The Dems Must Be Proud
Wow, look what the cowards have wrought. Over at LGF, they have videotape of an Egyptian physician, Ayman al-Zawahiri, mocking the Democrats' surrender bill:
Interviewer: The American Congress recently passed a bill which ties the funding of American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan to a timetable for the withdrawal of American forces from Iraq which ends next March. What is your comment on this resolution?
Zawahiri: This bill reflects American failure and frustration. However, this bill will deprive us of the opportunity to destroy the American forces which we have caught in a historic trap. We ask Allah that they only get out of it after losing two hundred to three hundred thousand killed, in order that we give the spillers of blood in Washington and Europe an unforgettable lesson which will motivate them to review their entire doctrinal and moral system which produced their historic criminal Crusader/Zionist entity.
Leaving aside the psychosis suffered by this man, does it not infuriate you that the Dems understand exactly what they're doing, and are doing it anyway?
JASmius adds: I don't know that Zawahiri's gobbledygook can be sufficiently aligned to be able to make a judgment on just exactly WHAT he was trying to say. He says the Donk surrender bill reflects "American failure," then claims he's got our forces in a "historic trap," yet implicitly laments that they haven't been able to kill "two or three hundred thousand" of our troops. At the current casualty rate that would take at least thirty more years, and I rather doubt that al Qaeda could hold out for that long. Indeed, their virtually definitional imperative is to exploit our inherent short attention span (reflected by last November's election and the resultant Dem surrender bill) and outlast us in the short term.
On the other hand, AQ is collaborating with Iran, and with the mullahgarchy on the fast track to nuclear weapons, inflicting actual mass casualties on the US-led Coalition in Iraq in a very short period of time will soon become a very real, and likely, possibility. I don't know that anything short of a nuclear attack of some sort would qualify as "unforgettable."
This, of course, argues for liberating Iran rather than retreating from Iraq. The former could yet still avert a nuclear exchange altogether. The latter, or maintaining the status quo, will leave the only question where the "Islamic bombs" will go off, and whose civilians they massacre by the hundreds of thousands.
THAT brings us back 'round to the Donk surrender bill itself. The thing is, I can't really gin up any (or much) fury over it. Last November's election, whether you believe it did or did not reflect a hard-left, and "anti-war," turn by the American people, cemented that opportunistic impression in the minds of the new majority, and they'll never be disabused of it. The next election will determine whether the voters actually voted for surrender last fall, but in the mean time the Dem attempts to force that result (under the guise of "ending the war" - if only it were that easy) were as inevitable as sunrises and BO.
Do the Democrats know, are they aware, of the disaster that would follow an unforced retreat from Iraq? Probably some of them are; the Daily Kos/Democratic Underground/fifth column types who are overt, hardcore traitors and really do want to see America destroyed if they can't dictatorily rule it. Outside the "fringe of the fringe," though, I couldn't say how many Dems have thought it through, but their actions, rhetoric, and votes indicate that regardless of that, they just genuinely do not care. The consequences of defeat simply do not register for them, because that's not their focus. For them, it's all about politics, and their belief that an all-out push to "end the war" will reap them an electoral bonanza in 2008 that will entrench them in power for generations to come.
And if the first order of business for the Rodham administration and its unanimous Democrat Congress is the dirty-nuking of Chicago or the sarin-gassing of Los Angeles or the release of some souped-up ebola plague in Houston, well, that's just "right-wing paranoia," and after it happens it'll be blamed on "George Bush's war."
In 2009 and beyond there will be plenty to get infuriated about. Right now, I'm just trying to pace myself.
Interviewer: The American Congress recently passed a bill which ties the funding of American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan to a timetable for the withdrawal of American forces from Iraq which ends next March. What is your comment on this resolution?
Zawahiri: This bill reflects American failure and frustration. However, this bill will deprive us of the opportunity to destroy the American forces which we have caught in a historic trap. We ask Allah that they only get out of it after losing two hundred to three hundred thousand killed, in order that we give the spillers of blood in Washington and Europe an unforgettable lesson which will motivate them to review their entire doctrinal and moral system which produced their historic criminal Crusader/Zionist entity.
Leaving aside the psychosis suffered by this man, does it not infuriate you that the Dems understand exactly what they're doing, and are doing it anyway?
JASmius adds: I don't know that Zawahiri's gobbledygook can be sufficiently aligned to be able to make a judgment on just exactly WHAT he was trying to say. He says the Donk surrender bill reflects "American failure," then claims he's got our forces in a "historic trap," yet implicitly laments that they haven't been able to kill "two or three hundred thousand" of our troops. At the current casualty rate that would take at least thirty more years, and I rather doubt that al Qaeda could hold out for that long. Indeed, their virtually definitional imperative is to exploit our inherent short attention span (reflected by last November's election and the resultant Dem surrender bill) and outlast us in the short term.
On the other hand, AQ is collaborating with Iran, and with the mullahgarchy on the fast track to nuclear weapons, inflicting actual mass casualties on the US-led Coalition in Iraq in a very short period of time will soon become a very real, and likely, possibility. I don't know that anything short of a nuclear attack of some sort would qualify as "unforgettable."
This, of course, argues for liberating Iran rather than retreating from Iraq. The former could yet still avert a nuclear exchange altogether. The latter, or maintaining the status quo, will leave the only question where the "Islamic bombs" will go off, and whose civilians they massacre by the hundreds of thousands.
THAT brings us back 'round to the Donk surrender bill itself. The thing is, I can't really gin up any (or much) fury over it. Last November's election, whether you believe it did or did not reflect a hard-left, and "anti-war," turn by the American people, cemented that opportunistic impression in the minds of the new majority, and they'll never be disabused of it. The next election will determine whether the voters actually voted for surrender last fall, but in the mean time the Dem attempts to force that result (under the guise of "ending the war" - if only it were that easy) were as inevitable as sunrises and BO.
Do the Democrats know, are they aware, of the disaster that would follow an unforced retreat from Iraq? Probably some of them are; the Daily Kos/Democratic Underground/fifth column types who are overt, hardcore traitors and really do want to see America destroyed if they can't dictatorily rule it. Outside the "fringe of the fringe," though, I couldn't say how many Dems have thought it through, but their actions, rhetoric, and votes indicate that regardless of that, they just genuinely do not care. The consequences of defeat simply do not register for them, because that's not their focus. For them, it's all about politics, and their belief that an all-out push to "end the war" will reap them an electoral bonanza in 2008 that will entrench them in power for generations to come.
And if the first order of business for the Rodham administration and its unanimous Democrat Congress is the dirty-nuking of Chicago or the sarin-gassing of Los Angeles or the release of some souped-up ebola plague in Houston, well, that's just "right-wing paranoia," and after it happens it'll be blamed on "George Bush's war."
In 2009 and beyond there will be plenty to get infuriated about. Right now, I'm just trying to pace myself.
posted by Jennifer at 3:20 PM
<<< Home