Fear and hate.

They fear Bush so they hate Bush
They fear the message, so they hate the messenger
They fear the reality, so they hate the few choices in addressing it

Fear and hate…it’s what “liberal” means today where it once mean comfort, hope, respect, and even love for others. Today, the reason that those on the left choose to call themselves “progressive” is because the term “liberal” has taken on a bad connotation. It’s a bad word anymore. Why? Because liberal no longer means tolerance or embracing. It means fear of a vast right wing conspiracy of corporate warmongering cabal lead by Jews.

The propaganda (see also TNR Scott B story and more) has turned once tolerant and embracing liberals into progressives who hate Bush, fear the reality he presents by taking action when there are few other options, and when they can’t blame Bush (a rarity), they blame corporations and/or Jews. Gosh this pattern sounds historically familiar.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Scaulen,

Doubtful. The left has slavishly adhered to losing ideals and obvious acts of betrayal against the United States for decades. The fall of Communism did not make them switch sides; the failure of N. Korea and Cuba to feed their people or make them want to stay in their socialist “utopias” did not change their minds. The bloody result of leftists selling out the South Vietnamese does not cause them to lose sleep. The huge pile of evidence that Saddam violated pretty much every line of the 1991 Cease Fire and every UN mandate did not convince them. The mass graves we found, the rock solid proof of Iranian involvement in Iraq, the multiple ties between Saddam and terrorism, and the continued revelations from translated evidence in Iraq does not convince the left that they were lied to by their leaders.

The multiple Milblogs, true stories from soldiers supporting our efforts, positive stories the Iraq children are telling Democrat governors about life in Iraq, and the fact the Iraqis are actively fighting and killing terrorists does not convince the left. Even conclusive proof time and again that leftists in the media are lying through their teeth does not convince the leftist sheep.

We are talking about a group of people who hold signs saying “Bush is Hitler” right next to signs saying “Kill all the Jews” and “Death to Zionism” and every other National Socialist catch phrase while they march in support of terrorists who will gleefully kill the “progressives”. Logic and rational thought might be a stretch for the new leftist “base”.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Should be a huge surge of new Republicans after we win in Iraq. Nothing makes you change sides faster then when you find out you’ve been lied to all these years.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

I’m interested in seeing how the Dems respond to the report on the Surge next month. Surely many of the Kossack lapdogs will declare defeat (they did months ago before the offensive even started), but by and large what will the party do? I mean, will their base actually hear the leaders they worked so hard to get into a position of power and responsibility, and then will the base sit back and be comforted/appeased by yet another non-binding act against the war? Surely there’s a breaking point where people say, “Hey, we donated to your campaign, we worked the phones, we ranted away online, we sent letters to the editor, we did all we could to get you (Dem leaders) elected to power in Congress, and we did it all in the hopes that you’d get the US out of Iraq….when does the Democratic Party base get SOMETHING for all their money and efforts? Even if the Democratic party leaders declare the Sept report as “proof” that the war in Iraq is a “lost cause,” and even if they vote to cut the funding, President Bush will just veto it again. The only way for Democratic Party leaders finally appease their base, those who send them money, work the phones, etc., will be to use earmarks to bribe enough Republicans to override a veto. That’s not likely-especially if the report next month indicates and highlights successes.

So, when does the Democratic Party’s base ask, “What’d we elect you guys for?” or “What do we get for electing you guys to power?”

I’d like to know when and where the Dem base’s breaking point is? Cindy Sheehan reached hers already. So too did most of Kucinich and others’ supporters.

Better yet, how can the Democratic Party base vote for Sen Clinton or Sen Obama when their positions on Iraq are the same as Republicans, and both Dem leaders have promised to keep 10′s of thousands of troops in Iraq (ie, continue the war)?

After next month’s DNC leader antics which are sure to come, where will the party base go? In 2008, all a Republican would need to do to run against a Democrat for Congress is to say, “Hey, we sent so-and-so to Capitol Hill with the expectation that they would end the war, and they didn’t do it. Send me, and I’ll at least try.” ‘Course, by then, if the surge is working, the war will be winding down anyway.

Dems are gonna have problems in 08, and the problems start in just a few weeks with the report on the surge. Like the article said, they’ve banked it all on Al Queda success over American success. For Democrats to win, America must lose. You’d think some people on the left might realize that, and rethink the issue.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Okay, I know this is a repost, but the quotes by the left are too precious not to see again. In tying with the Obama implosion thread, the left is fully invested in a humiliating US defeat that they are engineering with idiotic statements from leftist politicians, vast sums of money from leftists elites (Soros, Progressive’s CEO, etc), and the shrill insanity of the fringe which is the new “mainstream” Democrat base. Democrat politicians are now even walking out of briefings by multiple Generals who are giving the true picture of Iraq since is is 180 degrees different from the “defeat at any cost” left’s position. A two year old does this, not an elected official.

Do not forget that every prominent Democrat who now opposes everything we are doing and states “Bush Lied” all said the exact same things President Bush stated in justifications for Iraq. The fact they are changing their positions is only due to one reason: They are not in power. It is a pathetic excuse to sabotage your nations war efforts, but then, the House Majority Whip did not mean America, our allies, and our Soldiers when he said “us”.

http://www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html

Note the date on the very first quote (I forget when President Bush made a similar quote but I think Hillary beat him to it):

“Every nation has to either be with us, or against us. Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price.”

Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)
September 13, 2001
http://www.wavsource.com/news/20010911a.htm

“I come to this debate, Mr. Speaker, as one at the end of 10 years in office on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was one of my top priorities. I applaud the President on focusing on this issue and on taking the lead to disarm Saddam Hussein. … Others have talked about this threat that is posed by Saddam Hussein. Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, he is trying to get nuclear weapons.”

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
Addressing the US Senate
October 10, 2002
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/
cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=H7777&dbname=2002_record

*Note, Pelosi and every other leftist seems to forget that they had Presidential level access to all the same intelligence and evidence Presidents Clinton and Bush had. Speaking of President Clinton:

“In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now — a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.

If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program.”

President Clinton
Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff
February 17, 1998
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/

And:

“People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons.”

Former President Clinton
During an interview on CNN’s “Larry King Live”
July 22, 2003
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/23/clinton.iraq.sotu/

If the left would stop being “sheeple” for just a few minutes, they would see that calling President Bush a “liar and a criminal” means that their own idols and leaders in the socialist Democratic party are even more guilty as they perpetrated a “lie” through two administrations. The left has hampered themselves in future conflicts. Every reason they have for invading Iran (or Pakistan) is the same ones they attacked President Bush on.

So, if/when a leftist from this current crop gets elected, will they simply ignore attacks, if only responding with cruise missiles as they did in the 1990s? Can we afford another 4-8 years of cowering as terrorists continue to attack our People and our Allies?

Will we then end up fighting a VERY costly world war because we refused to win a regional war while the enemy was weaker (all due to petty politics)?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Excellent post Wordsmith and David!

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Sorry for the poor grammar again. Should read, “… when the governor ventured his opinion on Iraq …”

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Nicely said.

Also, you may be interested in what happened when a group of Iraqi teens visited Democratic Gov. Bill Ritter in Denver yesterday when the governor ventured his opinion on the Iraq (which happens to be a recitation of Democratic talking points).

You may read it here: http://www.gazette.com/articles/ritter_25555___article.html/students_troops.html.

Gov. Ritter was hoping this group of Iraqi teens would wholeheartedly agree with him.

(For the record, I did not leave any comment with this article.)

Like or Dislike: 0  0