McCAIN CLAIMS VICTORY IN IRAQ-- Let the Gnashing of Teeth Begin
My, what a difference 2 years and a successful surge make in a political landscape.
Two years ago Republicans cringed when Iraq was discussed.
...Not any more.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Democrats could not surrender in time for defeat in Iraq.
It's about time that Republicans start to hammer the Defeat-ocrats for their dangerous plans for Iraq and the Middle East!
The Democrats would have left Iraq in ruins. And, not even the talk of genocide would change their minds.
Good for President Bush, Republicans and John McCain for implementing a plan for success.
And, good for John McCain for finally claiming Victory in Iraq:
Republicans ought to follow John McCain's lead on this.
It's time to hammer the party that would bring shame and defeat on this great nation.
As Peter Wehner said, "Obama, was not only wrong about the surge; he was spectacularly wrong.
The US has suffered fewer fatalities this month than any other month since the war began back in 2003.
Related... Leslie Carbone has more on Obama's flips and flops on Iraq.
posted by Gateway Pundit at 7/18/2008 05:04:00 PM
43 Comments:
Agreed.
Valerie
Guess Pelosi, Reid, Murtha and Obama better get together and brainstorm a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory before anyone finds out about this. On second thought, with the NY Times, CBS, CNN et al, on the case, it may be well into Obama's third term before anyone finds out about this.
You keep mixing up the surge and the actual war in Iraq.
If the war is "over" then we don't need to be there.
Bush is now hashing out a withdrawal timetable, uh, I mean "horizon" with Malaki.
Iraqis want us out.
McCain can't do it. He has already equated withdrawal with surrender. Just like you. You're stuck.
The only thing you can say now is that if Bush or McCain leaves Iraq, it's "victory" but if Obama leaves Iraq, it's "defeat". Or something like that.
You're contradicting yourself and you don't even seem to realize it. Hilarious.
Please continue to declare "victory" and constantly remind voters that there's really no reason for us to continue the occupation. Works for me.
You've convinced yourself that the surge worked. About half the population agrees with you, but it doesn't change the fact the war was a mistake and most Americans want us out because they hate the war. 15 of 18 benchmarks rated "satisfactory" a year late means the benchmarks still haven't been met. And you're tickled pink. I bet when you got your G.E.D. at summer school that was also defined as a "success". Who cares if it's incomplete and years overdue. Whatever. It sort of got part way finished. Good enough.
This has forced McCain to embrace Obama's Afghanistan policy and leaves him zero wiggle room when asked why our soldiers who have completed their mission in Iraq should not be sent to the real war on terror against Al Qaeda in the Afghan/Pakistan border region.
McCain has no answer. You have no answer.
The only real answer is to leave Iraq, and we will leave. Bush will declare victory and leave. You will pretend to be thrilled even though you would be mad as hell if Obama did the exact same thing.
Obama wanted us to leave when we were loosing...Bush wants us to leave AFTER thing have turned around! Of course anyone who is so heavily invested in defeat doesn't see this...how could they...they've already told us we've lost.
I hear Chicago needs a surge of troops. Perhaps Obama can help 'orgainize' it!
Pelosi looks like someone reduced the rate of growth for a superfluous program or something.
Hey, Nancy! You have now presided over the most hated Congress in US history and you failed at forcing a US defeat in Iraq. What are you going to do now!?
Good for McCain.
More Americans have died violently in the City of Philadelphia each month since 2003 than the monthly toll in all of Iraq.
When will Pelosi et al demand we withdraw from Philadelphia?
Hey 6:45.
Why cant you understand that a withdrawal when the job is done and stability achieved and a strong Iraqi government backed by a trained military that can stand on their own is worlds different than calling for a retreat during the height of hostilities?
The ability of leftists to delude themselves knows no bounds.
2nd anonymous (not 3rd)-
Actually, I think McCain has an opportunity to pound Obama (and not the way he normally likes) on Afghanistan. After all, who had the strategy to win in Iraq, and who had the strategy to lose? Being someone well above GED level, that shouldn't be so hard a question for you to answer, nor the answer's corollary difficult to infer. If Afghanistan is a problem, one candidate knows how to win, the other how to retreat. Who do you trust to handle the Taliban?
As for Iraq, of course we're going to leave. Both candidates are actually much closer to one another than either likes to admit, and what matters is the manner each wishes to leave. McCain wants to make sure the victory at hand is not lost. Obama could care less about victory because he is a totally unaccountable man, as Reverend Wright, his aides, and even his fricking grandmother, all of whom he's thrown under the bus for his own sake, can tell you. As for whether it was worthwhile, don't forget that human nature is fickle, and that everyone wants to be identified with the winning cause, and that the winning cause is much more often seen as worthwhile. I think what really agitates the left is the realization that the turnaboout in Iraq will cause Americans to see the war's supporters and its opponents (especially those whose opposition only began in earnest when a political advantage presented itself) much differently. We're all familiar witht eh concept of schadenfreude, and I think for the left, real Hope and Change means somehow snatching defeat before history judges them in the context of an American victory which they had sought to prevent in the name of expediency. What's more, the war in Iraq has accomplished many things, most important of which is the military and moral defeat of al Qaeda. Iraq had incredible symbolic value for them, and to not only be militarily defeated there, but rejected by their own support base, is utterly devastating to them. It's not something that could be acheived in Afghanistan alone, and now more than anyone, al Qaeda is desparate for Hope and Change.
Funny how their path keeps crossing yours.
...so does that mean that we won't be bringing the troops home from Iraq until it's more secure than Philadelphia?
The person posting as "Anonymous" posted at 6:45 7/18 would probably say that we lost WWII, since we still need to be in Germany and Japan. We must have lost the American Revolution, because we're still here, too.
I was addressing my comment to 6:45. I didn't realize there were so many anonymouses. Someone should copyright that name.
BTW, if you're not familiary with the term "pyrrhic victory", you soon will be. It's going to start bouncing around MSM programs like racquetballs on coke once the idea of winning in Iraq takes hold.
"Iraqis want us out."
When it is feasible in security terms.
A minor detail the poster, for some odd reason, neglected to mention.
"If the war is "over" then we don't need to be there."
as I understand history, germany was defeated in
May 1945-70k still there.
Korea in 53-30k stil there.
It is absolutely painful to pronounce it has come to an end, while soldiers are still being killed, but this 'war' is unlike any other.
The turnaround is absolutely amazing-
2 years ago we are on the brink of civil war, michael ware is airing video tape of soldiers being kill for his comrades-so many setbacks amplified by the media...
urban warfare on the grandest scale, in a foreign country, against an enemy who didn't even wear a uniform.
now it's won.
While GWI was a massive victory, escaping the psycholgical quicksand Vietnam, this was a demonstration of what we learned from Vietnam.
Perhaps the analysis should be left to sociologists, rather than military historians, but then it was the miltary itself who achieved so much, with so few troops.
congratulations.
We do not have troops in Germany and Korea.
We have troops in *West* Germany and *South* Korea. We broke those countries into pieces, then occupied the safe parts. (Yes, I know Germany reunited. We still don't have troops in the former East Germany, to my knowledge.)
If this is the model for success that you claim it is, why haven't we split Iraq up into the Shia and Sunni sections?
Anonymous said...
"Iraqis want us out.
McCain can't do it. He has already equated withdrawal with surrender. Just like you. You're stuck."
You’re completely delusional. If they don't need us and can get by without us. Then the war is over / we won and we can go. If we have friendly terms with the new government even without permanent bases, then we have still won part of the larger goal ('change' in the ME).
The fact that lefties are having complete rational / logic breakdowns also points to great progress. You’ll have to retreat to your own private Idaho to maintain ego stability. Priceless.
good point about the south korea and west germany...although it now is one germany.
This military achievment was done WITHOUT splitting the country.
Patton and McArthur are smiling in their graves.
an 'unmitigated' victory...
WWI-destabilzed europe for WWII.
WWII-allowed germany to be split.
Korea-draw.
Vietnam-last helicopter out...
I'm sure there is fair criticism, just make sure it exceeds the conditions under which we ended previous wars.
even GWI left Saddam in power.
It's so sad that a scumbag like Obama is a leading presidential candidate.
Obama is just such a morally repugnant human being.
Victory in Iraq will not help McCain in the fall. Elections are about two things: the mistakes made in the past, and the expected policy in the future.
Regardless of the outcome in Iraq, the American public generally views the war as a mistake: the cost of getting rid of a evil dictator who did not have WMD and installing a democratic government in its place is not seen as worth the cost. The public naturally prefers to leave Iraq as winners, rather than losers, but they would prefer that we had not entered Iraq in the first place. McCain won't win many points for being right on the surge. As far as the public is concerned, he was wrong on going to war in Iraq in the first place. Obama doesn't lose any points for being wrong on the surge, since the surge would not have been necessary if we had stayed out of Iraq.
As for expected policy in the future, Obama's policy is perceived as "no more Iraqs". The policy of dealing with our enemies through force or the threat of force has been completely discredited by the Bush Administration's mishandling of the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the lack of progress in containing North Korea's and Iran's nuclear programs. Talk, which is Obama's only policy, is now preferred by the public to war. McCain's more hawkish views will count against him.
Victory in Iraq, is very good news, but it won't help McCain become president.
"You keep mixing up the surge and the actual war in Iraq."
Wow. What an amazing piece of rationalization. Victory is defeat, day is night, right is wrong. The surge doesn't 'count' - his fingers were crossed.
"Victory in Iraq will not help McCain in the fall."
sure didn't help 41...
"...this was a demonstration of what we learned from Vietnam."
Excellent point.
Petraeus learned well as did his cohorts on war strategy. Also the Swift Boat Veterans, in fact, all Vietnam Veterans returned in 2004 with a Vengence against the leftwing radicals, John "Genghis Khan" Kerry, World Can't Wait Communist, slackers and degenerates of the 60s that spit upon them in the past.
These same veterans are key and mobilizing for McCain's victory in November. The left seems to think they do not matter and underestimates their power and will to be redeemed. The left treated our Veterans like scum. There will be payback this time around again.
dirc said... "Victory in Iraq will not help McCain in the fall."
We'll see, won't we?
dirc: "The policy of dealing with our enemies through force or the threat of force has been completely discredited by the Bush Administration's mishandling of the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the lack of progress in containing North Korea's and Iran's nuclear programs."
Nope. First, if we achieve victory in Iraq and Afghanistan, then use / threat of force won't have been discredited at all. Second, the Bush policy regarding NK and Iran has been to talk, which has utterly failed.
dirc: "Talk, which is Obama's only policy ..."
The majority of Americans supported, and last I heard still support, the war in Afghanistan. A good many, though maybe not a majority, still support the war in Iraq as well. What is more, lack of progress in Iran and NK is a failure of "talk" as a policy.
dirc said...
"Victory in Iraq will not help McCain in the fall. Elections are about two things: the mistakes made in the past, and the expected policy in the future."
More than two. It is also about the Character of the man seeking the highest office of the land during a time of War. Obama sought surrender in Iraq, has absolutely no executive experience and extremely bad judgement. His mistakes in the past will haunt him far worse. Like his Communist connections to terrorist William Ayers and Bernadine Dorhn.
"Regardless of the outcome in Iraq, the American public generally views the war as a mistake: the cost of getting rid of a evil dictator who did not have WMD and installing a democratic government in its place is not seen as worth the cost."
Not after 5 years of Media bias beatdown. WMD was not the only reason, it was one of more than 20. Strategically the move against Iraq needs to be explained better to the public.
"The public naturally prefers to leave Iraq as winners, rather than losers, but they would prefer that we had not entered Iraq in the first place. McCain won't win many points for being right on the surge."
That is your assertion. I think he'll win many points as we still have Iraq training, logististics, and forces to manage in Iraq, plus the ongoing battle in Afghanistan. Being correct about strategic military decisions during the heat of battle to actually Win the War, instead of clamouring for surrender and the abandonment of 25 million people will serve John McCain very well come November. It shows how callous Obama really is and irresponsible to leave Iraq to tyrants and terrorist. Today there is 2.5 million barrels of oil flowing under a legitimate elected government. Asserting that Saddam still being in place is frankly absurd for Obama to harp on. But for McCain an great ad maker.
"As far as the public is concerned, he was wrong on going to war in Iraq in the first place."
No, only a part of the public. And as our troops are seen as victorious in the eyes of the Public, it will gain much more support by the public for the smart decision by John McCain on the surge.
"Obama doesn't lose any points for being wrong on the surge, since the surge would not have been necessary if we had stayed out of Iraq."
He loses many points as is evidence by his slide in the polls by 15 points to McCain. The false messiah is being exposed for his lack of experience in DC and in war.
"As for expected policy in the future, Obama's policy is perceived as "no more Iraqs"."
No, that is your false assertion. What Obama's policy is truly perceived as is an act of cowardice during a time of war while our troops were fighting for victory. He would have surrended America for the first time ever in war. America has never lost a war. That is now part of Obama's legacy. A leader of surrender. Plus as I stated, Obama is cold hearted to the innocents of Iraq. He'd leave them for dead just like the Democrats did to the Vietamese. More than a million dead and blood on Democrat hands.
"The policy of dealing with our enemies through force or the threat of force has been completely discredited by the Bush Administration's mishandling of the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the lack of progress in containing North Korea's and Iran's nuclear programs."
More false assertions again. Wars are difficult, mistakes are made, corrrections are made and Wars are Won. Your team voted for defeat, surrender, retreat, run away, deny responsibility, leave Iraqis for dead mentality. This discredits the entire Democrat Congress and their false messiah Obama, except Joseph Lieberman of course.
"Talk, which is Obama's only policy, is now preferred by the public to war. McCain's more hawkish views will count against him."
That is another assertion, assumption and opinion spun as fact on your part. Your good at this propaganda for leftwingers. The public desired victory. They still desire victory in Afghanistan and against Al Qaeda. Obama has no experience to fight such a complex war around the world, let alone call one single meeting on Afghanistan as a Senator. He is an empty suit, a puppet with not plan except that given him by his puppet meisters.
"Victory in Iraq, is very good news, but it won't help McCain become president."
It most definitely will help him become President, as will all the returning Iraqi Vets and Veterans of all wars and our military. The Democrats made crucial mistakes this time around. They insulted almost daily sometimes our all volunteer force. They dared to spit on them verbally, comparing them to Nazis and the Gulags, Cold Blooded Killers. Oh yes, true Americans will see thru the lies of the left and the fawning Media herd scooping up Obama's mistakes and hiding all his gaffes. They'll come out in a real debate when he has no prepared speech.
But then, he's already surrendered in the Debates as well, elected to run away from 10 Townhall debates. Yet another flipflop on his part. I wonder what his puppet meisters plan now with his 15 point drop?
jesus just landed in Afghanistan...
"This has forced McCain to embrace Obama's Afghanistan policy and leaves him zero wiggle room when asked why our soldiers who have completed their mission in Iraq should not be sent to the real war on terror against Al Qaeda in the Afghan/Pakistan border region."
Wait, I thought they were over-extended, tired, overworked etc etc...
Or was that just another line of bullshit spouted by lefties to help lose the war and fuck over the troops, just like the left was able to do with Vietnam veterans.
You don't even have the balls to put even a fake name to your post...
"If the war is "over" then we don't need to be there."
We didn't even need to defend ourselves after 911 according to insane people like you.
Let me punch you in the face, let's see if you defend yourself before or after the punch.
When one's goal is always to "Bring the troops home now", or "Support the troops, End the war", or "We've won, let's leave", and its complment, "We're losing, we've lost, we must leave", the words preceding this conclusion are just an unimportant variable. See the "Since there is more ......,and Socrates is a man, therefore it must be global warming" example of this reasoning (sic). Beneath this "We must be going" chorus lies the presumption that the use of American power is always suspect and more always wrong. (Talk about your black and white worldview.) But regardless of prejudices and presumptions, the United States is the global power and we will have releationships with other countries. Rather than a short hospital visit, "The patient is well now, go home", I'd suggest our releationship with the Iraqi's could evolve to something like our releationship with Filipinos, or the Japanese. We're winning,and/or we, Iraq and US have won. It's time to bask in the glory, and smoke 'em if you got 'em.
As nuch as the surge has paid dividends, it has been in part assisted by war weariness and sheer disgust at the carnage among Shia and Sunni alike. For this we have al-Qaeda and its bloodthirsty jihadis to thank. Iraqis have a vested interest in not seeing their country destroyed. The problem will remain the insatiable appetite for destruction among the foreign invaders queueing up for martyrdom. If a firm hand could be used to quell Pakistani covert support for the Taliban and Syrian/Iranian backing for the forces of disruption in Iraq, the Middle East would be a much more stable region.
The continued good news from Iraq bodes ill for Obama. Its clear that shortly that more withdrawals will be announced for Iraq and troop levels will increase in Afghanistan. McCain will be able to say he supported a policy terribly unpopular but ultimately right. Obama must dodge and weave his public judgements on the failure of surge. In 2007 the winds were behind Obama but in 2008 it has become a progressively larger drag on him.
McCain claims "victory" in Iraq? Wow!. With that kind of idiotic logic, it's no wonder we're in the mess we're in. The goppers have turned Iraq into the worst catastrophe imaginable, yet we're supposed to see it as a huge victory. Stay off the Kentucky blue grass, will ya? It's not meant to be smoked.
Nothing like watching one old, out-of-touch-with-reality white guy declare victory so that a bunch of his lard-assed suburban white guy acolytes (i.e., the commenters and original poster) can join him in rejoicing.
When the only media you consume are Fox News, Glenn Beck, Michelle Malkin (what a "hottie"!) and Instapundit, it's not surprising that you come to the conclusion that McCain has it "right." Everything someone tells you that confirms what you already believe is "right", everything that disconfirms it is Biased Liberal Media Nonsense. And the sad thing is you don't even understand how your mind is filtering things to conform to your mental reality.
America's a wonderful place for the moronic, for even they have the freedom of speech, right
anon @ 6:45 PM?
matthew @ 8:37 PM?
anon @ 10:37 AM?
ed @ 10:38 AM?
Its good to see mental gimps from the shallow end of the gene pool take pride in their collective condition...
The entertainment value is just priceless...
juandos,
Your debating skills are beyond compare. Gene pool? Mental gimps? Pure genius! Only McSame could have come up with a more thought-provoking post. Please go on...
anon @ 10:37 AM
Joshua @12:18am,
Your very extensive reply to my post was interesting. I would like to respond to three points:
1. Assertions. Yes, every statement I made was an assertion, offered without proof. They are my opinions about the current state of the body politic. lumpenscholar@11:57pm said it best, "We'll see, won't we." I could very well be wrong. It is clear that you think I am. My central assertion is that the public believes the war was not worth the cost. I refer you to this poll for support of that assertion. 59% think we should have stayed out.
2. You blame the media for the public's perception. ("Not after 5 years of Media bias beatdown." in response to my assertion that the public generally views the war as a mistake.) You are implicitly accepting that the assertion is true. At this point, it does not matter why the public believes what they do. It just matters that it is so.
3. "Your team voted for defeat, surrender, retreat, run away, deny responsibility, leave Iraqis for dead mentality." You assume my team is the Democrats. You are wrong. I supported the decision to go to war in Iraq, and I still think it was the right decision. I voted for President Bush in 2000 and 2004. My complaint with the President is that he abandoned his own doctrine. He has let our enemies in Syria and Iran support the terrorists in Iraq without paying any price.
I want us (Americans) to win in Iraq and Afghanistan. I also want us (Republicans) to recognize that battlefield success does not automatically translate into electoral success. Anonymous@9:30pm pointed out that victory in Iraq did not help the first President Bush. There are other examples from history, most notably Winston Churchill's Conservatives losing the election in July 1945. (Lloyd George is the outstanding example of a leader re-elected after victory.)
Let's be realistic about how victory in Iraq will affect the election. My assertion is that it won't help McCain win in November. That means (to me) that Sen. McCain had better start coming up with better reasons for the public to vote for him. His support for the victorious strategy in an unpopular war just won't be enough.
lumpenscholar@11:57,
You are correct. Victory in Iraq and Afghanistan validates the use of force as a policy. I should have said, "...has been discredited in the public's eyes ".
I agree, talk has not produced results in North Korea and Iran. My reading of the public mood is that the failure is because the Administration is not competent at negotiation, not that talk is the wrong policy. They think that if the talkers were better at their jobs, better results would be achieved. I don't think that talk will work any better with an Obama or McCain administration doing the talking, but talk is the only policy we will get, because it is all the public will support.
You are right that the public still supports the war in Afghanistan. The same polling source reports a majority (51-45) supporting the war. My expectation is that support for that war will continue to decrease. Now that the media don't have failure in Iraq to cover, they will want to cover failure (real or invented) in Afghanistan.
As a wise man wrote, "We'll see, won't we".
We stayed in Germany and Korea because we had to defend them from the authoritarian communists. We are still in Germany after the defeat of communism in the cold war because it allows us to better fight islamists in Asia. We are still in Korea because the communists there are still a threat. We need to stay in Iraq and Afghanistan to protect them from the authoritarian islamists, or current greatest enemy.
This is pretty easy stuff to understand if you have an education or have read a number of real factual unbiased history books.
With everything else aside, the coalition and American soldiers deserve this victory in Iraq. They have fought long and hard in a cruel and unforgiving environment, losing their brothers and sisters along side of them. They should be allowed to see the war through to the end to give them the respect and closure they all deserve for a job and commitment well done. God Bless each and everyone of them.
Seriously, anyone who'd consider the Iraq adventure a success is in serious need of anti-psychotics . This goes for any metric by which the Repuglicans would like to measure it: political, tactical, economic and military. Saddam's regime was toppled within a few weeks (which wasn't exactly a big surprise) but, overall, it has been an unmitigated disaster. McSame seems to think that the whole of the war should be measured by the relative "success" of the "surge". It's like being proud of "improving" from an F to an F+ at the Naval Academy (something McSame should be very familiar with).
anon @ 10:38AM
***BREAKING NEWS***
John McCain Declares Victory in Vietnam and Canada.
Heh...
... and idiots like the Instapundit (TM) are stupid enough to buy it. G@d help us!
"An unmitigated disaster"? "F+"? Are you freaking serious? What would you call Vietnam then, where we lost over 13 times more men and where, thanks to cheese eating surrender monkeys like yourself, instead of a relatively stable democracy, we got a domino effect of countries falling to communist insurrections throughout southeast asia, plus three decades of leftists actually claiming vindication for opposing a war they caused us to lose?
Seriously, the only way you can consider this an "unmitigated disaster" is if you have absolutely -no- historical knowledge whatsoever. We've replaced a genocidal dictator sitting on what would now be billions of barrels of $120+ oil (and all the terrorism and weapons that could buy him) with a comparatively very friendly democracy right in what is probably the most tactically and strategically optimal real estate on the planet.
But go ahead and keep blasting your ridiculous wildly over-the-top hyperbole, it'll just help convince people not to listen to you the next time you inevitably do everything you possibly can to screw the US.
"Are you freaking serious?"
No, not really, an F+ on Iraq is way too generous. Five years of fighting, hundreds of thousands Iraqis killed, daily suicide bombings, millions of war refugees, 4,000+ American soldiers killed (and counting), 30,000+ wounded, no WMD, rampant corruption in the Iraqi government, political instability, no-bid contracts going to Cheney cronies, Abu Ghraib, military resources depleted and diverted from Afghanistan, Iran more powerful than ever and going nuclear, Muqtada Al Sadr, Syria thumbing its nose at the US, $140/barrel oil, $4 gas, largest US budget deficit EVER (not counting the war), projected $1.5 TRILLION spent on the war, ... need I go on? Yeah, I think that would qualify as an unmitigated disaster. It's almost impossible to see how it could have been worse. Are you really that ****ing stupid, or are you just trolling?
"We've replaced a genocidal dictator sitting on what would now be billions of barrels of $120+ oil (and all the terrorism and weapons that could buy him) with a comparatively very friendly democracy right in what is probably the most tactically and strategically optimal real estate on the planet."
Like I said, you must be retarded. Oil was $22/barrel in 2002 when Saddam was in charge, Saddam didn't have WMD and given up on the program and wasn't funding anti-US terrorism. On the other hand, Iran was and still is massively funding terrorism and IS blatantly developing nukes and long-range missiles... thanks, in part, to the fact that the US military has no reserves left to even threaten Iran.
Wow, WTF are you smoking??
"But go ahead and keep blasting your ridiculous wildly over-the-top hyperbole, it'll just help convince people not to listen to you the next time you inevitably do everything you possibly can to screw the US."
Typical Repuglican comment: playing the "anti-patriot" card. Everyone who disagrees with their ridiculous fantasy that the Iraq war was a good thing and that Dubya is God really just wants to "screw the US". Fortunately, nobody, other than other indoctrinated Repuglicans, buy into that propaganda. Get a life, loser.
"What would you call Vietnam then, where we lost over 13 times more men and where, thanks to cheese eating surrender monkeys like yourself, instead of a relatively stable democracy, we got a domino effect of countries falling to communist insurrections throughout southeast asia, ...
You speak the truthiness. Repeating the same nonsense over-and-over won't make it any more real. Vietnam was another unmitigated disaster that the Repuglican chimps were unable to learn from. Anyway, the Southeast Asia "domino effect" didn't cause the communist Armageddon you GOPs keep whining like b@tches about. But, your vaunted "success" in Iraq has definitely destabilized the region, empowered Iran and propped-up the Mullahs. Heckuva job, Bushie... four more years!
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home