Iraq: Dems Want Phased Surrender

Ah, it appears that the Democrats have brought together focus groups, done some polling, run some slogans up the flag pole, stuck a finger in the wind, and have come up with their newest phrase for cutting and running in Iraq: phased redeployment

Democrats chose Joe Sestak, a former Navy vice admiral who is challenging Republican Rep. Curt Weldon in a competitive race outside Philadelphia, to deliver their party's response to the president. Sestak argued for "a new direction for America's security."

He said it is time for the U.S. mission in Iraq to end.

"We must begin a phased redeployment of our forces so that we are prepared to face the security challenges we have worldwide," he said.

Interestingly, CNN calls this "phased pullout." Either way, it can be boiled down to cutting and running, ie, surrender. Redeployment to Japan wasn't working for Murtha and the Surrender Monkeys, so they added phased. Snicker.

I really do not understand how Democrats can live with themselves. What they advocate, as stated, is retreat and surrender. Despite having voted for the war multiple times. That worked so well in Somalia that Bin Laden said in 1998

 … As I said, our boys were shocked by the low morale of the American soldier and they realized that the American soldier was just a paper tiger. He was unable to endure the strikes that were dealt to his army, so he fled, and America had to stop all its bragging and all that noise it was making in the press after the Gulf War in which it destroyed the infrastructure and the milk and dairy industry that was vital for the infants and the children and the civilians and blew up dams which were necessary for the crops people grew to feed their families. Proud of this destruction, America assumed the titles of world leader and master of the new world order. After a few blows, it forgot all about those titles and rushed out of Somalia in shame and disgrace, dragging the bodies of its soldiers. America stopped calling itself world leader and master of the new world order, and its politicians realized that those titles were too big for them and that they were unworthy of them. I was in Sudan when this happened. I was very happy to learn of that great defeat that America suffered, so was every Muslim. ..

The 9/11 Commission even mentioned this.

Our "security challenges worldwide" includes a fight against Islamofascists. If they are coming to us, and are fighting on the soil of our choice, what would the dems have us do? Besides, we cannot fight them if we redeploy to Japan. They aren't clear cutting the forests of South America. They are predominately in Asia. I guess the Defeatorcrats have forgotten that.

And, if America needs another direction from the current, which includes no attacks on our soil since 2001, being proactive, and fighting terrorists abroad, where does that leave us? What is the opposite of the current?

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

One Response to “Iraq: Dems Want Phased Surrender”

  1. Web Reconnaissance for 08/20/2006…

    A short look at what’s out there that might draw your attention….

Pirate's Cove