Saturday, March 10, 2007
Iran talks, the Democrats listen
Is it merely coincidence that our adversary -- our enemy, actually -- is demanding the same thing as the domestic opposition?
These stories are both on the wires this evening.
Iran tells US to set timetable for Iraq exit
Iran's deputy foreign minister for legal and international affairs, Abbas Araghchi, used the occasion to accuse the international forces in Iraq of playing a double game.
"It will help resolve the problem of violence if they set a timetable for withdrawal of their troops from Iraq," he said.
When Iran's deputy foreign minister says that a timetable for the withdrawal of the United States would "help resolve the problem of violence" in Iraq, is he making a prediction or offering a quid pro quo?
Clinton to back Iraq deadline
A vote on the Democratic-sponsored Iraq resolution expected to hit the Senate floor next week will mark the first time Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) has embraced a legislative deadline for withdrawing from the war-torn nation, a step she has consistently resisted to this point.
The March 31, 2008, date in the text is described as a "goal," but Democratic leaders said the intent is clear: The war's combat phase should end by that date.
Hmmm. When have we heard this story before?
26 Comments:
By 
D.E. Cloutier, at
Sat Mar 10, 10:37:00 PM:
Perhaps it is time to take the game to a new level.
Bush could say, "You want the troops home? Fine, I will bring the troops home. As commander-in-chief I will bring the troops home from Iraq, from Europe, from Japan, from South Korea, from every country except Afghanistan. South Korea is certainly no more important than Iraq to us."
I would like to see the Europeans and the Democrats try to deal with that move.
By 
, at
Sat Mar 10, 11:22:00 PM:
The demacratic chicken/donkey is showing its yellow streak very plainly
By Pudentilla, at
Sun Mar 11, 12:15:00 AM:
Is it merely coincidence that our adversary -- our enemy, actually -- is demanding the same thing as the domestic opposition?
Then we are to infer that your conservative philosophy draws less upon the tradition of Burke than that of such philosophical luminaries as Coulter and Malkin? In the absence of argument, I suppose, accusations of treason must suffice.
A minor factual quibble - your text suggests that only Iran and the "domestic opposition" support a timetable for troop withdrawal. No doubt you're aware that Six in 10 people said they want Congress to set a timetable to withdraw all U.S. troops by the end of 2008. Three-quarters said Congress should require that U.S. troops come home if Iraqi leaders don't keep pledges to reduce violence, and that U.S. troops have at least a year's stay in the USA between deployments to Iraq."
No doubt you didn't intend your readers to infer that support for a timetable was a marginal or fringe position, since the evidence suggests that opposition to withdrawal timetables is - to the contrary - increasingly a marginal position.
And no doubt someone will object to any reference to polls. Which leads to a question - if you're trying to persuade someone from a position held by a significant majority of the populace, are accusations of treason an indication of rhetorical sagacity or a rather jejune expression of the desperation appropriate to an exhilirating game of Risk, but rather unseemly when the stakes in the crisis at hand will be measured in the blood of other people's children?
By , at
Sun Mar 11, 03:36:00 AM:
Pud -- given that the Media has spent more time analyzing which American Idol contestant has been most naked in racy internet photos than Iraq, I take all polls with the same measure I do how people feel about Britney Spear's rehab stint.
That Dems are demanding the same thing that Iran is should be disquieting to them.
That to run away in Iraq won't mean that the Iranians and Al Qaeda won't follow us home is foolish fantasy worthy only of quavering cowards.
I have no doubt the public, which has not been prepared by either the President nor the leadership of the opposite party, expects war to last as long as a video game.
Suppose we run away and prove Khomeni, bin Laden (AP wished him happy birthday today), and Ahmadnutjob correct? That you kill enough Americans and they surrender? What then?
Do you think that turning over Iraq to Al Qaeda and the Iranians won't have serious (as in nuked LA/NYC/DC etc serious) consequences? You're dreaming.
Ask the American People:
Q. Do you believe we should surrender in Iraq, or do what we need to win?
Q. Do you support a "slow bleed" of the President's ability to pay and supply the troops in Iraq?
Q. Do you think that after leaving Iraq we can possibly hold Afghanistan?
Q. Do you think if the US left Iraq on a timetable Al Qaeda and Iran would control that country?
Q. Do you think if we left Iraq on a timetable America would be more or less secure?
I suspect the answers to these questions would not be to your liking.
By , at
Sun Mar 11, 08:45:00 AM:
Does anyone remember that last month al Qaeda's No. 2 in command, Ayman al Zawahiri, released a 40-minute audio tape criticizing Bush, and also condemning American Democrats "as one side of the same coin of tyranny, criminality and failure" for failing to challenge Bush policies as they said they would in the election.
Let's hope the Iranians can straighten this out.
By Purple Avenger, at
Sun Mar 11, 08:51:00 AM:
Only 37% agreed with "Denying the funding needed to send any additional U.S. troops to Iraq".
That tells me the American public would like to win if there's a chance to.
That seems NOT to be the position of the democrats.
By Habu, at
Sun Mar 11, 09:33:00 AM:
It is a well known maxim by historians that nations, particularly democracies dies from within, as opposed to being conquered by an outside force.
The Democratic Party, long infiltrated by socialists and communist (go ahead do your research,Venona Papers and the trove of documents uleashed during glasnost prove it) are nothing but a FIFTH COLUMN in this country who have been trying to finish the toal socialization that began with FDR.
The dots are not at all hard to connect. Here's just a small refresher on more recent Democratic and Communists walking hand in hand. This heavily documented article should remind a few of recent activity. Oh, and since it doesn't mention it let me remind the readers that Sandy Burger's biggest law client prior to becoming Bill Clinton's National Security was Communist China.
Dem-Coms
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Sun Mar 11, 10:26:00 AM:
The goal of your Muslim enemies is not to blow up your house. And your Muslim enemies have neither the skills nor the desire to rule your homeland. Your Muslim enemies want you to stop contaminating their culture and to stop supporting their domestic political opponents. In other words, your Muslim enemies want you out of the region.
When I was in uniform during the Vietnam War, I often heard this statement from American hawks: "We are fighting them in Vietnam now so we don't fight them in California later." Well, guess what. The Vietnamese, the Chinese, and the Russians never invaded California. Mexico took over California without firing a shot.
I can think of one benefit from an American withdrawal in the Middle East. The resulting bloodbath and related international problems will force embarrassed, disillusioned American left-wingers into political hiding. Democrats won't win a national election in the United States for at least 12 years. That will keep my U.S. taxes low.
By skipsailing, at
Sun Mar 11, 12:48:00 PM:
why is it that liberals insist that polling data is equal to leadership?
Pudentilla is a perfect example of the genre. Rather than make a princpled argument, we are treated to a poll. The responses to this foolishness have been spot on. Polling isn't leadership and it isn't democracy, but the liberals just don't seem to understand that.
oh well.
By Habu, at
Sun Mar 11, 01:16:00 PM:
DEC,
In view that they crushed the WTC,various embassies,nightclubs,747 blown out of the sky just to name a few of the Moslems dysfunctions your opening paragraph above is ludicrous.
In fact DEC your entire comment is just one huge piece of crap.
It should be noted however and you shouldn't recoil from the deep sciolism you display on Islam and thier desires and capabilities.
I would recommend you get out of the dense miasma and take a breath of reality.
By Habu, at
Sun Mar 11, 01:23:00 PM:
When I was in Vietnam,Laos , and Cambodia undercover with the CIA I use to hear that if we bugged out there would be millions killed in Cambodia and Lao and Vietnam....hey guess what ..ever heard of Pol Pot, the boat people, reeducation camps, all those lovely freedoms that were handed out after we bugged out.
I use to hear moaning from draftees about all kinds of shit.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Sun Mar 11, 01:39:00 PM:
I wasn't a draftee when I served in Vietnam during the war, Habu1. I volunteered. And my experience dealing with Muslim societies on a daily basis extends over a 30-year period.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Sun Mar 11, 02:03:00 PM:
P.S. As a veteran you should know better, Habu1. Remember the old saying: "You can attack a man's opinions, but not his service."
Veterans did attack Kerry's service. But that was a justifiable exception.
By Flanders Fields, at
Sun Mar 11, 05:07:00 PM:
The Islamic terrrorists and the Democrats are both anti-American. They are natural allies.
No matter how much the Democrats try to portray themselves as concerned liberals, liberalism doesn't try to defeat American forces. True liberals support America (especially in war time) and always have, even though they may disagree with the policies.
Die-hard leftists have taken over the Democratic Party, and our fight must be against them as much as it is against the terrorists. Free speech is allowable. Active anti-Americanism is not.
I was also a Marine in Viet Nam. I saw that even though we supposedly suffered defeat there, that that perception is due to the active leftist movements in the US, aided by an ineffective civilian control of the military. This resulted in the military being unable to accomplish or complete any assigned mission.
I saw that even though Viet Nam was not the most desireable locale to stop communist expansion in that part of the world, that it did stop. Thailand, the Phillipines, Singapore, Australia and Indonesia remained free of communism. It is not until Islamic terrorists created problems that those nations and other regions have again become endangered.
I wonder why that is? Could there actually be some relationship between Islamic terrorists and that "long dead" communism? Why don't we ask the Democrats and all the other leftists whose guiding goal is anti-Americanism.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Sun Mar 11, 05:39:00 PM:
Speaking of "bedfellows," Halliburton announced it is moving its headquarters from Texas to Dubai.
Obviously Halliburton is not too worried about the Global Jihadist Movement.
The BBC: "Halliburton plans move to Dubai"
More at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6440365.stm
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Sun Mar 11, 06:01:00 PM:
The Associated Press confirms the Halliburton story.
The AP via Washington Post:
"Oil services giant Halliburton Co. will soon shift its corporate headquarters from Houston to the Mideast financial powerhouse of Dubai, chief executive Dave Lesar announced Sunday."
The link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/11/AR2007031100643.html
By allen, at
Sun Mar 11, 06:38:00 PM:
For the considered and unflattering opinions of those whose lifetimes have been spent dealing with Muslim societies, see:
Secular Islam Summit
Secular Islam Summit
Secular Islam Summit
Secular Islam Summit
Secular Islam Summit
Secular Islam Summit
Secular Islam Summit
Secular Islam Summit
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Sun Mar 11, 06:44:00 PM:
Thanks for taking the time to post the links, Allen.
By allen, at
Sun Mar 11, 06:46:00 PM:
Talking of talking Iranians:
re: Brigadier General Ali Reza Asgari
“Asgari left Iran in February and once he was convinced that his family was safely out of Iran he flew from Damascus to Istanbul. He was under special protection and support at this time. He then left Istanbul through a NATO base to Germany. His footprint has been wiped out (he disapperaed without a trace).
Although the Iranian regime denies this, it is now confirmed that his two sons, a daughter and several grandchildren and his daughters-in-law are now out of Iran.”
Gateway Pundit
By allen, at
Sun Mar 11, 06:59:00 PM:
DEC,
re: thanks
The expenditure of time was insignificant (minuscule) compared to the exhaustive research done last evening on Lebanese lingerie. There really ought to be a profession dedicated to the study of lingerie.
By Habu, at
Sun Mar 11, 09:02:00 PM:
Thirty years daily experience with Muslims.
Then I would say you've lost your perpective on what the avowed aims of the Koran are as well as sharia.
This would seem a very odd circumstance since you claim thirty years of daily contact. You did not mention, how, in what capacity but your claims that they don't want to do the various things you outlined is contrrary to their history and certainly their history of the past thirty years.
They have attacked societies all over the world. If you're trying to sell the idea that Islam is a religion of peace well I'm afriad you have a very thin market in which to sell.
There are also the psychological inplications of thirty years of daily contact with any culture. Going "native" is a well recognized adaptation to that lenght of contact.
I suggest you step back and take a look at what you said. The statements are rather incredible in the face of reality.
"The goal of your Muslim enemies is not to blow up your house. And your Muslim enemies have neither the skills nor the desire to rule your homeland. Your Muslim enemies want you to stop contaminating their culture and to stop supporting their domestic political opponents. In other words, your Muslim enemies want you out of the region."
It is interesting that you framed your opening paragraph as "your Muslim enemies"
Now a quick review:
1. don't want to blow up my house..no the Qu'ran only orders them to subjugate all non believers or kill them
2."neither skills nor desire to rule your homeland"...once again not the message of Mohammad or the Quran..they want the entire enchalada.
3.stop contaminating their culture.
which culture is 7th century and which is fully engaged in modernity? Muslims still trade in slavery, subjugate women to chattel and physical abuse, clitorectomies to name but one.
The contaminants are coming from the sewer that is Islam
4.stop supporing their domestic opponents...ah when have the Muslims been as one and not killed each other. Seems to this day it is tribe against tribe.
DEC, you have "gone native" and are using the logic we heard from Baghdad Bob..You need a firmer grip on modernity than you're currently displaying.
NO sale on the Islam is a peaceful religion deal..not here. After 9-11 and all that preceeded and followed it, I'd just as soon kill'em all.
By , at
Sun Mar 11, 09:34:00 PM:
Actually, the goal of Muslims is to rule the entire world in one Caliphate. Osama wants a Sunni one ruled by himself, Ahmadnutjob a Shia one ruled by himself. But that's the only difference.
Under threat of murder, banks in the UK and Germany no longer give out piggy banks (Muslims will kill them otherwise). Same for pubs and beer halls, Muslims spit on sausages for sale and threaten butchers and beer vendors. Jews face hate crimes from Muslims in the US, UK, France, and the rest of Europe by Muslims. Women are raped by Muslims in Scandanavia as part of a deliberate campaign, and in Australia Muslims aim to impose Sharia by force of violence. Muslim cab drivers in Minneapolis refuse to pick up passengers with booze, guide dogs, gays, or Jews. Same in Europe too btw.
Muslims world-wide cannot co-exist with the modern world and the US. Either Islam dies or is radically transformed or the US is destroyed. The fight against Islam is not optional. Muslims won't stop attacking until America is destroyed or they are.
Aussie Imams call rape victims "Uncovered Meat" ... how can a fight with Muslims be avoided?
By Habu, at
Sun Mar 11, 10:06:00 PM:
SLAVERY IN ISLAM
Kinda hard to square it with a kinder, gentler peaceful religion like Islam.
Have a go at this.
Slavery in Islam
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Sun Mar 11, 10:46:00 PM:
This comment has been removed by the author.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Mon Mar 12, 01:24:00 AM:
Habu1: "...I'd just as soon kill'em all."
And I would prefer not kill a billion people.
We can leave it at that.
By Habu, at
Mon Mar 12, 08:32:00 AM:
I'd settle for a decimation of their numbers. An equitible reduction of my first proposal by 90%. I'd say that's darn magnanimous.
Also no slave ownership,no nukes, and women get equal rights. They must also renounce Mohammad as a fraud.
We can leave it at that.
