Democrat Hypocrisy on Iraq
Hattip: SGT Welsh
- Related Posts
- Hussein Slammed Imus Over Nappies! Hypocrisy Ensues…
- Video: The Purest Democrat Bullshit Of The Day
- 13 Things I Never Knowed I Learnt From Rev. Jeremiah Wright
- Behar’s Hypocrisy Outdone Only By Her Hatred For Conservative Men
- Re-Featured By Popular Demand: Daily Show Embarasses Code Pink vs USMC
-
-
blogroll
- A Soldier's Perspective
- Ace Of Spades
- American Soldier
- Ann Coulter
- Attack Machine
- Bill Ardolino
- Bill Roggio
- Black Five
- Blonde Sagacity
- Breitbart
- Chicagoray
- Confederate Yankee
- Day by Day Cartoon
- Euphoric Reality
- Flopping Aces
- Free Republic
- Frontier Web Design
- Hot Air
- Hugh Hewitt
- Ian Schwartz
- Instapundit
- Little Green Footballs
- Matt Sanchez
- Michael Fumento
- Michael Yon
- Michelle Malkin
- Military.com
- Missiles And Stilletos
- Move America Forward
- Mudville Gazette
- Pass The Ammo
- Protest Warrior
- Roger L. Simon
- Sportsman's Outfit
- Stop The ACLU
- TCOverride
- The Belmont Club
- The Big God Blog
- The Crimson Blog
- The Daily Gut
- The Drudge Report
- The PoliTicking Timebomb
- The Pundit Review
- Veteran's Affairs Documentary
-
59 Responses
Respond now.
Be respectful of others and their opinions. Inflammatory remarks and inane leftist drivel will be deleted. It ain’t about free speech, remember you’re in a private domain. My website, my prerogative.
If you can't handle using your real email address, don't bother posting a comment.
FANTASTIC!!! WHAT I’VE BEEN SAYING FOR YEARS NOW!!!!!! THANK YOU !!
March 7th, 2007 at 9:28 amWhen was this released? If it was part of some national campaign, I never saw it or heard of it. But then, I live in California, which the GOP just stupidly writes off.
Get your documentary out, Pat. The word needs to get to EVERYBODY, not just the “safe” constituencies.
March 7th, 2007 at 9:56 amWell, this is pretty much old news. Those that want to know what the positions were of our elected leaders leading up to the Iraq war already know.
March 7th, 2007 at 10:57 amI suppose it doesn;t hurt to pound them once again but, I’m not sure how much good it does anymore.
The American mind seems to have a very short attention span.
Re-Writing History: The Democratic Propaganda Machine…
Every time I hear the lefties either on television, radio, or on the web, talking about the failed intelligence that led up to the war I am reminded of what was said about Saddam Hussein in the months and even years before the the war. Democrat after D…
March 7th, 2007 at 6:20 pmOH! I love it.
Except they were misled :rollseyes:
March 7th, 2007 at 6:38 pmDemocrats…Hypocrisy…
The Hypocrat Party?
March 7th, 2007 at 8:01 pmi need to show this to my liberal, cunt govt. teacher. she spoon feeds her liberal anit-war ways to her students.
1 marines grunt
March 7th, 2007 at 8:51 pm2002-2006
Speaking of short-term memories…
About Putin - “His comments came less than two weeks after he made a full-frontal assault on US foreign policy in a speech in Munich, saying the United States had “overstepped its borders in all spheres.”’
Correct me if I am wrong, but didn’t Russia park a few nuclear warheads off the coast of Florida?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070305/pl_afp/russiausdefencenato_070305165629
March 7th, 2007 at 9:06 pmI whole-heartedly support every American solider and their families for performing heroically in spite of being dealt a bag of shit by the DoD.
But I wonder, what’s the objective and susbequent exit strategy for this American jihad? How many more brilliant Americans do we sacrifice; to secure what definition of victory?
March 7th, 2007 at 9:25 pmVery poignant. This message needs to get out…repeatedly.
GW
March 8th, 2007 at 6:43 amOO-RAH Nathan, et al.
I teach Political Science for bachelor’s students and I try not to give my pro-war opinion, though some of my arguments might lean that way.
I also keep my blog a secret from almost all of them (the sympathetic students do have access, but no favored treatment otherwise).
March 8th, 2007 at 11:13 amNorm,
Do you not pay attention to speeches by those you criticise? No wonder you are confused by your own question.
March 8th, 2007 at 11:17 amIf you don’t know the goal for this battle in the GWOT by now, I doubt anyone here can help you. You just don’t want to hear it.
Boring. Bashing the democrats again. When will people realize that the two party system sucks donkey dong and that the republicans are just as much to blame as the democrats. Democrats and Republicans both reactionaries to the others supposed values and stances, but in the end it’s the normal joe gets fucked over. They are all a bunch of boring cunts.
March 8th, 2007 at 12:24 pmMehdi - The democrats main battle cry is that bush lied, no wmd’s, etc. That is all you hear from them.
This is the video that tells them to shut the hell up. It’s not bashing when they eat their own words.
March 8th, 2007 at 12:41 pmWe do not have a two party system. We have lierally hundreds of political parties, with hundreds more splinter groups. The DNC and GOP are simply the biggest two pigs in the poitical pen.
Good video. Highly entertaining, but saddening because so many people have forgotten this.
March 8th, 2007 at 12:56 pm“starkc
We do not have a two party system. We have lierally hundreds of political parties, with hundreds more splinter groups. The DNC and GOP are simply the biggest two pigs in the poitical pen.
Good video. Highly entertaining, but saddening because so many people have forgotten this.
March 8th, 2007 at 12:56 pm ”
We have a two party system and our system is set up to create a 2 party system. In fact our system sets up potentially a 1 party system. This is because even if the population is only 51% party A and 49% party B, if the populations of both parties are evenly distributed throughout the nation 100% of elections will be won by party A. An interesting type of government is one where everyone votes and if one party gets 49% of votes they get 49% of the seats, if a small party gets 10% of the votes they get 10% of the seats. Now this allows for a multi party system. There are pros and cons to this. One con is that then the reps must be picked by someone and it is usually the party that picks, making party bosses too powerful (this is the current Iraq and old German system (see Wiemar Republic 1919-1933))
Our system however keeps power out of the hands of any party that is not close to 50% of the population.
March 8th, 2007 at 5:05 pmThe Republican and Democrat parties seem to have a virtual monopoly, true. But because the state doesn’t limit the number of political parties in the country to two, it is not a two party system.
March 8th, 2007 at 7:08 pmOh, Madeline Albright, the stooge who was working for the U.A.E. to help Dubai get control of all the ports in America…
She needs to take a fucking hike along with Jimmy Carter, James Baker, Harry Reed..
March 8th, 2007 at 9:52 pmI would be honest to God surprised if Saddam was NOT developing nukes and chemical weopons. That would just make sense. Just curious, but any thoughts as to why they have not found any of said weopons?
March 8th, 2007 at 11:06 pmWe have. Remember that big cache that was discovered about two or so weeks ago? We found sarin and other nerve agents packed into mortars and bombs. Also, he had a nuclear program, but the Israelis bombed it in the 90’s.
March 9th, 2007 at 5:55 amRoguewarrior100, I’m not confused at all….it’s a rhetorical question. I’d like to hear someone in this group enunciate what they think the objective is and how many Amercian lives are worth sacrificing to achieve the objective.
The GWOT, fought alone, is unwinnable.
March 9th, 2007 at 7:32 am“Democrat” is a noun. Therefore the noun “Hypocrisy” cannot be modified by the noun “Democrat”. The title of this page should be “Democratic Hypocrisy on Iraq”.
Please use English. Thank you.
Moderator: I would just like to congratulate you for performing your civil duty to the English language. Well done, sir. Well done.
March 9th, 2007 at 8:00 amMehdi - It is not the two-party system that is screwed up, it is humankind itself. Read some of the writings of the Founders. The system is set up so that it is pulled from both sides and we end up staying more or less in the middle. This forms a stable feedback system that has produced the most powerful nation the world has ever seen. It’s not a bug, it’s a feature.
Norm - what for? The arguments have all been made ad nauseum. Nobody here is under any illusion that any argument will satisfy you. You go your way and we’ll go ours, and the mean of all the forces of the left and the right will chart the proper course - see message to Mehdi above.
March 9th, 2007 at 8:02 amIt’s worth it so you can retain the right to say it isn’t
And we are not fighting alone. NATO, and all it’s members (meaning the greater part of Europe) the African Union, Egypt, Israel, Turkey, Armenia, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Maylaysia, The Phillipines, Japan, South Korea, Russia, are some of the Nations who support and are our allies in the WOT. Not all of them are our allies in Iraq, but they all support the WOT.
SO, you’re partially right. It would be virtually impossible to win it alone. Luckily, we aren’t fighting it alone; contrary to your inference.
March 9th, 2007 at 8:10 amFirst, I’m not one to look back, but if we must…
No one on either side of the Iraq issue thinks or ever thought Sadaam was a good guy, although there was disagreement with respect to how severe and imminent a threat he presented. The question was never WHETHER to deal with Sadaam, but HOW to deal with him.
Similarly, the question now is not one of victory or defeat, as our government would have us believe, but rather how to make the best out of an impossible situation. Victory, which I would define as a stability in the region with Iraq consisting on one or more, separate governments, is no longer in our hands. Thanks to the dimplomatic bungling of the Bush Administration, that determination belongs to Iran right now.
The sooner we can admit the truth to ourselves about the situation, the sooner we can move forward constructively, IMHO.
March 9th, 2007 at 8:26 amI doubt Norm is expressing an opinion, he sounds more like just another plant, or wormtongued shill to make ever-so-reasonable “suggestions”.
March 9th, 2007 at 8:39 amJust because the Democrats are spineless, opportunistic flip-floppers doesn’t mean it was a good idea to invade Iraq.
Nice try though.
March 9th, 2007 at 8:51 amThe fact that most Americans certianly seem to have a “short attention span” is EXACTLY why things like this need to be shown over and over even if it’s “old news”.
March 9th, 2007 at 8:57 amNorm,
Defeatism is not a trait we have ever adopted in this country. (well, except for Democrats…RUN AWAY RUN AWAY!!!)
March 9th, 2007 at 9:17 amAZNEW - and the consensus among both Democrats and Republicans was that he had to be removed. A Democrat president made it official US policy in 1998.
The Oil-for-Food sham and the deaths of innocent Iraqis from the sanctions, the latter of which incidentally was one of Al Qaeda’s stated primary justifications for proclaiming jihad against the US, made the invasion imperative. The ADHD liberals have convinced themselves that pre-invasion Iraq was a garden of roses where little children flew kites and sang campfire songs, and the sanctions were just Jim-Dandy and could have persisted indefinitely with no ill effects or blowback. The fact is the sanctions were fraying fast and the suffering they caused made them both strategically and morally untenable.
March 9th, 2007 at 9:28 amI didn’t make it to the end of the video but is this the one where they say we’ll be greeted as liberators and showered with candy?
March 9th, 2007 at 10:03 amOh I love history http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0wbpKCdkkQ
March 9th, 2007 at 10:20 amOutstanding. Someone needs to buy air time, it is different to see this then to read about it. The piece is so well done, I think it would be quite effective. We are at war, and we must keep the truth from being a casualty.
Trey
March 9th, 2007 at 10:20 amI first saw that video here, where they have a ton more quotes and info from these political opportunist losers:
http://freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html
These clowns haven’t learned that they can no longer get away with changing their positions, because the Internet will catch up with them.
March 9th, 2007 at 10:22 amInteresting. A video made by the GOP that starts with Democrats’ comments in 1998. Where are the comments of Republicans when Clinton bombed Iraq such as these (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/congresstional.react.02)? Hypocrisy is not owned by the Democratic party and since they assumed majority status in Congress, they have not given it up. Likewise, the GOP has just as much history with it as anyone. It was Dick Cheney, after all, who recommended that GHW Bush *not* proceed to Baghdad during Iraq One. Is was Rumsfeld who ignored General Shinseki’s advice that he would need 4x the number troops that he put in Iraq. If we had invaded and occupied, we’d be in much better shape but Bush and his crew thought we’d be greeted as liberators. When are we going to turn that corner that Cheney has been talking about so much? What is the point of calling some people hypocrites? How does that help unite the country and do anything good? If Bush were a real leader, he wouldn’t be encouraging us to stay scared but go shopping and he wouldn’t be such a divisive figure at home and abroad.
March 9th, 2007 at 10:43 amWho cares if the Dems changed their minds about supporting the war. Blah Blah Blah! There will always be the “blame game” in any situation where there is a mistake in a decision. This is human nature. What we have to recognize is that we have made a mistake and should focus on how to deal with the situation NOW and not what has happened in the past.
So again, let’s not quibble over who said what and concentrate on getting our military out. It’s evident that we are not going to win and we should get the hell out of dodge.
March 9th, 2007 at 11:00 amWho are you trying to kid? Every liberal I’ve talked to who has heard these kinds of statements immediately tell me that Saddam secretely got rid of everything the very minute Bush was inaugurated.
That way Clinton, et al, told the truth and it was only Bush who lied.
March 9th, 2007 at 11:09 amChad, what I’m saying that’s all they ever do to each other is bash one another. the fact that anything gets done ever is a miracle in itself.
March 9th, 2007 at 12:40 pmAny who can should get to the Vietnam Memorial on March 17th for the gathering of Eagles to shove Patriotism down the throats of the leftards calling themselves Democrats. Rolling Thunder and Move America Forward are bringing a whole lot of people and anyone who can should be present and accounted for.
March 9th, 2007 at 1:25 pmFishbrake wrote:
—-
“Democrat” is a noun. Therefore the noun “Hypocrisy” cannot be modified by the noun “Democrat”. The title of this page should be “Democratic Hypocrisy on Iraq”.
—–
Unfortunately, as an adjective, “Democratic” doesn’t describe the party adequately. Socialistic would be much a much more appropriate adjective.
But then, “Socialistic Hypocricy on Iraq” doesn’t really work, either. I say stick with Democrat and claim poetic license.
March 9th, 2007 at 1:36 pmReid - But why characterize it like that? I was opposed to the war from the get-go, not because I thought Iraq was some kind of paradise, and not because I didn’t there were WMD — I read the same newspapers as others — but because I thought at the time that the benefits of deposing Sadaam, as compared to a policy of containment, were far outweighed by the risks. It was perfectly rationale to believe everything the Administration was telling us about WMD (and I had no reason at the time to think they had it wrong) and still think war was the wrong course.
March 9th, 2007 at 1:53 pmMaybe they could show this as a trailer before Al’s video on Global Warming.
March 9th, 2007 at 2:11 pm[…] what the Democrats had to say about WMD. […]
March 9th, 2007 at 2:44 pmAbove, “norm” asks “why?” Why liberate, democratize, and pacify Iraq? It’s an essential component to avert a nuclear 9/11 and win the GWOT.
The so-called “neocon” strategy in fighting Islamist terrorism through the pacification of Iraq can be simply put: better to busy giddy Muslim minds with the pusuit of peaceful domestic democratic quarrels than let them stew in exporting terrorism. This is what democratic success in Iraq does for the Middle East and to secure our national security.
Islam’s central incompatibility with modernity and onrushing globalization is its doctrines of Jihad and Martyrdom. People hell-bent in killing themselves to kill others branded as either Infidels or un-Islamic cannot be ultimately stopped. Only Muslims themselves can transform the world’s most backward “Great Religion” and render it peaceful. We can’t. This existential helplessness means that diverting and pushing Muslim’s to grapple with modern institutional. After all, most Muslims actually want popular democratic rule, seeing it as one secret of our success.
Now, there’s no guarantee that the struggle to plant, promote, and divert Muslims with this novel option in the part of the planet dominated by theocracies, police-states, and failed states will blaze a path to peace any shorter than simply letting them fester in their own blood, failure, and resentment. Perhaps only decades and further centuries of failure cannot overcome. Why would that be?
Because to vote is to assert powers reserved to God – to Alla alone. Thus, to exercise the franchise is to heretically challenge God’s will. The most popular phrase in Arabic is Inshalla” – ie, “if God wills it.” Yet fidelity disguised as passivity goes to the heart of why Israel is powerful, wealthy, and successful – indeed the best place for Arabs to live – while Arab states are weak, poor, and miserable.
So, Iraq liberation empowers Arabs to debate their Islamic identity in ways necessary to make their religion compatible with modernity (as John Hopkins University professor Fouad Ajama says it is doing), defusing the terrorist and ongoing demographic time-bomb (doubling the young males). There is no alternative strategy, except passively waiting like a Muslim.
March 9th, 2007 at 3:01 pmFritz,
March 9th, 2007 at 3:17 pmIs the ad saying that the invasion was a good idea? No. It’s merely pointing out the opportunistic hypocrisy of Democratic leaders. That matters. Leaders should not be able to completely re-invent themselves simply because something they supported strongly turns out to have a potential political downside.
The other point the ad makes though, which you apparently missed, is that whether or not the invasion was a good idea (what exactly do yoou mean by that, anyway?) it appeared to be necessary at the time, based on what both Democrats and Republicans thought they knew. So imagine a scenario in which its 2007, Saddam is in power and he is threatening to use WMD unless…(fill in the blank). Or don’t take it that far - simply imagine a situation in which the uncertainty over his WMD capabilities and ties to terror groups are unclear. Now might you then be saying that perhaps the failure to invade was not a good idea?
Of course, that’s the type of thinking many people are incapable of doing.
Norm:
The exit strategy is threefold:
1. Kill Jihadis, from what ever country they may arrive.
2. Attract Jihadis from their countries to Iraq, so we can kill them with our matchless armed forces, rather than have them kill women, children, the sick, the old, and the cowardly in the US.
“Dad, I want to be a Jihadi, can I have 5,000 dollars to go to the US?”
” No, son, If you want to die for Allah, I will give you 50 dollars for busfare to Iraq. Allah will love you just as much, and your brothers and sisters can still eat.”
3. Train the Iraqi forces to the point where they can kill Jihadis after we leave.
4. Publicize the failure and immorality of the Jihadis, so that no honest man can chose them, no dishonest man would want to, and no one can possibly believe that Allah would use their methods.
March 9th, 2007 at 6:12 pm[…] Courtesy of Pat Dollard. […]
March 10th, 2007 at 3:59 am[…] someone finally put together a video showing the Democratic hypocrisy on Iraq.� I knew those quotes were out there.� Hat tip: I Can Plainly See Posted in Weekly […]
March 10th, 2007 at 6:24 am[…] “Sorry ’bout that.”)� That’s� why it’s so� edifying to review the video of just how hawkish Hillary Clinton, Madeleine Albright, John Edwards, and Harry Reid sounded before the war became unpopular.� Either they expected a cakewalk, they exercised poor judgment, […]
March 10th, 2007 at 9:15 am“I didn’t make it to the end of the video but is this the one where they say we’ll be greeted as liberators and showered with candy?”
Francis: You’re aware that many US troops WERE greeted as liberators and given food, flowers, and treats, right?
As for short attention spans, if folks cannot make it to the end of a little YouTube video I don’t know how we can hope anyone will have a clue about anything. Of course, a lot of people hope folks won’t have a clue.
March 10th, 2007 at 9:34 amMarc “the Traveling Troll” Respass,
It was actually Colin Powell that didn’t want to go to Baghdad during Gulf War I. He defended his position by saying “The UN resolution doesn’t allow it”. He is a better DumbasCrap than Repub, always seeking UN approval to wipe their collective behinds.
Shinseki was proved wrong when we defeated the Republican Guard in just a few weeks. The Battle for Iraq was won in a short time; what we see now is an insurgency.
If you understood guerrilla wars (which I do as a former Contingency War Planner for the US military), 400,000 troops would have only meant more US casualties. Bigger and more targets are what Al Qaeda and Baathists would have loved to have.
Light, lean, and lethal is the only way to overcome insurgents. Heavy and bloated is reserved for two massive armies facing each other on a defined battlefield.
The extraordinarily low number of casualties for a force that occupies a land mass the size of California speaks to the brilliance of our troops. If we had stayed in Vietnam this long we would have accumulated 67,000 dead (based on averages lost per month during that conflict).
March 10th, 2007 at 11:27 amI really enjoyed the video, and thanks to Pat Dollard for a wonderful job!
March 10th, 2007 at 10:54 pmI wonder if the papers that Sandy Berger stuffed in his pants and socks, are the ones that PROVED Saddam had WMD’s, and that Clinton may have been involved with Saddam,like Madelaine Not-so Bright was with the Dubai deal?
What ever happened to the WMD’s? I’m sure Saddam had plenty of time to get them out of the country while we were trying to get a U.N. Resolution! HELLO!
I also wonder what happened to all the U.S. Dollars that were found in Iraq?
The Democrats all seem to be alike…”any way the wind blows!”
Alx
Maybe they could show this as a trailer before Al’s video on Global Warming.
March 9th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
You sir (mamn), get high-five.
March 11th, 2007 at 9:16 amrogue warrior and Orson make excellent commentary regarding the muslim mindset towards democracy and american strategy.
As for iraqi’s greeting us as liberators many did when we first took baghdad, except for the bathists, and many still are by giving our troops information and inviting troops into their homes for tea etc(at great personal risk I might add).
Still we will never know iraqis opinions until the region is stabilized and the threat of death no longer looms over the heads of those who supported the liberation.
March 13th, 2007 at 9:34 pmTJ - “Still we will never know iraqis opinions until the region is stabilized and the threat of death no longer looms over the heads of those who supported the liberation.”
…and when the left thinks it’s good for them to report it, meaning, probably when a Democrat is back in the White House.
March 15th, 2007 at 8:31 amThis is absolutely correct. My Marine unit was activated from 2/02 (Op. Noble Eagle) and then transferred to Kuwait 2/03 for Operation Iraqi Freedom with the 2/23 (part of 1st RCT, 1 MEF) (2/03 - 7/03). I took pictures and tried to document that what we are doing over there is right. Its hard and there is a cost to it, but that doesn’t mean its wrong. I’ve tried to get my message out to an unwilling public. I think what your intent and message are outstanding and I hope that you can get this out into the mainstream. Good luck.
March 16th, 2007 at 8:08 amI’m always curious about Saudi Arabia as an ally in this GWOT. Their regime is as ruthless as that of Saddam, yet US relations with them are as healthy as relations were with Saddam in the 80s. A double standard, perhaps?
About these Democrats, it’s hardly new that politicians lie and double back on previous positions. Some of my favourite anti-Iraq war commentators are Republicans. Ron Paul is a good example.
One final point: The enemy in Iraq is not only Jihadis, these days. Shi’ite death squads within the Iraqi security forces, as well as Sunni militias, pose a larger threat to continued stability and any real form of democracy in the country.
I can sympathize (never empathize) with Marines who live through combat duties. I have respect for anyone who performs honourable military service. However, just because you have had one of your limbs blown off in a foreign occupation, does not mean that you have had the whole picture revealed to you.
March 19th, 2007 at 12:23 pmGreat video! The left’s biggest fear is that we will win in Iraq. I don’t no about y’all but my money has always been on America. People need to realize that the dem’s are weak on national securtiy (wanting to end the US Patriot Act, pullout of Iraq) You know that the Democratic Party shoould not be in the White House in 2008, when the terrorist want us to elect dem’s.
March 23rd, 2007 at 2:36 pmI heard about this website today 3/29/07 on the Rush Limbaugh radio program at noon. Reading these comments have been fun and enlightening or at least reinforcing of consistencies in our society. Coservatives will usually act, speak and think like conservatives and liberals will usually act, speak and think like socialists. Now that you know where I stand I’ve just lost a percentage of my audience. I really don’t care because I really like the montage at the start of this page.
March 29th, 2007 at 1:18 pmI hope someone can help me out here. In an attempt to enlighten a liberal or two I heard a quote attributed to Robert Kennedy regarding a solution to peace in the Middle East. Bomb it (’til nothing moves), pave it (Like a parking lot) and call it peace. I added the paranthetical remarks as points of clarification.
I feel that with the financial dealings that Saddam had with France and Germany that they or the Russians could easily have helped him remove WMD materials. All those parties probably thought the US would only succeed in re-inserting inspectors in Iraq and never attack the country. When Bush started talking regime change France and Germany abandoned us to try to protect their investments. No regard was given to the price in human lives that Saddam had amassed.
Bob Dole was on a talk show (Larry King I think) discussing WMD’s after the war was well underway. No WMD’s had been found. He made the comment that the amount of material that could kill a million people could be concealed in a container equal to the size of the coffee mug he was drinking from on the show. It would be pretty easy to smuggle a container like that out of the country with all the advance warning Saddam was given.