consider (you can call it a prediction if you like) - a complete Democrat 'takeover' of our nation in January 2009 will NOT end this WAR. Those 'icons' of disingenuous radical hypocrisy - Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore, and I guess YOU as well - will ultimately, no matter what happens next fall, be very disappointed."

This is something we agree on. The war will not end.
too many people are lining their pockets with American tax money because of it. Democrats are as dirty as Republicans. I have no love for Moore or Sheehan.

"And yes, 'public' anti-war opposition - beamed around the world by the media - did (and does) contribute considerably to the deaths of American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. "

I get it. If we would all just think positive and put on happy face the people we invaded would love us and gladly accept our invasion and influence.

You should move to China. They run the kind of society you want to live in. What has happened to my beloved conservatives? They have all become government boot lickers. Shame on you.

By bathroomboy @ Tuesday, December 04, 2007 12:38 PM

"At least I can tell the difference between facts and opinions. I guess people 'not like me' (that would be you) are the 'only' people on this earth who know anything, have all the 'real' facts, and possess enough intellect to express intelligent opinions - the hallmarks of 'Liberal' arrogance."

You haven't posted a single fact. Everything you say is an opinion.

" Either way, I suppose Iraq (and Afghanistan too) is a lost cause to you because all those off-white Muslim people are just such ignorant savages... "

There you go again. Putting words in my mouth. I never said any of that. I am 100% behind the invasion of Afghanistan. Too bad we got distracted by nonsense and didn't finish the job properly.

"Sure, let's just drop tons of high-explosive and incendiary bombs on every city, town, and village - indiscriminately maiming and killing tens-of-millions of civilians - until hostile Muslim governments sue for peace, are overthrown, or almost everyone is starving to death or dead. Oh I forgot - in your twisted little mind that is what we've been doing already."

Putting Words in my mouth again. I never said thats what we are doing. What we are doing is wasting taxpayer money on a war in a country that had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE 9/11 ATTACKS, or any other attacks on the US of that matter.

"This new 'progressive' Democrat party (of yours - I'm not fooled by you) actually admires the Chinese Communists. China 'uses' just enough 'capitalism' to pay for things... and yet still exists as a one-party Police State in complete control of everyone and everything (Hillary Clinton's 'vision' for America it would seem)."

You advocate a one party police state yourself. Take a look at your posts on this thread. You think those who oppose the war in Iraq should be executed.

"Twenty years from now, I will not have to apologize to anyone for my 'opinions' - or my facts. History will vindicate all who supported this nasty reality currently known as the "War on Terror." "

Actually, the official name is now "the struggle against violent extremists" I don't oppose it. My problem is in the method, not the principle. I don't think it is an honest effort. I think it is designed to line the pockets of defense companies. If you actually read my posts you would see that. I don't worry about 20 years from now, I call'em as I sees'em TODAY. Twenty years from now perhaps Jimmy Carter will look like a good president. Who cares? In 1980 a thought he was an idiot. I didn't vote for him. It is very arrogant to pretend to know what people will think 20 years from now.

"If you are so vehemently opposed to most, or all, of the goals and objectives of this website... why do you comment here? "

To illustrate that this is not a grassroots effort as the creators of this site would have people believe. To illustrate that very few Americans actually support the actions in Iraq that have been done in their name.

I'm the most prolific poster on the blog. I look forward to somebody showing up one day with the brains to debate me on the content of my posts rather than equating me with the "true enemy": Democrats. You have nothing. You can only build straw men and attack them. It is very similar to what War Hero Bush did with Iraq.

Click Here to post a comment