insomnomaniac

Cup 'O Joe

If the words of Joe Lieberman today weren't enough to convince the Senate that voting for the Iraq Withdrawal Provision in Supplemental Appropriations Bill Declaration of Surrender was inadvisable at best, evidence of mental illness at worst (but more likely)...If his arguments weren't enough to WAKE THEIR ASSES UP, like a quadruple-shot Cafe Americano, then it's clear to me the Senate is occupied by (at least 51) corpses.

Because only the walking dead could be unmoved by points like this:

For most of the past four years, under Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, the United States did not try to establish basic security in Iraq. Rather than deploying enough troops necessary to protect the Iraqi people, the focus of our military has been on training and equipping Iraqi forces, protecting our own forces, and conducting targeted sweeps and raids--in other words, the very same missions proposed by the proponents of the legislation before us.

That strategy failed--and we know why it failed. It failed because we didn't have enough troops to ensure security, which in turn created an opening for Al Qaeda and its allies to exploit. They stepped into this security vacuum and, through horrific violence, created a climate of fear and insecurity in which political and economic progress became impossible.

For years, many members of Congress recognized this. We talked about this. We called for more troops, and a new strategy, and--for that matter--a new secretary of defense.

And yet, now, just as President Bush has come around—just as he has recognized the mistakes his administration has made, and the need to focus on basic security in Iraq, and to install a new secretary of defense and a new commander in Iraq--now his critics in Congress have changed their minds and decided that the old, failed strategy wasn't so bad after all.

What is going on here? What has changed so that the strategy that we criticized and rejected in 2006 suddenly makes sense in 2007?

Indeed. But as I've always said, irony is lost on liberals. It's like they are missing that part of their brains that allows humans to recognize it.

And yet the Senate heard Joe speak these words, and they voted 51-46 in favor of surrendering. But you know what they also ignored (or never considered)? They ignored the fact that when you "lose" a war, you "lose" TO someone. You don't go to war and "lose" to yourself. Have these Democrats drunk so much of the Kool Aid they've been pouring down our kids' throats for the past decade, the sticky goo that convinces them that competition is bad, that winners should feel guilty and losers should feel OK about themselves? I can't reconcile it any other way. Why isn't anyone else in the Senate asking Harry Reid the question: "TO WHOM have we lost this war?"

Dems talk around what it will mean to lose, usually concluding it will mean nothing more than our troops coming home, nothing less than a reason for celebration when we'll all fire up the bongs (as Alois would say), sing Kumbaya and party like it's 1979. And (they seem to be saying) if it doesn't go down that way, no harm done, it will just be one more thing to blame on George Bush! A "win-win" out of a "loss" I guess?

But they're not talking about who else will be celebrating (i.e. the WINNER of this war). And who might that be? Let's take a look at our options shall we:

1) Al Qaeda: Do the American people want to be told that in "losing" we have lost to Al Qaeda? Even with all the 9-11 "Truth" nuts trolling around, the vast majority of Americans would be likely to say "Say WHAT?" if Reid and Pelosi and the other Surrender Monkeys were to put it this way: "The war in Iraq cannot be won militarily AGAINST AL QAEDA. We have lost TO AL QAEDA"

Yeah, I'm guessing the American people wouldn't be too jazzed about our troops coming home sooner if it meant conceding defeat to that particular "winner."

2) Iran: The other power working so hard to foment civil war, the country most likely to seize power (and control over oil) in the region in the power vacuum left by our withdrawal...Are these guys the "winners" too? How would the American people feel about that? How would that sound? "The war in Iraq cannot be won militarily AGAINST IRAN, the same group of people who held our Embassy personnel for over a year have just defeated the best we have to offer. We got our hostages back, now they get a whole country. Even trade I guess..."

Yeah, I'm guessing the American people wouldn't be too pleased with that notion either!

I mean, no one seriously thinks we're fighting against the Iraqis do they? And even if they did, what would THAT say about our military prowess? A nation whose Dictator we unseated in a matter of days, whose military was physically decimated and dismantled by us in roughly the same amount of time, has "defeated" us? Huh? How does that work exactly?

How is it possible that Joe Lieberman is the only Senator--and a Democrat at that--who "gets" that when there's a loser, there's a WINNER? Or, if he's not the only one, what does that say about the "leadership" we have right now?

Next time you hear Harry Reid trying to invoke YOUR name to justify his "leadership" decisions, his defeatist rhetoric, remember what he's saying you want. Remember that--between the lines--he's saying that YOU, "the American people" WANT to lose to Al Qaeda, or Iran, or even the Iraqi's themselves. Then ask yourself, "Is he right?"

If he is, then Lord help us, we--no YOU, because that's not what I want--deserve every awful thing that happens to us as a result of this vote. If he's not, then why are you just sitting there reading this crap? DO SOMETHING! Write to your Senator, call him (or her), bang down the door and make sure they know that YOU are not a loser, especially not to the likes of those particular "winners!"

Drink YOUR cup 'o Joe and maybe there's hope for us all.

Posted by insomnomaniac at April 26, 2007 9:45 PM | TrackBack