Dictatorats and terrorists aren't impressed by how well we lose, only by how much.
l'mericans aren't stupid either, to be sure
. Unconscionably misinformed by the Demoqrat
media whose repetitiously negative press given to anyone not within the
DSM's DWCM's preferred party this election
would understandably stupefy all but the most hardy, yes. But stupid? No.
As for blame, it's entirely pointless now. It doesn't matter anymore that we could've got — and were getting and getting and getting — a lot more accomplished for our country with Republicans in control of both houses of Congress than we could even dream in our most feverish states of ever getting with DeMe!Me!Me!Me!Me!ocrats in control of either. That's comparatively crisp, clean water under the comparatively sturdy, shining bridge. Neither does it help matters much to dwell on why anyone in his right mind could not see that the task of protecting our nation and families will be infinitely more difficult for all of us once the latter nightmare comes to pass. That two-year, toxic sludge will start oozing under an increasingly dilapidated bridge soon enough. How we and our nation cope with, even survive such is all that matters.
Demotricksterats, had they lost, would be moonbattily barking away about Diebold electronic voting machines being rigged, minority voters being intimidated or harassed, "social progress" being "set back (fill in any number of) years," something about the country being "fundamentally wrong," and, of course, the majority of her people being stupid, lazy, gullible, misled, scared, jingoistic, xenophobic, homophobic, insanely religious, warmongers, "dragged into a state of abject despotism," or mean. Given the way voters decided a number of referendum issues this election too (Tammy Bruce), they may still be saying much of that. The reasons people vote the way they do, however, changes with the wind — a wind that's kicked up more often by shifting circumstances beyond the control of even Karl Rove's secret bank of evil mind-control machines, than by candidates' speeches, campaign advertisements, blog posts, or media hit pieces. Although our democratic process is necessarily and properly a subjective one when it comes to each voter, how all of them voted — every decision they made as a whole — is the cold, hard, objective fact everyone must figure out how to live with if we're to win what's much more important to us here and now than any election: this war.
To paraphrase JoHa!noi al-Qerry, if anyone thinks a citizen would find reliable the more than weak, appeasing, traitorous "leaders" of the Demoqrats and not
|“And now is an opportunity to do generations a favor, by coming together and whipping terrorism; hunting it down, finding it and holding them accountable. The nation must understand, this is now the focus of my administration.”|
a president who's actually committed
to us totally winning World War IV, they're crazy. Better yet, to quote Ann Coulter
- The Democrats say we need a "new direction" in Iraq. Yeah, it's called "reverse." Democrats keep talking about a new military strategy in Iraq. How exactly is cut-and-run a new strategy? The French have been doing it for years.
Better than even that, to quote a former Democrat
quoting John F. Kennedy who
- summed up our national conscience best when he said:
- Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
- I believe it is our duty as a free people to make this our national motto. Kennedy does not suggest the path will be easy, but it is noble, just and right. I simply do not see this sentiment in today's Democrat Party. I wish I did.
Does wishy-washiness win wars? A wishy-washer never would've decided that our dropping two nuclear bombs on Japan is the only thing that can forever break its will to fight and totally win the Second World War. A wishy-washer never would've decided that our storming the heavily fortified beaches of northern France is the only thing that can permanently drive out the fascists occupying it and push them back all the way to their ultimate defeat.
Until we completely crush all the forces of malignant brutalism who attacked or would attack our and our allies' major cities, killing hundreds, even thousands of us at a time while wreaking on us far-reaching, even unprecedented destruction, there's no place for wishy-washiness in this World War either. President Bush has always understood this. The new Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum of the Senate and House never have (including when the former was wanting members of their party to wrap themselves in the flag at our military bases).
Can't we just get by with telling ourselves over and over "there is no war"? If not, would it really be so bad if we did lose it?
Don't ask the
news media anti-Bush propagandists. They feel there are, in the selfish interests of their "profession," far more juicier stories to boost their ratings and revenues awaiting them from our country's losses than ever from her victories. In just one of the latest examples: ABC, while crowing about a very flimsy bodies-per-day estimate, labels our Iraq policy "uncertain," then without any sense of irony "reports" that such uncertainty may help give al-Qaeda the civil war it desperately wants there:
After Democrats swept to majorities in both houses of the U.S. Congress and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld resigned, Iraqis appeared unsettled and seemed to sense the potential for an even bloodier conflict because future American policy is uncertain. As a result, positions hardened on both sides of the country's deepening sectarian divide.
Previous estimates of Iraq deaths held that 45,000-50,000 have been killed in the nearly 44-month-old conflict, according to partial figures from Iraqi institutions and media reports. No official count has ever been available.
Health Minister Ali al-Shemari gave his new estimate of 150,000 to reporters during a visit to Vienna, Austria. He later told The Associated Press that he based the figure on an estimate of 100 bodies per day brought to morgues and hospitals though such a calculation would come out closer to 130,000 in total.
You've never heard the same level of crowing from Anti-Bush Corp. after any of the numerous times
we captured or killed our enemy's secretaries of death and destruction or his nihilist suicide advisors:
- The CIA claims that 5,000 terrorists have been captured or killed since 9/11 — a nice, even, 1,000 per year, or roughly three per day. (If you're reading this at breakfast, chances are we'll have two more by dinner.)
And some of them are big, big fish: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Ramzi Binalshibh, Abu Zubaida, Hambali, Abu Faraj al-Libbi, Abd Rahim Nashiri, Zayn Abidin Muhammed Hussein, Yazid Sufaat, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali (KSM's nephew). And those are just the guys we've captured. The ones "not so lucky," to use Bush's preferred phrase, include Mohammed Atef, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Hamza Rabia, Abdulaziz al-Muqrin, Karim Mejjati, Abu Ali Harithi...
It's sad to say, but unless your name is bin Laden, Zawahiri, or Zarqawi, many folks assume you're a no big deal when it comes to al Qaeda. Catching Luay Saqa in Turkey last year was a big deal — he was al Qaeda's top man in the region, he was plotting to blow up Israeli cruise liners, and allegedly had facial surgery to disguise his appearance. Sad to say, almost nobody in America has any idea who this guy is, and the media paid no attention.
We never captured or killed Hitler during WWII, either, but still somehow managed to achieve the very real Victory in Europe
. We never captured or killed Emperor Hirohito before that war was over — we even intentionally left him on the throne as a figurehead following his surrender — but achieved Victory in Japan
Don't ask Democrappeaserats, either. With their ever litigious
mentality emotionality, Demolawyerats feel we can trial-court our enemy into defeat. They venture, after ignoring all evidence to the contrary, that the enemy either is civilized like us or can be civilized like us with enough correction, counseling, and therapy. If only we would sue the enemy or, if some more serious offense is involved, arrest and try him, he'll eventually come around to our way of "thinking" and want to behave and to treat us as nicely as we've treated him. Ahh. Of course, we've already seen how that process worked last time it was tried:
Attempting to apply any such legalistic considerations to wars where the final outcome must mean nothing short of the total destruction of one "party" before it can be said the other has truly prevailed, is an impossibility. Global wars affecting the survival of nations aren't a series of tit for tats, all in equal proportions, with each action working to restore some just balance. There must be a TIT! for tat before any can really end in victory. No settlement besides one side or the other's unconditional surrender will finally close that case. In the alternative, motions that the plaintiff or defendant be summarily put to death would never be entertained. Plus no side has standing for an appeal on the merits after it literally quits standing. In short, these applications of law are all outside its competence and recognition with respect to World War IV: Lex non cogit impossibilia.
Don't even ask any members of the Republican Party. They're all in class right now. Try January 3, 2009, when it may or may not be letting out.
The only one who can answer whether we can get by pretending there's no war or whether our losing it would be all that bad is our enemy — although it won't come in any words since he's not using any for it. He'll let us write that answer down in our history books the next time we give him any chance to utter it.
Are we going to give the enemy that kind of chance?
To be continued...
Comments (registered users)