Thursday, March 08, 2007
Outrageous Associated Press headline of the morning
Underneath the headline "House Democrats to unveil Iraq war plan" the first sentence reads "In a direct challenge to President Bush, House Democrats are advancing legislation requiring the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq by the fall of next year."
Er, that's not a war plan.
House Democrats are trying to convert retreat from Iraq into an act of character and resolve. At least one A.P. headline writer seems to want to help them.
Screencap, in case the A.P. tries to cover its tracks:
UPDATE (4:30 pm EST): The A.P. reads TigerHawk! Maybe. It has adjusted the headline in the write-though to read "Democrats want Iraq pullout by fall 2008," which is both illuminating and more precise.
15 Comments:
By 
Habu, at
Thu Mar 08, 09:34:00 AM:
By this time anybody over the age of fifty knows with absoulute certitude that the Democrats are the party of traitors to this country.
The Venona Papers released in 1995 confirmed FDR simple minded duplicity with Joseph Stalin. Harry Hopkins, FDR's right hand man was "agent 19". Elenor did her part.
Then the "Dear Commandante Letter" to Daniel Ortega sent by the Democrats to tell him how they would help him defeat Ronald Reagans foreign policies.
I hate to jump around but Yalta is worth noting.
The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and the shadow ships.
Now they are trying every thing in their power to derail any US chance at what slim success we might have in the ME.
Pelosi puts the Muslim Rep on the judiciary committee where he can adda few sharia phrases to our laws.
The Democrats might as well just declare themselves agents of foreign governments, because if they are anything the are the purveyors of Goebbels "Big Lie", Lenin's "useful idiots" and one huge fifth column inside this country.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Thu Mar 08, 10:03:00 AM:
Look at the salaries of most AP writers and copy editors. Stop badgering the "poor."
By skipsailing, at
Thu Mar 08, 11:04:00 AM:
I skimmed the AP article and while the headline spoke to the intent of the bill, the article spoke to the deep divisions within the Democrat party. A fractured Democrat party would be a good thing right now. While I believe that a system based on two principled yet opposing parties makes good sense, I just have to agree with Habu, right now the Democrats are simply not acting in the best interest of the country.
Were we to view the Iraqi war like a project such as building a new factory or installing a new computer system we'd see that there are three inter related factors: time, quality and money.
It is quite clear that the Anti Victory wing of the Democrat party is now focused on time as their battlefield.
they cannot sustain a vote against money or quality as recent events prove. For example, they could have voted against Dave Petraeus and did not. he's quality. They lack the nerve to openly move to cut off funding because by their calculations its a loser for them politically in the next election cycle.
so all that's left is time. And time is the key ingredient in beating an insurgency. It takes years to sell a competing vision of the future to people who are suffering as the Iraqis are now.
The goal for the Democrats, clearly, is to get us out of Iraq well before we actually prevail there. So they get two birds here with one stone. They can avoid the humiliation of having opposed an effort that is viewed as a success and they can appease their anti victory rabble.
Thus we will see time become the major talking point. We'll see demands for timetables, deadlines, and all manner of foolishness as the Democrats attempt to rescue themselves from the crack they've entered.
Sorry John, but Habu's onto something. The Democrats are quite clearly acting against the interest of America right now and repeating this message is mandatory. Think about that the next time you hear a cindy Sheehan chant.
Maccaca for the goose is maccaca for the gander.
By skipsailing, at
Thu Mar 08, 01:54:00 PM:
Contintuing to waste American blood and lives in a war that benefits not us, but Iran, is in the interests of America? I don't buy it. Notice, however, that I do not call you a traitor for holding differently than I do. That is because calling Americans with whom you disagree "traitors" is an abhorrent thing to do (as is calling them "faggots" for that matter).
You aren't asking a question john, you are stating your opinion-- once again. since your premise is quite clearly flawed your attendant conclusions are necessarily flawed.
Frankly I think that Ann Coulter demonstrated something very important and that is that the American left has a very thin skin. All this whining about a single word simply shows us how little grit you people actually have.
If the best weapon you've got is righteous indignation then you've achieved everything you're likely to at this point. Once again I am reminded of the Monty Python skit about the knights who say neet. Essentially the left in America is threating us with their approbation is people say things about them they don't like. Big Deal. you guys are always upset about something anyway so welcome to indignation fatigue.
It is Habu's opinion that those who demand defeat in Iraq are traitors. Deal with it. Show some stones. Doesn't being in a constant state of righteous indignation every get tiresome for you John?
By Habu, at
Thu Mar 08, 02:40:00 PM:
ShoJohn,
Absolutely I think that those who actively work for our defeat in any war,police action, etc. are traitors. It's the definition of a traitor.
Tell me, how do you defend the "Dear Commandante" letter as other than treasonist? Not just a policy difference but an overt offer to defeat the United States policy, is what it was.
Policy differences are one thing. Subverting the Presidents policies by offers to help the enemy is treason.
By skipsailing, at
Thu Mar 08, 02:48:00 PM:
Needless to say there is much here with which I disagree.
Contempt is merited in certain situations and your statement to the contrary is just a clever restating of the moral equivalence argument. Not all positions are valid. Not all positions are beneficial to the country.
And no John, I don't see that your position is morally neutral. Quite the contrary. yes, you have the right to review the situation as you understand it and reach whatever conclusion you chose. The simple fact is, you're wrong. Not only is your assessment of the situation is wrong but your support of those who are acting on this incorrect assessment is reprehensible.
The behavior of the anti victory minions in the country is reprehensible. To pretend that this flows from some morally neutral analysis of the facts on the ground is laughable.
Perhaps you feel compelled to express your opinion for the good of the country. so what? you're still wrong. You're timing is wrong and your conclusions are wrong.
And, sad to say john, it has boiled down to good VS evil. Life gets like that quite often. My assessment is that we face a growing evil in the world and that confronting that evil is a moral good. and therein lies the difference.
If the Democrats did indeed have an effective alternative plan for confronting this evil I would give it a good long look. But thus far they've offered nothing be a reheat of the failed Clinton policy and a heaping helping of Anti Bush rhetoric.
People will follow a leader with a vision and what the Democrats now face is the grim reality that they have no vision. All this flopping about is the result of their absolute refusal to take a position that isn't based on political expediency. And while they hold thier finger to the political wind, others are confronting the gathering evil.
No sale John. the veterans of Viet Nam are gathering in Washington to protect their sacred ground from the follies of the people you support. Those vets are concerned that your cohorts plan to desecrate hallowed ground. So yes, I hold those who agree with you in complete contempt.
By 
, at
Thu Mar 08, 02:57:00 PM:
Next time to put a chicken on the grill put a little donkey head on it to show your roasting the demacratic chicken donkey
By Habu, at
Thu Mar 08, 03:32:00 PM:
ShoJo,
I think you're just shanking the wasps nests to get a reaction. If you're serious well so be it, there is a divide in this country, always has been.
If you want to make a case for the Dear Commandante Letter I'd love to hear it.
One thing you should keep in mind. Many people on my side, who feel that there is good vs. evil and that good is getting pushed pretty hard will one day reach a point of action that your side is not prepared to handle. That too happens in life
By skipsailing, at
Thu Mar 08, 04:15:00 PM:
habu, how are things at the EB? I hadda take a break from it.
John, no thanks. I recall one argument wherein you assured me that you were simply laughing at me.
I'll pass this time. Seek you twisted amusement elsewhere.
enjoy yourself.
By skipsailing, at
Thu Mar 08, 04:34:00 PM:
Its not about thin skin john. Its about wasted time.
given the fact that my time on the mortal coil is finite, you've gotten all I care to give for now.
Ta ta
By Habu, at
Thu Mar 08, 04:59:00 PM:
Skipsailing,
I'm way way persona non grata there (EB) so I don't post there anymore. Do some at Maggies Farm with Buddy Larsen who also for whatever reason doesn't go near EB.
Hope all has been well with you and yours.
By Lanky_Bastard, at
Thu Mar 08, 07:02:00 PM:
If one of the previous 9 plans had worked, we wouldn't be hearing about a Democratic plan. We might not even be hearing about a Democratic congress.
By , at
Thu Mar 08, 09:34:00 PM:
An atom consists of electrons, protons, and neutrons.
The democratic controlled congress consists of octoroons, neoplasms and morons.
By Georg Felis, at
Fri Mar 09, 11:04:00 AM:
Actually right now you have a 3-way split in both major political parties: Anti-war, Pro-War, and Fencesitters. The Dems have a lot of Anti-War, a whole lot of Fencesitters, and a couple of Pro-War members. The Republicans have a lot of Pro-war, some Fencesitters, and a few Anti-War members.
Post-9/11, there was a vast majority of Pro, and very few Anti, but as time progressed and the conflict proved as long and hard as President Bush had projected (if you were listening), a number of the Pros have slowly “Grown” to new positions as Fencesitters or Antis, while some of the Pros have been unelected and replaced by Antis or Fencesitters. Some have Grown from moral reasons, because they have honestly changed their opinions. Some have Grown from cynical reasons, because they see more Votes over on the other side (guess what Senators and Presidential Candidates I’m thinking of) or did not really believe in the Pro side anyway and were just positioning themselves.
At this point, the only people who I consider to have the courage of their convictions are the ones with the same opinions as they had back in 2002. I’m a Pro who realizes this is going to be a long and difficult fight, and I will respect the Anti who opposes violence for any means, although I will fight to prevent that same Anti from taking our country down that self-destructive path (sorry Screwy, no Presidential nomination for you :)
By Dawnfire82, at
Wed Mar 14, 10:57:00 PM:
"If one of the previous 9 plans had worked, we wouldn't be hearing about a Democratic plan. We might not even be hearing about a Democratic congress."
It was my understanding that the Democratic battle-cry was that Bush and co. didn't HAVE a plan for post-war Iraq. Now I hear that there were 9 of them?
Do tell.
